TITLE 16.ECONOMIC REGULATION

Part 1. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS

Chapter 7. GAS UTILITIES DIVISION

Subchapter B. SUBSTANTIVE RULES

16 TAC §7.74

The Railroad Commission of Texas adopts amendments to §7.74, relating to School Piping Testing, without changes to the proposal published in the October 5, 2001, issue of the Texas Register (26 TexReg 7722). The purpose of the amendments is to implement the requirements of Senate Bill 310, 77th Legislature (2001) ("SB 310"), effective September 1, 2001, which amended Texas Utilities Code, Chapter 121, Subchapter J, Testing of Natural Gas Piping Systems in School District Facilities, §§121.501 - 121.507. The previously effective statutory and rule provisions required public school districts to perform biennial testing of the natural gas piping and to notify operators that supply natural gas to those districts of the results of the test; the natural gas suppliers are required to take action in certain instances, depending on the results of the test. SB 310 extends the mandate of biennial testing of natural gas piping to include private and charter schools, in addition to public schools.

In particular, the amendments in subsections (a) and (b)(1) update the citations to the Texas Utilities Code and the Acts that authorize the testing. In subsection (b), the Commission adopts several substantive amendments, including new definitions for "charter school," "private school," and "person responsible for a school facility." "Charter school" means an elementary or secondary school operated by an entity created pursuant to Texas Education Code, Chapter 12. "Private school" means an elementary or secondary school operated by an entity accredited by the Texas Private School Accreditation Commission. The term "private school" does not include a home school. The Commission has amended the definition of "person responsible for the school" to include both public schools, which have superintendents, as well as charter and private schools.

The Commission has amended the definition of "school district" to make it the definition of "public school"; to delete references to charter and private schools in the list of schools that are excluded from the current definition; and to include elementary or secondary schools that are accredited by the Texas Education Agency. The definition of "other inspection" has been deleted because it is unnecessary. The Commission has amended the definitions of "natural gas supplier" and "school district facility" by deleting the word "district" and adding references to public, charter, and private schools.

Throughout current §7.74, the Commission has changed references to "school districts" to "school facilities" because the word "district" is commonly understood to apply to public schools. By changing the term to "school facilities," the Commission intends to make clear that the rule applies not only to public school districts but to all school facilities covered by this rule. Home schools are excluded from the scope of the statute and the amended rule.

The adopted amendments to subsection (d) delete the reference to "other inspection" and specify that the test shall be a natural gas piping pressure test. The testing pressures and time periods have not been changed from the previous requirements, nor were the requirements for who may perform the test. In subsection (d)(4), the Commission added a reference to public school facilities to the existing testing deadline language and a new paragraph (5) to specify the testing deadlines for charter and private school facilities. For these types of schools, the rule specifies that the initial tests must be completed before the beginning of the 2003-2004 school year or by August 31, 2003, whichever is earlier, unless the school operates on a year-round calendar, in which case the test must be complete by July 1 of the year in which the test is performed. Subsection (d)(6), regarding reporting of a hazardous natural gas leak, contains new language specifying who shall receive notice of such a leak.

Last, new subsection (d)(7) adds a provision requiring school facilities to record the testing information the Commission's form, PS-86, and a reference to this form is added to subsection (e). Requiring the use of a standard form will allow the Commission and the natural gas suppliers to have comparable data for all school piping testing in the state, as well as providing an auditable record for the Commission during field evaluations to determine compliance with this rule.

The Commission received one comment on the proposed amendments from Southern Building Code Congress International Inc., Southwest Regional Office. The comment offered several revisions to the amendments as proposed. First, the comment suggested that §7.74(d)(1) be amended to specify a gas piping pressure test performed in accordance with the International Fuel Gas Code as published by the International Code Council, and that §7.74(d)(2)(A), (B), and (C) be deleted in their entirety, because no other testing specifications are necessary. The comment observed that the plumbing enforcement community in Texas predominantly uses the gas piping pressure testing provisions contained in the Standard Gas Code , shortly to be replaced by the International Fuel Gas Code throughout the state. This code prescribed uniform procedures to follow when inspecting, testing, and purging gas piping installations. In the interest of consistency, uniformity, and safety, the comment concludes, it is important for standard testing procedures to be followed regardless of location inside or outside a municipality.

The comment next suggests that §7.74(d)(4) be changed to §7.74(d)(2) and reworded to require that the testing be done only by a licensed plumber, and that in subsection (d)(3), subparagraphs (A) and (B) be deleted. The reason offered for this change is that licensed plumbers are best qualified to perform the required testing because they are trained to do this type of work and are more familiar with the proven testing procedures.

Finally, the comment recommends that §7.74(d)(4) be changed to §7.74(d)(3) and require that all testing must be inspected and confirmed by a licensed plumbing inspector, because proper inspection of gas piping testing helps confirm the gas system is safe.

