ADOPTED 
 RULES 
 
 An agency may take final action on a section 30 days after a proposal has been 
published in the  Texas Register. The section becomes effective 20 days after 
the agency files the correct document with the  Texas Register, unless a later 
date is specified or unless a federal statute or regulation requires 
implementation of the action on shorter notice. 
 If an agency adopts the section without any changes to the proposed text, only 
the preamble of the notice and statement of legal authority will be published. 
If an agency adopts the section with changes to the proposed text, the proposal 
will be republished with the changes. 
 
   
  TITLE 16. ECONOMIC REGULATION 
 Part II. Public Utility Commission of Texas 
  Chapter 23. Substantive Rules 
  
  Telephone 
 
  16 TAC sec.23.93 
 
  The Public Utility Commission of Texas adopts an amendment to sec.23.93, with 
changes to the proposed text as published in the December 1, 1995, issue of the 
Texas Register (20 TexReg 10177). 
 Section 23.93, as amended, applies the rule to libraries' information sharing 
programs as mandated by the Public Utility Regulatory Act of 1995, (PURA) 
sec.3.605. The amendment requires that dominant certificated telecommunications 
utilities provide reduced rates for information sharing programs and interactive 
multimedia communications conducted or that could be conducted by libraries, as 
defined by the statute. 
 The purpose of the amendment is to bring sec.23.93 into compliance with PURA 
sec.3.605. 
 The public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing the amendment includes 
greater public access to video, data, and electronic resources used by a library 
for instruction, training and other learning programs. 
 The General Services Commission of Texas (GSC) and the Texas Telephone 
Association (TTA) submitted written comments in response to the December 1, 
1995, Texas Register  publication. No other written comments were received. GSC 
expressed concern that the use of the term "dominant certificated 
telecommunications utilities" in defining the entities subject to the rule would 
create difficulties in determining which entities were subject to the rule 
because the term is not defined in PURA. Otherwise GSC and TTA support the 
amendment. 
 Following the publication of the proposed rule, the Commission conducted a 
public hearing on December 12, 1995, at which representatives of AT&T, 
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT), GTE Southwest, Inc. (GTE), and GSC 
were in attendance. GTE chose to make no comments. The others in attendance 
supported the amendment although SWBT expressed concern over the use of the term 
"dominant certificated telecommunications utilities" in place of "local exchange 
companies" because the term is not defined in the statute. SWBT and GSC both 
recommended that "dominant carrier" be used. The commission believes that SWBT's 
and GSC's concerns are unfounded and that dominant certificated 
telecommunications utilities best describes the entities subject to the rule. 
Therefore, the commission declines to adopt SWBT's and GSC's recommendation to 
use the term dominant carrier. 
 All comments, including those not specifically referenced herein, were fully 
considered by the commission. 
 The amendment is adopted under the Public Utility Regulatory Act of 1995, 
sec.1.101 74th Legislature, Regular Session 1995, as amended by House Bill (HB) 
2128, which provides the Public Utility Commission of Texas with the authority 
to make and enforce rules reasonably required in the exercise of its powers and 
jurisdiction. 
 The following statute is affected by this amendment: Article 1446c-O (Vernon 
Supp. 1995) 
 
 
  sec.23.93. Distance Learning, Information Sharing Programs, and Interactive 
Multimedia Communications. 
 
  (a) Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in this section, 
shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates 
otherwise. 
 
  (1) Distance learning-Instruction, learning, and training that is transmitted 
from one site to one or more sites by telecommunications services that are used 
by an educational institution predominantly for such instruction, learning, or 
training, including video, data, voice, and electronic information. 
   
  (2)  Educational institution-Accredited primary or secondary schools owned or 
operated by state and local government entities or by private entities; 
institutions of higher education as defined by the Education Code, sec.61. 
003(13); the Texas Education Agency, its successors and assigns; regional 
education service centers established and operated pursuant to the Education 
Code, Chapter 8; and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, its 
successors and assigns. 
   
  (3) Information sharing program-Instruction, learning, and training that is 
transmitted from one site to one or more sites by telecommunications services 
that are used by a library predominantly for such instruction, learning, or 
training, including video, data, voice, and electronic information. 
   
  (4)  Interactive multimedia communications-Real-time, two-way, interactive 
voice, video, and data communications conducted over networks that link 
geographically dispersed locations. This definition includes interactive 
communications within or between buildings on the same campus or library site. 
   
  (5) Library-Public library or regional library system as defined by Government 
Code, sec.441.122, or a library operated by an institution of higher education 
or a school district. 
     
  (b) Telecommunications services eligible for reduced rates. 
 
  (1) Any tariffed service, if used predominantly for distance learning purposes 
by an educational institution or information sharing program purposes by a 
library, is eligible for reduced rates, as set forth in this section. 
   
  (2) A service is used predominantly for distance learning purposes by an 
educational institution or information sharing program purposes by a library 
when over 50% of the traffic carried, whether in video, data, voice, and/or 
electronic information, is identified for such use pursuant to the requirements 
of paragraph 1 of subsection (c). 
     
  (c) Process by which an educational institution or library qualifies for 
reduced rates other than through a customer-specific contract. 
 
  (1) Affidavit. To qualify for a discounted rate, an educational institution or 
library, as defined in subsection (a) of this section, must provide a sworn 
affidavit to the dominant certificated telecommunications utility account 
representative or, if no account representative is assigned, to the business 
office of the utility. 
 
  (A) The affidavit shall: 
 
  (i) specify the requested service(s) to be discounted; 
   
  (ii) quantify, if applicable, the requested service(s) to be discounted; 
   
  (iii) state that the discounted service(s) will be used predominantly for 
distance learning purposes or information sharing program purposes; and 
   
  (iv) specify the intended use(s) of the discounted service(s). 
     
  (B) The affidavit shall be signed by the administrative head of the 
institution (e.g., principal, president, chancellor) or library, or a designee 
given the task and authority to execute the affidavit on behalf of the 
educational institution or library requesting the discounted rates. 
   
  (C)  No other special form needs to be provided as part of the application 
process. 
   
  (D) The educational institution or library shall provide an affidavit each 
time it orders services that will be used predominantly for distance learning 
purposes or information sharing program purposes. 
     
  (2) Tariff filing. Within 30 days after the effective date of this section, 
each dominant certificated telecommunications utility as of September 1, 1995 
shall file a distance learning and information sharing program tariff, providing 
for a 25% discount on any service used predominantly for distance learning or 
information sharing program purposes, other than a service offered pursuant to a 
customer-specific contract. The tariff filing shall concern only the 
implementation of this section and not affect any of the utility's other rates 
or services not utilized for distance learning or information sharing program 
purposes. Once the tariff goes into effect, any educational institution or 
library subsequently filing an affidavit, as described in paragraph (1) of this 
subsection, shall be eligible to receive the requested service at the discounted 
rate. 
     