The Commission disagrees with the comment's three recommendations, because the cost to schools could be prohibitive. Under the rule as proposed and adopted, schools will have the ability to choose the method of compliance that both meets the minimum safety standards and fits within the school's budget, that is, whether to use their own maintenance staff or employ a licensed plumber. Doubtless some schools will elect to use licensed plumbers to perform the required tests and to inspect the testing, but the Commission recognizes that there are others who can satisfactorily perform the tests to the mandated standard.

The Commission adopts the amendments under Texas Utilities Code, §§121.201 - 121.205, which authorize the Commission to adopt safety standards and practices applicable to the transportation of gas and to all gas pipeline facilities within Texas to the maximum degree permissible under, and to take any other requisite action in accordance with, 49 U.S.C. §60101, et seq . (West 1997), and under Texas Utilities Code, Chapter 121, Subchapter J, §§121.501 - 121.507, as amended by SB 310, which authorizes the Commission to adopt rules relating to pressure testing of school piping, and requires the Commission to enforce the provisions of the subchapter.

Texas Utilities Code, §§121.201 - 121.205, and Chapter 121, Subchapter J, §§121.501 - 121.507 are affected by the amendments.

Issued in Austin, Texas, on February 5, 2002.

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 February 5, 2002.

TRD-200200712

Mary Ross McDonald

Deputy General Counsel

Railroad Commission of Texas

Effective date: February 25, 2002

Proposal publication date: October 5, 2001

For further information, please call: (512) 475-1295


Part 2. PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS

Chapter 26. SUBSTANTIVE RULES APPLICABLE TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS

Subchapter F. REGULATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE

16 TAC §26.122

The Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission) adopts an amendment to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.122, relating to Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) with changes to the proposed text as published in the October 26, 2001 Texas Register (26 TexReg 8441). The function of this rule is to promote the commission's public policy goals regarding telecommunications privacy, which are intended to achieve a balance between the promotion of competition among telecommunications carriers and protecting a customer's right to retain control over their personal information. This amendment was adopted under Project Number 22490.

The commission initiated this rulemaking to ensure consistency of Texas CPNI rules with changes made by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 64, Subpart U, §§64.2001 - 64.2009, Customer Proprietary Network Information, and further refined by the FCC in the Clarification Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking , CC Docket Nos. 96-115 and 96-149 (released September 7, 2001) ( Clarification Order ). In the Clarification Order , the FCC is currently reviewing the most appropriate method by which carriers must secure their customers' consent to use the customer's CPNI. Therefore, the modifications made to this rule were constructed in such a way to allow flexibility once the FCC decides whether to adopt an "opt-in" or "opt-out" mechanism for consent to use a customer's CPNI. The commission is also conducting an investigation into the possible effects on competition of various "winback" and retention activities by incumbent local exchange companies (ILECs), under Project Number 24948.

The commission received comments on the proposed amendment from AT&T Communications of Texas, LP (AT&T), Office of the Attorney General of Texas (OAG), Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT), Central Telephone Company of Texas doing business as Sprint and United Telephone Company of Texas, Inc. doing business as Sprint (Sprint), Texas Statewide Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (TSTCI), Verizon Southwest and its affiliates - Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc. doing business as Verizon Long Distance, NYNEX Long Distance doing business as Verizon Enterprise Solutions, and Verizon Select Services, Inc. (Verizon), and WorldCom, Inc. (WorldCom). Reply comments were received from WorldCom and Verizon.

Preamble questions

In the proposed text as published in the October 26, 2001, Texas Register the commission sought comment on several items. The comments received on these questions are summarized below. Questions related to a specific subsection of this rule are included in the preamble discussion of that subsection.

Preamble Question (1): In its recently issued Clarification Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket Nos. 96-115 and 96-149 (released September 7, 2001), the FCC is currently considering whether an "opt-in" provision is permitted under the First Amendment in light of the 10th Circuit's decision in U.S. West, Inc. v. FCC , 182 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 1999). The proposed rule continues to apply an "opt-in" methodology in §26.122(d) in view of the FCC's pending proceeding. In the event that the FCC determines that an "opt-out" provision is necessary under the First Amendment, the commission invites comments regarding whether proposed §26.122(d) should include an "opt-out" provision. If so, should the commission open a new rulemaking to adopt this provision?

AT&T, SWBT, Verizon, and WorldCom generally argued that the 10th Circuit's decision in U.S. West v. FCC , 182 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 1999) cert denied , 120 S.Ct. 2215, 68 USLW 3566 (U.S. June 5, 2000) ( U.S. West ) vacated the FCC's "opt-in" requirement. AT&T, SWBT, Verizon, and WorldCom cited the Court's rationale for such a determination was that a mandatory "opt-in" approach is an unconstitutional infringement on the carriers' First Amendment rights.