  (d) Interactive multimedia communications services. Any dominant certificated 
telecommunications utility that provides interactive multimedia communications 
services may file a tariff to establish rates at levels necessary, using sound 
rate-making principles, to recover costs associated with providing such services 
to educational institutions or libraries. Those interactive multimedia 
communications services used predominantly for distance learning or information 
sharing program purposes, however, shall qualify for a 25% discount pursuant to 
subsection (c) of this section. 
   
  (e) Customer-specific contracts. When a service is provided to an educational 
institution or library pursuant to sec.23.27(c) of this title (relating to Rate-
Setting Flexibility for Services Subject to Significant Competitive Challenges), 
the dominant certificated telecommunications utility shall price those 
components of the service used predominantly for distance learning or an 
information sharing program no less than 105%, and no greater than 110%, of the 
customer-specific long-run incremental cost. 
   
  (f) Cost determination. Not withstanding subsections (c) and (d) of this 
section, once the commission develops cost determination rules for 
telecommunications services generally, a reduced rate approved under this 
section shall recover the service-specific long-run incremental costs. In the 
case of interactive multimedia communications services, however, the commission 
may allow a rate to be set lower than the long-run incremental cost of a 
specific service if such is determined to be in the public interest. 
   
  (g) Filing requirements. Each dominant certificated telecommunications utility 
shall file an annual report with the commission on September 1 of each year 
indicating the demand for distance learning or information sharing program 
services provided under the distance learning or information sharing program 
tariff. The report shall include the following: 
 
  (1) the type of institution(s) or libraries provided service(s); 
   
  (2) type(s) of service(s) provided to each institution or libraries; and 
   
  (3) quantity of the service(s) provided. 
 
  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. 
 Issued in Austin, Texas, on April 10, 1996 
 TRD-9605026 
  Paula Mueller 
 Secretary of the Commission 
 Public Utility Commission of Texas 
    Effective date: May 1, 1996 
 Proposal publication date: December 1, 1995 
 For further information, please call: (512) 458-0100 
         