AT&T further offered that for an "opt-in" rule to survive it must pass the constitutional test for commercial speech found in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n , 447 U.S. 557 (1980) ( Central Hudson ). Under the test in Central Hudson a government rule cannot restrict speech unless: (1) the government has a substantial interest in regulating speech, (2) regulation directly and materially advances that interest, and (3) the regulation is no more extensive than necessary to serve the interest. AT&T asserted that an "opt-in" mechanism cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny, nor does this approach materially advance the government's interest in either privacy or competition. Further, AT&T contended that an "opt-in" requirement does not materially advance the state interest in enhancing competition, and that such an approach makes it difficult for the carriers that possess CPNI to take advantage of the information.

SWBT maintained that the existing Texas rule does not require an "opt-in" approval for use of CPNI. Additionally, SWBT asserted that neither current FCC rules nor Texas law leave the commission the discretion to decide whether to permit an "opt-out" mechanism for obtaining customer approval. Furthermore, SWBT reasoned that the current commission rule is written flexibly and permits either "opt-in" or "opt-out" - provided that approval is obtained, and that nothing in the Texas rules specifically requires, permits, or prohibits the use of either an "opt-in" or "opt-out" approval/disapproval process.

AT&T contended that permitting telecommunications carriers to rely on "opt-out" approval would permit providers to better serve customers, and would make it easier for carriers to inform customers of the benefits of new products and services through improved knowledge obtained through CPNI. AT&T argued that customers who care about the number of people with access to their CPNI can protect themselves through any approval mechanism provided (1) adequate notice is given and (2) the means of withholding information are straightforward. If the approval mechanism is "opt-out," then a customer who is truly concerned about ensuring the confidentiality of his or her CPNI will simply "opt-out." AT&T further argued that for those customers who decline to "opt-out", there is no reason to believe that they place a high value on keeping their CPNI private, and thus no basis for concluding that an "opt-in" requirement materially favors any interest in protecting privacy. AT&T reasoned that the competitive marketplace forces deter carriers from using CPNI unreasonably.

Both Verizon and SWBT argued that the commission must change its rule to allow an "opt- out" procedure to obtain approval to use CPNI in order to be consistent with the FCC's current rules, the U.S. West decision, and Texas law, which requires the commission to adopt rules that are consistent with the FCC's rules on CPNI. SWBT and Verizon also claimed that the FCC's Clarification Order provide federal rules that permit "opt-out."

SWBT argued that the FCC views §222 of the Federal Telecommunications Act (FTA) of 1996 and the FCC's rules adopted under it as preemptive and applicable to both the interstate and intrastate jurisdictions relating to customer proprietary network information. SWBT, Verizon, and WorldCom argued that the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) §62.023 requires that commission rules be consistent with FCC rules, and suggested the commission adopt a rule that specifies that Texas telecommunications providers within the commission's jurisdiction be required to comply with all valid FCC rules pertaining to use or disclosure of, or access to, CPNI.

In the alternative, WorldCom suggested that the commission could delay revision of its CPNI rule until the FCC revises it CPNI rules in CC Docket Nos. 96-115 and 96-149. WorldCom reasoned that final rules should be available from the FCC within a matter of months, and the FCC has already directed telecommunications' carriers that they may use "opt-in" or "opt-out" consent before using CPNI while the rulemaking is pending. WorldCom believes, and Verizon supported in their reply comments, that the most effective CPNI rule for this commission could simply state that certificated telecommunications utilities (CTUs) may only use CPNI in a manner that comports with the rules, policies and orders of the FCC regarding telecommunications carriers use of CPNI. WorldCom averred that this allows the commission's CPNI regulations to be coextensive with the FCC's current and future regulations, and believes such a solution would eliminate the need for further deliberations and speculation by the commission and industry participants regarding FCC's actions.

TSTCI recommended that the commission use the revisions proposed by commission staff in the current proceeding, including a provision allowing the use of CPNI to "winback" customers, and initiate a new rulemaking on the "opt-out" approach when the FCC reaches a conclusion on that issue.

The OAG argued that there is no reason for the commission to proceed with an amendment providing an "opt-out" provision. The OAG reasoned that the commission has not been specifically pre-empted from maintaining its rule by the FCC, and the FCC is merely building a record to support its ultimate decision as mandated by the 10th Circuit's opinion, in which the court held that the record was insufficient. The OAG commented that should the FCC ultimately decide that an "opt-out" provision is mandated, the commission could initiate a new rulemaking at that time. In its reply comments, Verizon disagreed with the argument made by the OAG that the FCC has not preempted the Texas rule since the FCC has not made a "final" decision to modify its rules to allow an "opt-out" approach.

AT&T argued that the commission should open a new rulemaking in order to adopt the "opt- out" approach to use the CPNI. In its reply comments, Verizon disagreed with AT&T's proposal to begin a formal rulemaking to address CPNI rules, reiterating their position that the Texas rules require consistency with FCC rules. Further, Verizon suggested that when the FCC issues its final rules, the Texas rules could be amended.

The commission finds that the preemption argument, as primarily advanced in the comments of SWBT and Verizon, is without merit. As the FCC stated in the Order on Reconsideration and Petition for Forbearance , CC Docket Nos. 96-115 and 96-149, FCC 99-223 (released September 3, 1999) ( Reconsideration Order ), "we affirm our decision (in the CPNI Order) to exercise our preemption authority on a case-by-case basis." paragraph 112. In the Reconsideration Order , the FCC was asked to reconsider its conclusion on preemption in the CPNI Order based on comments filed by the commission which included a draft of an earlier version of Texas' proposed CPNI rules, which other commenters noted were in conflict with the CPNI Order. The FCC refused to do so, saying instead "any other party may request that we preempt the alleged conflicting rules. We will then consider the specific circumstances at that time." Reconsideration Order at paragraph 113.

As SWBT discussed in its comments, the commission's existing rule is written flexibly and permits either "opt-in" or "opt-out" - provided "approval" is obtained from the customer. Consequently, the amendments to §26.122(d) coupled with the approval requirements of subsection (e) retain this flexibility. As such, pending resolution of the matter at the FCC, carriers may adopt an "opt-in" or "opt-out" mechanism. Section 26.122(f) also requires that regardless of what approval mechanism a carrier chooses to offer, prior notification must be provided to the customer of the customer's right to restrict use of, disclosure of, and access to that customer's CPNI. Specifically, §26.122(f)(3) requires staff review of the notification prior to distribution to the public. Additionally, §26.122(g) provides safeguards that ensure certain measures are taken prior to a carrier's use of CPNI.

Furthermore, the commission agrees with the comments made by SWBT, Verizon, and WorldCom that both state and federal law require consistency with FCC rules, and therefore, finds that it does not need to wait until the FCC issues final rules to adopt amendments to 26.122. Accordingly, the commission disagrees with AT&T's arguments that the commission should open a new rulemaking to adopt an "opt-out" approach for the use of CPNI.

Preamble Question (2): Is a carrier required to obtain prior customer approval in order to use CPNI to "winback" customers who have switched to another provider under the FCC's Order on Reconsideration and Petition for Forbearance in CC Docket Nos. 96-115 and 96-149 (released September 3, 1999)?

AT&T, OAG, SWBT, TSTCI, Verizon, and WorldCom generally argued that the FCC eliminated the prior prohibition of using CPNI in "winback" campaigns in its Reconsideration Order . However, AT&T, OAG, and WorldCom noted in their respective comments that the FCC does not permit the use of such CPNI to support retention of "soon-to-be former" customers where the carrier gained notice of a customer's imminent cancellation of service through the provision of carrier-to-carrier service. AT&T, OAG, and WorldCom generally argued that such activity is anti-competitive and prohibited under state and federal law, and therefore, this restriction on the improper use of "winback" information could be placed in any Texas rulemaking. WorldCom also requested clarification on what constitutes lawful "winback" and unlawful retention marketing efforts. WorldCom maintained that the commission should clarify that any marketing efforts that occur before the new carrier begins providing service and the old carrier receives a loss migration notice are presumed to be in violation of §222(b) of the FTA. WorldCom argued that it is likely that customer retention efforts made prior to a switch result from the improper use of carrier proprietary information, the confidentiality of which is protected by §222(b) of the FTA.

WorldCom asserted that the commission should establish a presumption that any marketing efforts are deemed unlawful if undertaken before the new carrier has actually begun to provide service. Without a rule to ensure the integrity of this requirement, WorldCom claimed that the ILEC will have a strong incentive to use its wholesale-based information to protect its retail business, knowing that the customers newly chosen carriers have no visibility into its retention efforts or the evidence of their illegality. WorldCom concluded that there should be a presumption that once a carrier has submitted a wholesale service order for a new customer, any retention activities with respect to that customer are prohibited until the service order has been provisioned, and the ILEC's retail arm has received a loss of migration notifying it of the customer's change. WorldCom also explained that an ILEC is not prohibited from initiating retention efforts through information gleaned from their retail operations, but if those efforts are directed at the customers who already have decided to switch carriers and for whom a wholesale service order has been submitted, the ILEC will have the burden of showing that its retail efforts did not arise from proprietary carrier information received in its wholesale capacity.

In its reply comments, Verizon disagreed with WorldCom's proposal that the commission should "establish a presumption that any marketing efforts are deemed unlawful if undertaken before the new carrier has actually begun service." Verizon argued that this presumption fails to recognize that a carrier may lawfully use CPNI before the customer changes providers. Verizon stated that the FCC addressed this point in its Reconsideration Order maintaining that §222(b) of the FTA is not violated if the carrier has independently learned from its retail operations that a customer is switching to another carrier. Verizon asserted, in this case, the carrier is free to use CPNI to persuade the customer to stay. Verizon further commented that it is likely that a customer will call the retail arm of his existing carrier to explain that he intends to switch carriers with the hope of obtaining a lower rate from his existing carrier.