             
  16 TAC sec.23.97 
 
  The Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission) adopts new sec.23.97, 
relating to interconnection for local exchange service, with changes to the 
proposed text as published in the October 24, 1995, issue of the Texas Register  
(20 TexReg 8777). The rule is authorized by sec.3.458 of the Public Utility 
Regulatory Act of 1995 (PURA 95), which permits the commission to promulgate 
generic rules and set policies governing interconnection arrangements between 
all telecommunications service providers certificated to provide local exchange 
service, basic local telecommunications service, or switched access service 
within the state. 
 The new rule, sec.23.97, delineates the purpose and the application of the 
section and provides definitions of terms used in the section. The rule also 
outlines principles of interconnection and minimum interconnection arrangements 
that would serve as a basis for negotiations and compulsory arbitration between 
interconnecting certificated telecommunications utilities (CTUs). The rule 
establishes timelines and procedures for negotiations and the filing of rates, 
terms, and conditions for interconnection. The rule also sets up a compulsory 
arbitration process to facilitate the arbitration of unresolved issues. 
Additionally, the rule requires that certain customer safeguards be implemented 
by interconnecting CTUs. 
 The public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing the rule is enhanced 
competition in the local exchange market, which in turn should provide 
additional service choices to customers, increase incentives for efficiency and 
lower prices, and facilitate new and innovative services. The growth in 
competition in the local exchange market is expected to have a positive effect 
on small and large businesses as well as residential customers who can avail 
themselves of the increased service choices made possible by local-exchange 
competition. 
 Workshops were held on August 29, September 7, and September 25, 1995 to 
discuss interconnection issues and Staff's draft of the proposed rule on 
interconnection. The following parties filed initial comments in response to the 
proposed rule published in the October 24, 1995, issue of the Texas Register (20 
TexReg 8777): Advisory Commission on State Emergency Communications (ACSEC); 
AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. (AT&T); City of Plano (City); 
Consumers Union; General Services Commission (GSC); GTE Mobilnet; GTE Southwest 
Incorporated and Contel of Texas, Inc. (collectively referred to as GTE); MCI 
Telecommunications Corporation (MCI); MFS Communications Company, Inc. (MFS); 
Office of Public Utility Counsel (OPC); Southwestern Bell Telephone Company 
(SWBT); Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages (SWBYP); Teleport Communications Group, 
Inc. (Teleport); Texas Association of Long Distance Telephone Companies 
(TEXALTEL); Texas Cable and Telecommunication Association (TCTA); Texas 
Statewide Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (TSTCI); Texas Telephone Association 
(TTA); Time Warner Communications of Austin L.P. and Time Warner Communications 
of Houston, L.P. (Time Warner); and United Telephone Company of Texas, Inc., 
Central Telephone Company of Texas, and Sprint Communications Company 
L.P.(collectively referred to as Sprint). Reply comments were filed by ACSEC, 
AT&T, Consumers Union, GSC, GTE, MCI, MFS, SWBT, Teleport, TSTCI, TEXALTEL, 
TCTA, TTA, and Time Warner. A public hearing was held on this matter on December 
12, 1995, when ACSEC, AT&T, Consumers Union, Commission's Office of Regulatory 
Affairs (ORA), OPC, SWBT, TEXALTEL, TSTCI, TTA, TCTA, and Time Warner offered 
oral comments, which have been summarized to the extent they vary from written 
comments. A commission work session was held on March 14, 1996, at which time 
Staff's recommendation for adoption was discussed. Additional comments received 
as a result of the work session have been summarized to the extent they vary 
from previous comments. 
 As a result of the comments received during the comment period, at the public 
hearing and at the work session, the rule has been extensively revised and 
rewritten. Discussion of the comments will refer to the sections of the rule as 
published in the  Texas Register and will note the new location of any affected 
provision. 
 All commenters supported the adoption of the interconnection rule and 
recommended changes to specific provisions of the rule. MCI opined that the 
commission has jurisdiction under sec. sec.1.101, 3.001, 3.051, and 3.458 of 
PURA 95 to require holders of certificates of convenience and necessity (CCNs), 
certificates of operating authority (COAs), and service provider certificates of 
operating authority (SPCOAs) to interconnect with one another. TCTA remarked 
that reasonable terms for interconnecting competitive networks with the networks 
of incumbent local exchange companies (ILECs) are essential if facilities-based 
competition is to become a reality and the economic incentives to invest and 
compete are not destroyed. Time Warner commented that, before adopting an 
interconnection rule, the commission should consider such factors as the ILEC's 
advantages from a marketing perspective, given its ubiquitous position in the 
local exchange market; the impact of interconnection rates on the development of 
competition and promotion of innovative technology and telecommunication 
services; and the impact of interconnection arrangements on a competitor's 
ability to invest in infrastructure and engage in facilities-based competition. 
Also, Time Warner stated that interconnection rates should not subsidize the 
inefficiencies of ILECs and, at the very least, should be no less favorable to 
the new CTUs than rates which currently exist between ILECs. 
 AT&T commented that experience in other jurisdictions has demonstrated that it 
is fundamentally against the direct economic and business interests of the ILECs 
to make the road to meaningful local competition an easy one for its 
competitors; hence there is a need for explicit and aggressive requirements to 
induce the ILECs to enter into workable interconnection arrangements. Teleport 
recommended that the commission establish definitive substantive standards for 
interconnection in order to force the ILECs to negotiate in good-faith. GTE, on 
the other hand, argued that the rule should not attempt to micromanage a 
competitive process and should instead provide incentives for all CTUs to 
compete in the marketplace rather than the regulatory arena. 
 PURA 95 sets forth the legislature's policy to promote diversity of providers 
and interconnectivity and to encourage a fully competitive telecommunications 
marketplace. PURA 95, sec.3.458 specifically charges the commission with the 
task of promulgating rules that facilitate such competition. Interconnection is 
absolutely necessary to achieve effective competition; therefore, the rule sets 
forth principles of interconnection that will serve as a basis for negotiations. 
The commission agrees with GTE that the rules are intended to provide incentive 
for CTUs to engage in good-faith negotiations, and therefore declines to adopt 
very detailed interconnection standards, which would result in the commission 
micromanaging the competitive process. 
 A recurring theme in the comments of ILECs, especially those of SWBT, was the 
need to specifically mandate cost recovery in the rule. SWBT commented that 
ILECs should not be held responsible for guaranteeing the financial success of 
new CTUs by providing services without adequate compensation. SWBT argued that 
an ILEC electing incentive regulation under Subtitle H of PURA 95, if required 
to offer services to competitors without compensation and thereby subsidize 
competitors, would be obliged to raise local exchange rates at the end of four 
years when rate rebalancing is allowed. Time Warner stated that it does not seek 
any subsidy from any ILEC, but does seek parity of treatment as a co-carrier 
with ILECs, including reasonable interconnection rates and charges. TCTA also 
stated that competitors should be treated as co-carriers and not as retail end-
user customers, and that rates charged for interconnection should be cost-based 
and not a source of contribution or subsidy to the ILECs. MCI concurred and 
opined that the development of local exchange competition in Texas cannot be 
furthered by rules that provide unequal status to CTUs. Consumers Union urged 
the commission to evaluate the cost issues very carefully and pointed out that 
if interconnection arrangements do not contribute to the ILEC's joint and common 
costs, then eventually more joint and common costs will have to be recovered 
from local exchange service. 
 Time Warner and TEXALTEL opined that ILECs received a great degree of 
regulatory flexibility under PURA 95, and in return ILECs are required to offer 
interconnection at reasonable rates, terms, and conditions and to facilitate 
local exchange competition. TEXALTEL commented that if the rule establishes the 
principle of reciprocity for interconnection arrangements, it would impose self-