In order for the commission's rules to conform with the FCC's rules, TSTCI, Verizon, and WorldCom recommended that the proposed language under §26.122(d)(1)(D) be removed. Further, TSTCI recommended inserting the commission staff's initial proposed language under §26.122(c). The commission staff's initial proposal language in the Draft Proposal for Publication read - "Winback. A certificated telecommunications utility may use CPNI to regain the business of customers who have switched to and are receiving service from another provider. The certificated telecommunications utility may only use the former customer's CPNI to engage in "winback" marketing campaigns to regain that customer's service within the same category of service from which the CPNI was obtained." Further, TSTCI suggested that the rule be revised at a later date in accordance with the commission's findings in Project Number 24948, Investigation of Winback and Retention Offers by Chapter 58 Electing Companies . TSTCI claimed that the commission would have to revise §26.122(d) if the FCC adopts an "opt-out" methodology as part of its CPNI rules.

The commission agrees with AT&T, SWBT, TSTCI, Verizon, and WorldCom that the FCC intended in its Reconsideration Order to allow carriers to "winback" their former customers. The commission also agrees with the concerns raised by AT&T, OAG, and WorldCom regarding "winback," and includes specific requirements the FCC stated in their Reconsideration Order . In particular, the FCC clearly made distinctions between "retention" versus "winback," by allowing the carrier to only use CPNI to attempt to regain the business of a customer who has switched to, and who is receiving service from another carrier. The commission includes these requirements in its revisions to §26.122(c)(3) in order to be consistent with the FCC's comments on this issue.

Specific comments to rule language

Section 26.122(c)(2) pertaining to customer premises equipment (CPE) and information services.

SWBT suggested that subsection (c)(2) include information on the "total service relationship" that the FCC discussed in its Reconsideration Order . Specifically, SWBT claims that adding the premises upon which the "total service relationship" exists will correct the current Texas rule's inconsistency with the FCC's rules. Those provisions that SWBT cited from the Reconsideration Order and suggested for inclusion are that (1) the relationship is defined by what the customers reasonably understand their telecommunications service to include; (2) the customer does not expect or desire their carrier to maintain internal divisions among the different components of their service, particularly where such CPNI use could improve the carrier's provision of the customer's existing service; and (3) the customers expect that CPNI generated from their entire service will be used by their carrier to market improved service within the parameters of the customer-carrier relationship.

The commission disagrees with SWBT's suggested changes to this subsection and finds that no inconsistency exists with FCC rules with respect to the proposed language under subsection (c)(2).

Section 26.122(c)(4) relating to customer's right to restrict CPNI.

Verizon argued that the customer's right to restrict CPNI, as proposed under subsection (c)(4) appears to allow customers the ability to prohibit the use of CPNI in instances where the use of CPNI is expressly permitted by the FTA ( e.g. , using CPNI to market "related" services). Verizon asserted that this paragraph is inconsistent with the FTA and should be deleted.

The commission has reviewed the discussion of this subsection in the previous preamble to this rule, and reaffirms its' position that FTA §222(c)(1)(A) does not deny customers the ability to restrict the use of their own CPNI for services to which they currently subscribe, but rather it serves as a restriction of the telecommunications utility's use, disclosure, or provision of access to CPNI. With respect to Verizon's concerns, the commission does not find an inconsistency with the FCC's rules. Consistency does not require strict adherence to the FCC's language.

Section 26.122(d) relating to customer approval for use of CPNI.

The commission addresses this subsection in its discussion under preamble question number two above.

Section 26.122(e) sets forth the requirements for obtaining customer approval.

Verizon stated that in the Clarification Order , the FCC held that pending the completion of its rulemaking on its CPNI rules, carriers are permitted to obtain consent using either an "opt-in" or "opt-out" mechanism. Verizon argued that if the commission's current rule embodies an "opt-in" approach, it must be amended to include an "opt-out" option to be consistent with the FTA, the FCC's rules, and the U.S. West decision.

The commission finds this subsection allows telecommunications carriers the flexibility of providing customers with either an "opt-in" or "opt-out" approval process, and disagrees with Verizon's assertion that this subsection is inconsistent with the FTA, the FCC's rules, and the U.S. West decision.

Section 26.122(f)(1) relating to specific notification requirements.

The proposed language in this subsection sets forth the requirement that if written notification is provided, "the notice must be legible and be placed in an area so as to be readily apparent to a customer." The OAG recommends replacing the word "legible" with the words "clear and conspicuous" since this term has a long-standing meaning in the law of consumer disclosure and advertising.

The commission is not persuaded that such a replacement is necessary. The FCC's rule, 47 C.F.R. §64.2007(f)(2)(v), uses the term "legible" to describe the requirements for written notification. Furthermore, §26.122(f)(3) establishes a procedure for staff review of the notification prior to distribution.

Section 26.122(f)(2)(D) relating to other notification requirements.

Sprint suggested removing the implied reference to both time and space. Sprint argues that 47 C.F.R. §64.2007(f)(3) merely requires that the approval must be "proximate to" the notification. Consequently, Sprint contends the requirement that the "solicitation for approval must be proximate in time to the notification of a customer's CPNI rights, and if written, placed in the same envelope" are terms not used in the federal rule and should be removed for consistency.

The commission is not persuaded that this provision is inconsistent with the FCC's rule. The requirement that the solicitation for approval be proximate in time to customer notification merely insures the customer is able to make an informed decision. Further, the requirement that any approval mechanism be placed in the notification envelope merely insures the solicitation is proximate to the notification.

Section 26.122(f)(3) relating to staff review of customer notification.

Sprint claimed that the requirement for the commission to review notification language prior to it being sent to the customer is not in the federal rules and that a less time consuming process would be preferred. Sprint suggested that the rule could prescribe notification language and address "violations" / "problems" if and when they occur.

In its reply comments, WorldCom agreed with Sprint's position on §26.122(f)(3) that the federal rules do not require approval of CPNI language by either the FCC or state commissions and concurs that the commission should consider a less time consuming process. WorldCom suggested that the commission require that CTU's submit their proposed notice to the commission, and in turn, the commission would have to complete its review of the notice within 30 calendar days. The notice would be deemed approved unless the commission notified the CTU of deficiencies before the expiration of the 30 day period.

The commission is not persuaded by WorldCom and Sprint's arguments. WorldCom's proposal would allow the commission to have 30 calendar days to review the notification. The current requirement set forth in §26.122(f)(3) requires review of the notification by staff within ten days, and is therefore not overly burdensome. Furthermore, this provision gives effect to the provisions of PURA §62.023(b)(1), which require each telecommunications utility to annually notify, by means approved by the commission, each subscriber of their right to reject the carrier's use of the subscriber's CPNI.

Section 26.122(g) relating to safeguards.

This subsection requires that a carrier implement a number of safeguard provisions for the use of customer-specific CPNI "prior to solicitation of a customer's approval." Sprint suggested removing the "prior" requirement in the proposed rules to be consistent with the federal rules.

The commission finds that the proposed language for this subsection does not contradict the FCC's intent in 47 C.F.R. §64.2009(a), which requires the implementation of a system to determine the status of a customer's CPNI approval prior to use of CPNI.

Section 26.122(g)(1) relating to safeguard provisions for the use of customer-specific CPNI.

WorldCom suggested that the proposed changes to this subsection be clarified by eliminating the phrase, "In implementing this system, CTU's may consider their unique size, capitol resources, culture, and technological capabilities." WorldCom argues that such language may be construed by the commission to require that larger companies have more burdensome obligations than other carriers to track and access CPNI, and therefore, the commission should adopt language that is consistent with the FCC's rule, 47 C.F.R. §64.2009.

The commission agrees with WorldCom's suggestion to delete the phrase, "In implementing this system, CTU's may consider their unique size, capitol resources, culture, and technological capabilities."

The OAG suggested amending subsection (g)(1) to include an additional requirement that the CPNI approval status be accessible to the customer on a reasonable basis, asserting that a customer who has forgotten or lost records should not have to wait days or weeks to determine their approval status.

WorldCom argued in its reply comments that the change suggested by the OAG is unreasonable, asserting that the OAG's proposal is not a federal requirement and implies costly system changes for the CTU. WorldCom urged the commission to reject the OAG's proposal. Verizon argued that the OAG has misinterpreted the purpose of this subsection. Verizon asserted that the intent is to ensure that carriers are able to track customers' CPNI approvals so that the carriers' marketing and sales personnel can ascertain the CPNI status of a customer before initiating marketing efforts.

The commission agrees with Verizon's comments that the purpose of this subsection is to provide carriers with information that indicates the status of CPNI approvals prior to initiation of marketing activities. The commission disagrees with the OAG's request to add a requirement that the CPNI approval status be accessible to the customer on a reasonable basis. As discussed earlier, rules regarding CPNI serve to restrict the CTU's use, disclosure, or provision of access to CPNI.

Section 26.122(k) relating to the effective date of subsections (g)(1) and (g)(3).

The commission finds that this subsection of the rule, relating to the effective date of safeguard measures carriers must implement prior to use of CPNI, is no longer necessary. The original intent of this provision was to allow carriers an extension of time to implement software flags and electronic audit mechanisms, in light of the FCC's order released on September 24, 1998 in CC Docket No. 96-115 granting the extension. Since that time, the FCC amended this provision in its' Clarification Order and those changes are reflected in this amended rule. Accordingly, the commission finds that deletion of this subsection, although not suggested in the proposed rule, is aligned with the FCC's rules and does not have an effect on the interpretation or requirements of this rule.

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.

This amendment is adopted under the Public Utility Regulatory Act, Texas Utilities Code Annotated §14.002 (Vernon 1998 and Supplement 2002) (PURA) which provides the commission with the authority to make and enforce rules reasonably required in the exercise of its powers and jurisdiction; specifically, PURA §62.022 which sets out requirements relating to a telecommunications utility's use of specific CPNI; and §62.023 which requires the commission to adopt rules consistent with FCC rules relating to specific CPNI.