regulating pressure on negotiating parties to act reasonably. 
 With respect to the issue of cost recovery, the commission believes that ILECs 
are not required to guarantee the financial success of new CTUs, just as new 
CTUs are not required to subsidize ILECs through unreasonable interconnection 
rates, terms, and conditions. The rates should reflect the costs incurred in 
providing the service, and such costs must be identified and supported. Cost 
support should reflect the use of the equipment or facilities by the ILEC, if 
any. Costs should be recovered from all cost causers including the ILECs. If 
costs for the service provided, including a reasonable amount of joint and 
common costs, are not recovered from the new CTUs, the customers of the ILEC 
would subsidize competitive entry, which subsidization would not result in fair 
competition. The commission believes that the proper balancing of cost causation 
and cost recovery can be achieved by negotiation among the various affected 
CTUs. Accordingly, the commission mandates in new subsection (d)(1)(D) that CTUs 
negotiate rates, terms, and conditions for facilities, services, and other 
interconnection arrangements required pursuant to this section. However, to 
ensure that any negotiated rates are non-discriminatory and are consistent with 
the public interest, convenience, and necessity, the commission reserves the 
right to review the rates, terms, and conditions of any interconnection 
arrangement, including those that result from negotiation. 
 TSTCI commented that the proposed rule will directly affect the ability of the 
ILECs to provide universal service in rural areas that have high-cost loops. 
TSTCI therefore recommended that the commission determine whether the 
interconnection rules are in the public interest by considering the impact of 
the rule 1) on the ILEC's ability to serve the area; 2) on the goal of universal 
service; 3) on the ILEC's ability to adequately provide the service, given the 
duplication of facilities; 4) on current support mechanisms; 5) on the ILEC's 
ability to serve as the provider of last resort; and 6) on the ILECs and their 
customers when new CTUs offer new calling scopes. Time Warner and AT&T contended 
that TSTCI's proposed principles have no basis in PURA 95 and would merely serve 
to delay local exchange competition. TSTCI also opined that the rule should 
exclude such extraneous issues as costing, collocation, unbundling, and 
technical specifications for interconnection. 
 The commission declines to consider the principles advocated by TSTCI because 
such principles have no basis in PURA 95. The commission also concludes that it 
is imperative that issues such as costing, collocation, unbundling, and 
technical specifications be addressed in the rule, to the extent necessary to 
facilitate interconnection between competing CTUs. 
 Proposed subsection (b)(2) (renumbered as subsection (c)(2)) stated that, 
except as herein provided, all CTUs providing local exchange service must comply 
with the requirements of this section. However, holders of SPCOAs that do not 
provide dial tone and only resell the telephone services of another CTU would be 
exempt from all the requirements of this section except those in proposed 
subsection (e)(1) and proposed subsection (i)(1)-(4) (renumbered as subsection 
(i)(1)-(3)). Proposed subsection (e)(1) related to the provision of E-911, 411, 
repair services, and directory and operator services, and proposed subsection 
(i) pertained to customer safeguards. 
 SWBT suggested that the use of the double negative language exempt ... except 
is confusing and recommended that the language be revised to state that holders 
of SPCOAs that are pure resellers are exempt from the requirements in 
subparagraphs (A)-(C), (H), and (I) of proposed subsection (e). GTE agreed with 
SWBT's recommendation, but argued that holders of SPCOAs are recognized under 
PURA 95 as only pure resellers without facilities to interconnect with 
underlying CTUs. MFS, on the other hand, proposed revising the language such 
that pure resellers are subject only to the requirements of subparagraphs (B), 
(D), (E), and (G) of proposed subsection (e)(1) and proposed subsection (i) (1) 
-(4) of this section. Consumers Union commented that the rule should be 
clarified to ensure that the underlying telecommunications utility providing 
service to SPCOAs who are pure resellers must also comply with this rule with 
regard to the SPCOA's customers. MFS suggested that all substantive definitions 
be included in proposed subsection (c) and that defined terms not be used in 
proposed subsections (a) and (b). 
 Subsection (b), relating to application, is renumbered as subsection (c). The 
commission agrees that the use of the double negative language exempt ... except 
is confusing and therefore revises the language in proposed subsection (b)(2) 
(renumbered as subsection (c)(2)(A)(i)) such that pure resellers are subject 
only to the requirements of new subparagraphs (B)(ii) and (D)(i)-(vii) of 
subsection (e)(1) and renumbered subsection (i)(1)-(3). In the commission's 
decision in Docket Number 14665, an SPCOA holder is allowed to use facilities, 
including loop facilities, in the provision of local exchange service. 
Therefore, the commission rejects GTE's assertion that holders of SPCOAs are 
recognized under PURA 95 as only pure resellers without facilities to 
interconnect with underlying CTUs. The commission adds subsection (c)(2)(A)(ii) 
to require that the underlying telecommunications utility providing service to 
SPCOAs who are pure resellers must also comply with this rule with regard to the 
SPCOA's customers. The commission addresses MFS's suggestion by reordering 
subsections (b) and (c). 
 OPC stated that the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 
Stat. 56 (1996) (to be codified at 47 U.S.C. sec.sec.151 et seq) (Federal Act) 
does not distinguish between facilities-based and non-facilities-based CTUs. 
Therefore, the Federal Act at sec.251(a) and (b) places duties on all carriers 
including SPCOAs that are more extensive than those specifically mentioned in 
the rule. 
 The commission declines to delete the exemption granted to SPCOAs that are pure 
resellers until the issue of classification of carriers as SPCOAs and/or COAs 
under PURA 1995 is examined and resolved in light of the Federal Act. 
 Proposed subsection (b)(3) (renumbered as subsection (c)(2)(B)), also relating 
to application, exempted incumbent CCN holders serving fewer than 31, 000 access 
lines from all provisions of the rule until September 1, 1998, except as 
necessary to recognize and honor existing and future Extended Area Service 
(EAS), Extended Metropolitan Service (EMS), and Expanded Local Calling Service 
(ELCS) arrangements. TEXALTEL suggested that the provision be stricken because 
many of the small ILECs operate in local calling areas of larger ILECs that are 
likely to attract competition. Furthermore, it argued that competitors would 
need interconnection to the small ILEC areas in order to provide calling scopes 
comparable to those of the ILECs and that, in order to preserve their existing 
calling scopes, the small ILECs would need similar interconnection from new 
CTUs. TSTCI and TTA strongly objected to TEXALTEL's recommendation and stated 
that ILECs with fewer than 31,000 access lines are exempt from certain aspects 
of competition until September 1, 1998. 
 The commission adds a definition for small incumbent local exchange carriers 
(small ILECs) in subsection (b)(16). A small ILEC is defined as an incumbent 
local exchange carrier serving fewer than 31,000 access lines. The commission 
agrees with TSTCI and TTA that small ILECs are exempt from interconnection 
requirements in their exchanges until September 1, 1998. In order to address, in 
part, TEXALTEL's concern, the language in subsection (b) (3) (renumbered as 
subsection (c)(2)(B)(ii)) is revised to require, that prior to September 1, 
1998, this provision shall apply only to traffic described in renumbered 
subsection (d)(4)(A)(i), originated by a CTU in territory other than territory 
served by a small ILEC, and that such traffic shall be terminated at the rates, 
terms, and conditions described in subsection (d)(4) (A)(i). 
 OPC commented that the Federal Act, sec.251(f) provides for exemptions, 
modifications, or suspensions of certain interconnection obligations for rural 
telephone carriers and sec.23.97 should be modified to reflect the federal 
definition and exceptions for rural telephone companies. 
 The commission agrees with OPC's comments. Therefore, subsection (c)(2)(B) (i) 
is modified, and subparagraphs (C) and (D) are added in subsection (c)(2) to 
reflect the exemptions, modifications, and suspensions granted for rural 
telephone companies and CTUs with less than 2.0% access lines nationwide. The 
commission also adds a definition for CTUs with less than 2.0% access lines 
nationwide under subsection (b)(15). 
 Proposed subsection (c) (renumbered as subsection (b)) set forth definitions 
for terms used in this section. The proposed rule used terms such as 