Cross Reference to Statutes: Public Utility Regulatory Act §§14.002, 62.022, and 62.023.

§26.122.Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI).

(a) Application. This section applies to all certificated telecommunications utilities (CTUs) as defined in §26.5 of this title (relating to Definitions).

(b) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to delineate the circumstances in which CTUs are required to gain approval of the customer prior to using, disclosing, or permitting access to customer-specific customer proprietary network information (CPNI), and to set forth the requisites for obtaining customer notification and approval. This section is intended to be consistent with the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 §222 in balancing competitive and consumer privacy interests with respect to customer-specific CPNI.

(c) Customer approval not required. A CTU may use, disclose, or permit access to customer- specific CPNI, without customer approval, as described in this subsection.

(1) Generally. Any CTU may use, disclose, or permit access to customer-specific CPNI for the purpose of providing or marketing service offerings, or alternate versions of existing service, which may include additional or related offerings, within the category of service ( i.e. , local, interexchange) already subscribed to by the customer from the same utility, without customer approval. Any CTU may use, disclose, or permit access to customer-specific CPNI for the purpose of providing optional extended area calling plans that a CTU may offer pursuant to §26.217 of this title (relating to Administration of Extended Area Service (EAS) Requests and §26.219 of this title (relating to Administration of Expanded Local Calling Service Requests), or pursuant to a final order of the commission in a proceeding pursuant to the Public Utility Regulatory Act §§53.101 - 53.113, 53.151, 53.152, 53.201, 53.202, 53.251, 53.252, 53.301, and 53.303 - 53.307.

(2) Customer premises equipment (CPE) and information services. A CTU may use, disclose, or permit access to customer-specific CPNI derived from its provision of local exchange service or interexchange service to their customers to separately market CPE and information services, including call answering, voice mail or messaging, voice storage and retrieval services, fax storage and retrieval services, and protocol conversions.

(3) Winback. A CTU may use CPNI to regain the business of customers who have switched to and are receiving service from another provider. The CTU may only use the former customer's CPNI to engage in "winback" marketing campaigns to regain that customer's service within the same category of service from which the CPNI was obtained. Section 222 of the FTA does not allow carriers to use CPNI to retain soon-to-be former customers where the carrier gained notice of a customer's imminent cancellation of service through the provision of carrier-to- carrier service.

(4) Affiliates. If an affiliate telecommunications utility provides different categories of service, and a customer subscribes to more than one category of service offered by the CTU and/or its affiliate, the CTU is permitted to share customer-specific CPNI only to those affiliated entities that provide a service offering to the customer. If a customer does not subscribe to service from an affiliate the CTU is not permitted to share customer-specific CPNI with its affiliated entities, absent customer approval.

(5) Customer's right to restrict CPNI. Even though customer approval is not required for situations set forth in paragraphs (1) - (4) of this subsection, a customer may notify the CTU that such customer restricts the use of, disclosure of, and access to that customer's specific CPNI for use in the situations described in paragraphs (1) - (4) of this subsection.

(6) Exceptions. Nothing in this section prohibits a CTU from using, disclosing, or permitting access to customer-specific CPNI obtained from its customers, either directly or indirectly:

(A) to provide inside wiring installation, maintenance, or repair services;

(B) to initiate, render, bill for, or collect for customer-authorized telecommunications services;

(C) to protect the rights or property of the utility, or to protect users of those services and other carriers from fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful use of, or subscription to, such services;

(D) to market services other than those to which a customer already subscribes, or alternate versions of existing service, which may include additional or related offerings, if such customer contacts the CTU to inquire about such services offered by the CTU; or

(E) to conduct research on the health effects of commercial mobile radio services (CMRS).

(d) Customer approval required.

(1) Except as described in subsection (c) of this section, a CTU may not use, disclose, or permit access to customer-specific CPNI, without customer approval, for the following:

(A) to market to a customer service offerings that are within a category of service to which the customer does not already subscribe from that CTU, unless the CTU has customer approval to do so;

(B) to provide Internet access; or

(C) to identify or track customers who call competing service providers.

(2) Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection (c)(1) of this section, when a customer purchases CPE or information services from a CTU that are bundled with a telecommunications service, the CTU subsequently may use any customer information independently derived from the CTU's prior sale of CPE to the customer or the customer's subscription to a particular information service offered by the CTU in its marketing of new CPE or a similar information service that is bundled with a telecommunications service.

(e) Obtaining customer approval. A CTU that is required by this section to obtain customer approval to use, disclose, or permit access to customer-specific CPNI to market a customer service to which the customer does not already subscribe from that CTU must do so in compliance with the following requirements of this subsection. Customer approval remains in effect until the customer revokes or limits such approval. Approval obtained before the effective date of this section, if obtained in compliance with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules in existence at the time of the approval, shall be valid until the customer revokes or limits such approval.

(1) A CTU may obtain approval through written, oral, or electronic methods;

(2) A CTU relying on oral approval must bear the burden of demonstrating that such approval has been given in compliance with this section;

(3) A CTU must maintain records of notification and approval, whether oral, written, or electronic, for at least one year.

(f) Notification. Prior to any solicitation for customer approval, a CTU must provide a one-time notification, through oral or written methods, to the customer of the customer's right to restrict use of, disclosure of, and access to that customer's CPNI.

(1) Specific notification requirements. Customer notification, through either oral or written methods, must provide sufficient information to enable the customer to make an informed decision as to whether to permit a CTU to use, disclose, or permit access to the customer's CPNI. The notification must be comprehensible and not be misleading. If written notification is provided, the notice must be legible and be placed in an area so as to be readily apparent to a customer. In carrying out this provision, the notification must:

(A) specify the types of information that constitute CPNI, describe the purposes for which CPNI will be used, and inform the customer of the right to disapprove those uses, and deny or withdraw access to CPNI at any time;

(B) state that the customer has a right, and the carrier a duty, under federal law, to protect the confidentiality of CPNI; and

(C) advise the customer of the precise steps necessary for granting or denying access to CPNI, and clearly state that a denial of approval will not affect the provision of any services to which the customer subscribes.

(2) Other notification requirements. A CTU shall adhere to the following notification specifications:

(A) If any notification is translated into another language, then all portions of the notification must be translated into that language.

(B) A utility may state in the notification that the customer's approval to use customer-specific CPNI may enhance the CTU's ability to offer products and services tailored to the customer's needs.

(C) A CTU may not include in the notification any statement attempting to encourage a customer to freeze third party access to customer-specific CPNI.

(D) A CTU's solicitation for approval must be proximate in time to the notification of a customer's CPNI rights, and if written, placed in the same envelope in which notification is mailed.

(3) Staff review of the notification. The notification shall be reviewed by the commission's staff before it is distributed. The staff shall notify the CTU within ten days of submission whether the proposed notification may be distributed or must be modified and distributed, and, if so, specifically describe any modifications that staff requires.

(g) Safeguards. Prior to solicitation of a customer's approval, a CTU must establish the following with respect to safeguard provisions for the use of customer-specific CPNI:

(1) CTUs must implement a system by which the status of a customer's CPNI approval can be clearly established prior to use of the CPNI.

(2) CTUs must train their personnel as to when they are and are not authorized to use CPNI, and carriers must have an express disciplinary process in place to reprimand personnel who violate CPNI requirements and procedures, as outlined in this section.

(3) CTUs must maintain a record, electronically or in some other manner, of their sales and marketing campaigns that use CPNI. The record must include a description of each campaign, the specific CPNI that was used in the campaign, the date and purpose of the campaign, and what products or services were offered as part of the campaign. The CTUs must retain the record for a minimum of one year.

(4) CTUs must establish a supervisory review process regarding telecommunications utility compliance with the provisions of the subsection for outbound marketing situations and maintain records of CTU compliance for a minimum period of one year. Specifically, sales personnel must obtain supervisory approval of any proposed outbound marketing request.

(5) A CTU must have an officer, as an agent of the CTU, sign a compliance certificate on an annual basis stating that the agent has personal knowledge that the operating procedure established by the carrier is in compliance with the commission's CPNI rules. A statement explaining how the CTU is in compliance with the provisions in this subsection must accompany the certificate.

(h) Aggregate CPNI. If a CTU compiles and uses aggregate CPNI for marketing purposes or provides aggregate CPNI to any business associated with the CTU for marketing purposes, it must also provide aggregate CPNI to any third party upon request, except when a local exchange company uses aggregate information only to tailor its service offering to better suit the needs of its existing customers. A CTU must offer to provide aggregate CPNI under the same terms and conditions and at the same price as it is made available to all businesses affiliated with the CTU and to utility personnel marketing supplemental services, provided that the third party must specify the type and scope of the aggregate CPNI requested. A CTU must, upon request, provide such aggregate CPNI to a third party under any other alternative terms, conditions, or prices that are just and reasonable under the circumstances and that are not unreasonably preferential, prejudicial or discriminatory.

(i) Subscriber list information. A CTU that provides telephone exchange service shall provide subscriber list information gathered in its capacity as a provider of such service on a timely and unbundled basis, under nondiscriminatory and reasonable rates, terms, and conditions, to any person upon request, to the extent that such person uses the subscriber list information solely for publishing directories in any format.

(j) Definition. The term "subscriber list information," when used in subsection (i) of this section, means any information:

(1) identifying the listed names of subscribers of a CTU and such subscribers' telephone numbers, addresses, or primary advertising classifications (as such classifications are assigned at the time of the establishment of such service), or any combination of such listed names, numbers, addresses, or classifications; and

(2) that the CTU or an affiliate has published, caused to be published, or accepted for publication in any directory format.

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 February 6, 2002.

TRD-200200799

Rhonda Dempsey

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Effective date: February 26, 2002

Proposal publication date: October 26, 2001

For further information, please call: (512) 936-7308