certificated telecommunications utility (CTU), dominant certificated 
telecommunications utility (DCTU), and alternative certificated 
telecommunications utility (ACTU). The only term expressly defined in the 
section as proposed was ACTU, which was defined as a telecommunications utility 
that is not a dominant certificated telecommunications utility and has been 
granted a certificate of convenience and necessity (CCN) after September 1, 
1995, in an already certificated area, a certificate of operating authority 
(COA), or a service provider certificate of operating authority (SPCOA) to 
provide local exchange service. 
 Some commenters found the use of terms such as DCTU to be confusing and noted 
the absence of such terms in PURA 95. SWBT, GTE, TTA, and TSTCI, in particular, 
urged the commission to reject the creation of new identities not expressly 
recognized in PURA 95. Time Warner, on the other hand, contended that the lack 
of definitions of these terms in PURA 95 is irrelevant in light of the fact that 
the rule recognizes the difference in the statutory treatment of dominant and 
non-dominant carriers. MFS opined that the use of such categories does not 
change the rights and obligations created by statute, but simply makes the rule 
less complex. AT&T, MFS, SWBT, GTE, TTA, and TSTCI recommended replacing the 
term DCTU with the term incumbent local exchange carrier or ILEC and defining 
the term ILEC as a local exchange provider that held a certificate of 
convenience and necessity on September 1, 1995. AT&T, TEXALTEL, and TCTA 
recommended including a definition of the term CTU. In addition, TCTA also 
suggested defining the terms DCTU and ILEC to make the rule much more user-
friendly. MFS recommended that all references to CTU should be changed to local 
service provider (LSP). Both MFS and Teleport took exception to the use of the 
term ACTU to characterize new CTUs. MFS opined that use of the term is 
misleading because in a competitive local exchange market the services provided 
by any CTU, including an ILEC, will become alternatives to services offered by 
its competitors. MFS, therefore, suggested replacing the term ACTU with the term 
non-dominant local service provider (NLSP), defined as a local service provider 
other than an ILEC. Teleport preferred the term competitive local exchange 
carrier (CompLEC) rather than ACTU. 
 Proposed subsection (c), relating to definitions, is renumbered as subsection 
(b). The commission rejects the assertion that because terms such as DCTU, ACTU, 
and CTU are not expressly recognized in PURA 95, they should not be used in the 
rule. The commission approved the use of DCTU and CTU in Project Number 14372, 
Review of Substantive Rules, and believes that use of such terms does not alter 
the rights and obligations created by the statute, but simply makes the section 
less complex and more user-friendly. The commission agrees with MFS that the 
term ACTU is misleading and replaces the term ACTU with the term NCTU or non-
dominant certificated telecommunications utility. For purposes of clarification, 
renumbered subsection (b) defines the terms CTU, DCTU, ILEC, and NCTU in 
paragraphs (1), (4), (9), and (14) of renumbered subsection (b). 
 OPC and Teleport noted that the definition of the term ILEC in subsection 
(b)(9) should be modified to be consistent with the definition in the Federal 
Act, sec.251(h). 
 The commission notes that PURA 95 defines ILEC as a local exchange carrier that 
has a certificate of convenience and necessity on September 1, 1995. The Federal 
Act, sec.251(h) defines incumbent local exchange carrier as a LEC that provided 
telephone exchange services on the date of enactment of the Federal Act; and, 
(i) on the date of enactment of the Federal Act, a LEC that was deemed to be a 
member of the exchange carrier association pursuant to section sec.69.601(b) of 
the FCC's regulations or (ii) is a person or entity that became a successor or 
assign of a LEC member of a carrier association on or after the date of 
enactment of the Federal Act. Since the definition of an ILEC is broader under 
the Federal Act than under PURA 95, the commission declines to make any 
modifications pending further investigation of the definition. 
 Proposed subsection (c)(3) defined dispute resolution as the commission-ordered 
administrative process aimed at resolving disputes involving interconnection 
rates, terms, and/or conditions. AT&T proposed expanding the definition of 
dispute resolution to cover disputes involving unbundling, resale of ILEC local 
exchange services, technical and operational issues, and any other issue related 
to local and intraLATA toll competition. 
 The commission believes that the issues raised by AT&T such as unbundling, 
resale of ILEC local exchange service, and issues related to intraLATA toll 
competition do not fall within the scope of this rule, and that the dispute 
resolution for such issues should be addressed in another proceeding. Other 
issues such as technical and operational issues are already covered in this 
rule. Therefore, the commission declines to make AT&T's proposed change to the 
definition; however, given that subsection (g), relating to dispute resolution 
is eliminated, the definition of dispute resolution is therefore deleted. 
 Proposed subsection (c)(4) (renumbered as subsection (b)(5)) defined an 
exchange area as a geographic territory delineated as an exchange area by 
official commission boundary maps that may be served by more than one central 
office and/or one CTU. TTA, GTE, and SWBT commended the use of commission 
boundary maps in the definition of exchange area. SWBT and GTE called it the 
only practical method of determining the jurisdiction of a call, interexchange 
or intraexchange, while at the same time permitting the new CTUs the ability to 
define their service areas for the purpose of marketing retail offerings. TTA 
suggested that the language be clarified such that an exchange area is 
delineated by the exchange boundary map of the ILECs and not the certificated 
service areas of a CTU. 
 SWBT recommended requiring that a new CTU must define its exchange area to be 
identical to the official commission boundary maps. Therefore, SWBT suggested 
the addition of a sentence, Exchange areas shall not overlap, in order to 
eliminate the potential for interconnecting CTUs to arbitrage interconnection 
compensation arrangements by defining their own calling areas as an exchange. In 
its reply comments, Teleport characterized SWBT's concerns over arbitrage as 
speculative and not supported by evidence in other states. Teleport, AT&T, MFS, 
Consumers Union, and TEXALTEL urged the commission to reject SWBT's 
recommendation. Teleport contended that competitors should be allowed to define 
their own exchange areas which best reflect their own business plans and network 
deployment. AT&T stated that, by definition, exchange areas of ILECs and new 
CTUs will overlap. MFS opined that exchange boundaries should not determine the 
local calling scopes offered on a retail level by CTUs. Consumers Union 
commented that historical exchange boundaries may not represent the most 
convenient calling scope for customers. TEXALTEL termed SWBT's suggestion 
regarding overlapping boundaries as unlawful because the commission does not 
have the authority to regulate or approve the exchange boundaries of new 
competitors. It argued that if ILEC exchange boundaries are used, competitors 
potentially would intervene in every proceeding involving changes in ILEC 
exchange boundaries that might affect competitors, and competitors potentially 
may themselves petition for changes in ILEC exchange boundaries. 
 TEXALTEL characterized the current maps and exchanges, established in 1976, as 
grossly outdated and opined that the proposed rule would require the 
consolidation of Texas's 1200 current exchanges into a few hundred local calling 
areas that recognize current EAS arrangements. TEXALTEL recommended that a 
better solution would be to permit new CTUs to define their own exchange 
boundaries for retail and wholesale purposes. TEXALTEL's proposal regarding 
exchange boundaries and calling scopes is summarized further under the 
discussion of proposed subsection (d)(4)(C). 
 The commission believes that it is appropriate for NCTUs to define their local 
calling scopes for retail purposes. The definition of exchange area in the rule 
is based on the commission-approved definition of exchange area in sec.23.61, 
and is used in the section as a basis to establish equitable interconnection 
rates, not to control an NCTU's local calling area. This issue is discussed in 
more detail under proposed subsection (d)(4)(C). The commission does not modify 
the definition of exchange area; however, it is renumbered as subsection (b)(5). 
 Proposed subsection (c)(6) (renumbered as subsection (b)(10)) defined 
interconnection as the termination of local intraexchange traffic of another CTU 
within the local calling area of the terminating CTU for calls that originate 
and terminate in this state. It further stated that interconnection would 
include access to signaling systems, databases, facilities, and information as 
required to ensure interoperability of networks. 
 TEXALTEL remarked that the content of the rule goes far beyond the definition 
of interconnection; hence either the definition of interconnection should be 
broadened to include all issues addressed in the rule or the title of the rule 
should be changed to reflect the contents of the rule. Teleport suggested 
revising the definition of interconnection to clarify that it includes the 
termination of local intraexchange traffic of another CTU within the local 
calling area of the originating CTU, rather than the terminating CTU, as had 
been proposed. MFS expressed concern that the definition could be construed to 
require a CTU to terminate all calls within its local calling area, including 
those calls that terminate on access lines of another CTU. MFS also suggested 
that the definition of interconnection be revised to require a CTU to terminate 
all local calls delivered to it, regardless of whether these calls terminate 
within the Texas portion of the exchange area or across state boundaries. AT&T 
redefined the term interconnection as the linking together of telecommunication 
networks so that messages originated on one network can be transmitted or 
terminated on another network, including local intraexchange traffic originated 
as basic telecommunications service or ISDN service. 
 The commission renumbers the definition of interconnection as subsection (b) 
(10) and revises it to clarify the types of traffic that will be terminated 
pursuant to the terms of this section. Interconnection, as defined in renumbered 
subsection (b)(10), refers to termination of local traffic of another CTU and 
the EAS/ELCS traffic using the local access lines of another CTU, as described 
in subsection (d)(4)(A)(i) of this section, relating to criteria for setting 
interconnection rates, terms, and conditions. The revision recognizes that 
interconnection includes the termination of both local and EAS or EAS-like 
traffic. The commission also agrees with MFS that a CTU should be responsible 
for only completing only those calls that terminate over its access lines and 
that exchanges may cross state boundaries. The commission modifies the 
definition to reflect MFS's suggestion. The commission does not make 
modifications pursuant to the comments of TEXALTEL as the provisions of this 
section and the definition of interconnection are compatible. No modification is 
made in response to Teleport's comments for such a modification would be 
inconsistent with PURA 95, sec.3.458(a). The commission believes that the 
definition as modified addresses AT&T's proposed changes. 
 AT&T stated that interconnection should also include non-discriminatory access 
to any and all systems, databases, information, and facilities as required to 
ensure interoperability of networks. Under AT&T's proposed modification, ILECs 
would be required to provide interconnection at all technically feasible and 
logical interfaces as requested by a CTU. SWBT suggested inserting the word non-
discriminatory to describe the access allowed under the definition of 
interconnection in order to ensure that competitors of the ILECs are not 
disadvantaged relative to each other. MFS concurred with SWBT's proposal for 
inserting the word non-discriminatory in the definition of interconnection. 
 GTE expressed concern that unfettered access to databases could have 
detrimental consequences for the integrity of the network and security of such 
databases. For the same reasons, GTE opposed broad access to its Common Channel 
Signaling System Number 7 (SS7) database. GTE suggested modifying the definition 
of interconnection to clarify that interconnectors will have reasonable access 
to 800 database services, Line Information Data Base (LIDB) service, and other 
database services at non-discriminatory tariffed rates, and that such access 
will be permitted for the sole purpose of obtaining necessary network routing or 
call management information through the query-response process. Furthermore, 
interconnection to SS7 shall occur via mediated access to signaling networks 
through the Signal Transfer Points (STP). SWBT shared this concern and commented 
that the proposed definition of interconnection would result in interconnecting 
CTUs demanding access to internal operational and/or proprietary systems without 
regard to customer or ILEC impact. SWBT insisted that an interconnecting CTU 
needs the information contained in the databases rather than access to the 
underlying databases themselves. Because the definition of interconnection 
mandates access to information as required to ensure interoperability of 
networks, SWBT recommended that interconnecting CTUs should not be required to 
provide access to their databases. GTE Mobilnet commented that the commission 
should clarify its intent regarding the type of databases and information that 
may be accessed by CTUs. TTA recommended that the definition of interconnection 
should be clarified so that access to signaling systems, databases, and 
information includes only services. 
 The commission modifies the definition of interconnection (renumbered 
subsection (b)(10)) to address SWBT's and GTE's comments that access to 
databases be provided on a non-discriminatory basis without permitting access to 
network proprietary information or customer proprietary network information 
(CPNI), pursuant to sec.23.57 (relating to Telecommunications Privacy), unless 
otherwise permitted in this section. Furthermore, the term non-discriminatory is 
defined in renumbered subsection (b)(13) as the type of treatment that a CTU 
provides to itself, its affiliates, or other CTUs. The commission declines to 
accept AT&T's recommendation because the definition as modified adequately 
addresses AT&T's concern. No change to the definition is made in response to GTE 
Mobilnet's comments because the definition as modified clarifies the 
commission's intent with respect to databases and information. 
 Teleport stated that the definition of interconnection in subsection (b)(10) 
should be modified to be consistent with the language in the Federal Act, 
sec.251(c)(2). It also stated that the language in the definition should be 
modified to permit access to network proprietary information and/or customer 
proprietary network information pursuant to sec.23.57 of this title. 
 The commission notes that the definition of interconnection in subsection 
(b)(10) together with the other subsections of the rule are consistent with the 
requirements for interconnection set forth in the Federal Act, sec.251(c)(2) . 
The commission also finds that sec.23.57 prohibits access to proprietary 
information rather than permits such access. The commission therefore declines 
to adopt Teleport's recommendation. 
 Teleport stated that in light of the language in subsection (b)(10) relating to 
restriction of access to network proprietary and customer proprietary network 
information, the repetition of such requirement in subsection (d)(2)(B) and 
modified subsection (e)(2)(A) is redundant. 
 The commission agrees that repeating the language regarding the access to 
network proprietary and customer proprietary network information in specific 
provisions in the rule is redundant. The commission, therefore, adds new 
subparagraph (E) under subsection (d)(1) relating to general principles, which 
would make the language regarding restriction of access to proprietary 
information applicable to the entire section, unless permitted otherwise in the 
section. The commission deletes the requirement from subsection (d)(2)(B), 
modified subsection (e)(1)(C), and modified subsection (e)(2)(A). 
 Proposed subsection (c)(8) (renumbered as subsection (b)(12)) defined 
negotiating party as any CTU or any other entity that the requesting CTU must 
interconnect with in order to complete all telephone calls made by or placed to 
the customers of the requesting CTU. TEXALTEL commented that, if the rule does 
not envision that any party other than a CTU would be entitled to 
interconnection, the definition of negotiating party should be modified to 
delete any reference to any other entity. TCTA and Time Warner expressed concern 
that the word must in the definition of negotiating party could be interpreted 
to mean that CTUs are legally required to interconnect with certain other CTUs. 
They suggested that the word must be replaced with the words need to or seeks 
to. 
 The commission's intent in including any other entity in the definition was to 
refer to an entity, such as the 9-1-1 commission, that may be involved in 
negotiations. The commission believes that TCTA and Time Warner raise a valid 
concern and therefore modifies the definition to replace the word must with the 
words seeks to. Further, the definition is renumbered as subsection (b)(12) . 
 Teleport suggested the addition of definitions relating to basic network 
functions, bona fide request, commission, E-911 traffic, local 800 traffic, meet 
point calling, operator traffic, and third-party traffic. 
 The commission declines to define the terms basic network functions, bona fide 
request, local 800 traffic, meet point calling, operator traffic, and third 
party traffic, as proposed by Teleport, because the terms are not used in the 
rule. The proposal is, therefore, unnecessary. The term E-911 is defined in 
subsection (e)(1)(B), and the term commission as used in the section is self 
explanatory; it is also defined in sec.23.3. The commission, however, adds 
definitions for customer, Extended Area Service, Extended Local Calling Service, 
and Small Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Small ILECs) in paragraphs (3), 
(6), (7), and (15) of subsection (b) to clarify the use of these terms in the 
section. 
 Proposed subsection (d)(1) set forth general principles regarding 
interconnection. Interconnection would be established in a manner that is 
seamless, interoperable, technically and economically efficient, and transparent 
to the customer. Also, interconnecting CTUs would have to use nationally 
accepted telecommunications industry standards and/or mutually acceptable 
standards for the construction, operation, testing, and maintenance of networks, 
so that the integrity of the networks is not impaired. Interconnection would be 
non-discriminatory. 
 GTE found the general principles of interconnection unobjectionable and 
expressed support for them insofar as they promote the development of a seamless 
network. MCI supported the general principles of interconnection and requested 
that the commission's application of PURA 95, sec.3.459 (a) be extended to all 
CTUs. GSC recommended that subsection (d)(1)(B) should be clarified to indicate 
that nationally accepted telecommunications industry standards refers to 
Bellcore standards. 
 As written, the general principles apply to all CTUs; thus the commission does 
not make the modifications requested by MCI. The commission also declines to 
accept GSC's recommendation because the nationally accepted telecommunications 
industry standards may change over time. If specific standards are incorporated 
in this section, the section would have to be revised if such standards were to 
change. 
 Teleport asserted that the language in subsection (d)(1)(B) which requires that 
standards for construction, operation, testing, and maintenance of networks 
should not impair the integrity of networks is in violation of the requirement 
in PURA 95, sec.3.458(b) that all providers of telecommunication services 
maintain interoperable networks. 
 The commission believes that the language in subsection (d)(1)(B) is consistent 
with the requirement in PURA 95, sec.3.458(b) and therefore declines to adopt 
Teleport's recommendation. 
 Subsection (d)(1)(C) requires that all CTUs provide interconnection in a non-
discriminatory manner and on a timely basis. 
 Teleport stated that the subsection (d)(1)(C) violates both the Federal Act and 
PURA 95, sec.3.459 by imposing the requirements on ILECs and other CTUs. It 
argued that, because ILECs maintain a monopoly control and presence in the 
market, the requirements should be imposed only on the ILECs. 
 The commission believes that in the interest of promoting competition, it is 
appropriate to require all CTUs to interconnect in a non-discriminatory manner 
and on a timely basis. Furthermore, over time, the ILECs may not maintain a 
monopoly control in the market and hence the subsection appropriately imposes 
the requirements on all CTUs. 
 Under new subsection (d)(1)(D), interconnecting CTUs must negotiate rates, 
terms, and conditions for facilities, service, or any other interconnection 
arrangements pursuant to the rule. 
 Teleport asserted that the language is inconsistent with PURA 95, sec.3. 458(b) 
which requires that network interconnectivity be negotiated by providers rather 
than specific interconnectivity requirements mandated by the rule. 
 The commission rejects Teleport's assertion because the rule sets forth 
guidelines for negotiations on network interconnectivity, charges, terms, and 
conditions. The commission believes that subsection (d)(1)(D) as drafted is 
consistent with PURA 95,  sec.3.458(b). 
 Proposed subsection (d)(2) set forth the technical principles of 
interconnection. 
 Teleport recommended substituting a different set of highly detailed technical 
principles for the proposed technical principles of subsection (d)(2) and the 
minimum interconnection arrangements of subsection (e). SWBT argued that 
Teleport's proposed technical section is unnecessary and counterproductive 
because it sets detailed technical standards that would need to be revised as 
engineering practices change over time. GTE also disagreed with Teleport, and 
commented that only guidelines are needed to help parties negotiate mutually 
acceptable agreements. 
 The commission finds that subsection (d)(2) provides guidelines for the 
purposes of negotiations between CTUs on technical interconnection issues. The 
commission finds that the detailed technical standards suggested by Teleport 
would need to be revised as engineering practices change. Incorporating such 
standards in the section would result in micromanagement of the negotiation 
process by the commission, leaving little flexibility for negotiating CTUs to 
explore mutually acceptable technical options. Consequently, the commission 
rejects Teleport's suggested changes. 
 Under proposed subsection (d)(2)(A), for all local calls, customers of CTUs 
would not have to dial additional digits or incur dialing delays that exceed 
industry standards as a result of interconnection. GSC recommended that industry 
standards be clarified to be Bellcore standards for call processing delay and 
North American Numbering Plan (NANP) standards for number of dialed digits. The 
commission notes that industry standards may change over time and therefore 
declines to incorporate specific industry standards in subsection (d) (2)(A). 
 Under proposed subsection (d)(2)(B), interconnecting CTUs would provide each 
other non-discriminatory access to signaling systems, databases, facilities, and 
information as required to ensure interoperability of networks. Interconnecting 
CTUs would make a good-faith effort to accommodate each other's technical 
requests, provided that the technical requests are compatible with their 
respective networks and implementation of the request would not cause 
unreasonable inefficiencies, unreasonable costs, or other detriment to the 
network of the CTU receiving the request. 
 Teleport asserted that the use of nationally accepted standards would ensure 
that the integrity of the network is not impaired. It also contended that the 
second sentence in proposed subsection (d)(2)(B) is in violation of the 
Carterphone case, in which arguments that interconnection would impair the 
integrity of networks were soundly rejected. 
 The commission modifies the language in subsection (d)(2)(B) (moved to 
subsection (d)(2)) to require the technical requests to be consistent with 
nationally accepted industry standards and the service quality rules in sec.23. 
61 of this title (relating to Telephone Utilities). 
 SWBT and TTA opined that the second sentence contained in proposed subsection 
(d)(2)(B), which relates to making a good-faith effort to accommodate technical 
requests, should be moved to the introductory area of subsection (d) because it 
should apply to the whole subsection. Teleport recommended that the 
interoperability requirement be moved to the general principles section, since 
interoperability is a general statutory mandate. 
 The commission agrees with SWBT and TTA that the second sentence regarding the 
need to conduct good-faith negotiations to accommodate technical requests should 
apply to the entire section addressing technical issues, so the sentence is 
moved to the introductory area of subsection (d)(2). No modification is made in 
response to Teleport's suggestion as the commission finds the distinction in the 
section between general principles and technical principles to be proper. 
 Proposed subsection (d)(2)(B), in part, required interconnecting CTUs to 
provide each other non-discriminatory access to signaling systems, databases, 
facilities, and information as required to ensure interoperability of networks. 
 A major point of contention is the issue of access to databases. (For 
additional discussion, see summary of comments under subsection (e)(2)(A).) SWBT 
suggested deleting the term databases, since it believes that it is the 
underlying information that is needed rather than access to the databases 
themselves. SWBT also opined that the security of the information contained 
within the databases would be at risk if access by competitors is allowed. 
Teleport opined that PURA 95, sec.3.459 (a) does not allow SWBT to refuse 
competitors access to its monopoly databases and commented that SWBT's 
arguments, therefore, should be rejected. Teleport further argued that federal 
law (relating to the Carterphone decision) would be violated if SWBT were to 
prevent access by competitors to a common database. Although GTE did not object 
to database access in general, it did request that the concept of access be 
clarified in the definitions in such a way as to prohibit unlimited access to 
proprietary databases. GTE asserted that the only legitimate rationale for 
accessing proprietary databases is for network routing and management purposes. 
AT&T stated that new CTUs will be at a competitive disadvantage if they are not 
able to access customer information in ILEC databases at least on a read-only 
basis, and that the ILECs should be required to adopt procedures for updating 
and maintaining such databases as the 800 database and the LIDB in a manner that 
would allow the new CTUs to access the information on a real-time and continuing 
basis. In addition, AT&T commented that new CTUs need real-time and interactive 
access via electronic interfaces for processes such as number assignment and 
service order processing. Sprint stated that terms and conditions of access to 
databases should be subject to negotiation between CTUs, and that ILECs should 
be able to protect proprietary data as long as interoperability is not affected. 
TTA suggested that the emphasis of this subsection should be on services, e.g., 
database services. The reply comments of Consumers Union stated that NCTUs must 
have access to databases to whatever extent is necessary to provide timely, 
efficient, and high quality services to consumers. 
 The commission finds that it is important that new CTUs have the ability to 
access databases for purposes of number assignment, service order processing, 
and repair services. Therefore, to the extent possible, it is important to 
provide new CTUs access to databases on a real-time and interactive basis via 
electronic interfaces. At the same time, the ILECs have a legitimate concern 
that such access could compromise network proprietary information and customer 
proprietary network information. The commission notes that access to databases 
as proposed in the rule was required only to the extent necessary to ensure 
interoperability of networks. The commission modifies the language in subsection 
(d)(2)(B) to require interconnecting CTUs to provide non-discriminatory access 
to signaling systems, databases, facilities, and information as required to 
ensure interoperability of networks and efficient, timely provision of services 
to end-user customers. However, under new subsection (d)(1)(E), access to a 
CTU's network proprietary information or customer proprietary network 
information is restricted, unless otherwise permitted in the section. 
Furthermore, the term non-discriminatory is defined in subsection (b)(13) to 
refer to the type of treatment that is not less favorable than that a CTU 
provides to itself, its affiliates, or other CTUs. 
 Proposed subsection (d)(2)(C) required interconnecting CTUs to provide each 
other Common Channel Signaling System Number Seven (SS7) connectivity, where 
technically feasible. SWBT remarked that the reference to providing SS7 
connectivity where technically feasible ignores the infrastructure modernization 
commitments of PURA 95, sec.3.358; therefore, it suggested changing technically 
feasible to available. 
 In contrast, GSC recommended strengthening the where technically feasible 
language with except where significant obstacles make such technically 
infeasible. GSC stated that the language suggested by SWBT should be adopted 
only if a precise schedule for upgrading switches owned by SWBT and GTE is 
simultaneously adopted as a customer safeguard; whereas for other ILECs, 
availability of SS7 should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. 
 The commission agrees with SWBT that subsection (d)(2)(C) should recognize 
infrastructure commitments to upgrade the network by SWBT and GTE; thus the term 
technically feasible has been replaced with the words technically available. The 
commission also notes that the current commitments for upgrading the network by 
SWBT and GTE, in accordance with requirements in PURA 95, addresses GSC's 
concern regarding the need for a schedule for upgrading switches. 
 GSC expressed concern that specifying SS7 may require an amendment to the 
subsection later if an upgraded system, for example, SS8, is established. 
 The commission notes that GSC has not presented any evidence regarding upgraded 
signaling systems in the future. The commission believes that it is appropriate 
in this instance to specify the current standard for signalling, namely SS7, in 
light of the fact PURA 95, sec.3.358(d) has recognized SS7 as the desirable 
standard for common channel signalling in the state of Texas. 
 GTE recommended that technically feasible be supplemented with the additional 
requirement of economic feasibility. In its reply comments, MFS stated that 
GTE's additional language is unnecessary because if a party is willing to pay 
commission-approved rates for interconnection-related services, then by 
definition the service is economically feasible. 
 The commission believes that to the extent the costs of providing 
interconnection to a CTU's facilities are reflected in the CTU's interconnection 
rates charged to the other CTU for the use of such facilities, the issue of 
economic feasibility is adequately addressed. The commission, therefore, rejects 
GTE's recommendation. Moreover, the commission notes that GTE's concern is 
addressed because subsection (d)(2)(C) is modified to require a CTU to provide 
SS7 interconnectivity only where technically available. The commission rejects 
any interpretation that subsection (d)(2)(C) could be read to require a CTU to 
deploy SS7 where it is not available. 
 Under proposed subsection (d)(2)(D), interconnecting CTUs would be permitted a 
minimum of one point of interconnection in an exchange area. The interconnecting 
CTUs would agree to construct/lease and maintain the interconnecting facility 
either by having one CTU provide the entire facility or by sharing the 
construction and maintenance of the interconnecting facility. The financial 
responsibility would be shared accordingly, unless the parties involved agree to 
other financial arrangements. Each interconnecting CTU shall be responsible for 
delivering its originating traffic to the mutually agreed upon point of 
interconnection. 
 Sprint expressed concern that subsection (d)(2)(D) may be construed to mean 
that the ILEC will be required to construct facilities to the new CTU so that 
the new CTU may interconnect. In contrast, it stated that ILECs should be 
required to accommodate interconnection without expending capital resources to 
encourage competitors to interconnect. AT&T stated that Sprint's concerns are 
unfounded because the ILECs' obligations to construct facilities would be 
governed by their special construction tariffs. MCI requested that this 
subsection include clarification that an ILEC cannot require interconnecting 
CTUs to connect at more than one point; i.e., inefficient or uneconomic network 
design should not be forced upon the new CTU. Time Warner remarked that this 
subsection may be interpreted as imposing a limitation on the number of 
interconnection points, and requested that the language be clarified. MFS 
requested that the commission clarify that more than one point of 
interconnection is permissible and that, in metropolitan areas with multiple 
contiguous exchanges, an interconnection point for each of these exchanges is 
not required. In addition, MFS found the term interconnecting facility to be 
vague, and recommended substituting the term facility constituting the point of 
interconnection. GTE did not object to NCTUs having multiple points of 
interconnection as long as they are subject to negotiation. 
 The proposed language entitled interconnecting CTUs to a minimum of one point 
of interconnection in an exchange area. The commission believes that parties 
should be able to negotiate for multiple points of interconnection and modifies 
the language accordingly. The commission also agrees with MFS that, in 
metropolitan areas with multiple contiguous exchanges, interconnecting CTUs 
should not have to interconnect in every exchange. Subsection (d)(2)(D) is 
modified to permit a minimum of one interconnection point in each exchange area 
or group of contiguous exchange areas within a single LATA. While the commission 
agrees with MFS that the term interconnecting facility needs clarification, the 
commission believes that MFS's concern will be adequately addressed if the term 
interconnecting facility is replaced with the phrase facilities necessary to 
connect their networks because interconnection facilities may constitute trunks 
and other facilities in addition to the point of interconnection. Furthermore, 
the commission modifies subsection (d)(2)(D) to better reflect the commission's 
intent with respect to the financial responsibility for construction and 
maintenance of such facilities. These modifications address the concerns 
expressed by Sprint. 
 OPC, AT&T, and Teleport commented that subsection (d)(2)(D) should be modified 
to reflect the requirement in the Federal Act, sec.251(c)(2)(B) that 
interconnection shall be provided at any technically feasible point within the 
carrier's network. 
 The commission notes that subsection (d)(2)(D) does not impose a technical or 
geographical limit on the number of points of interconnection. The commission 
therefore believes that the language adequately provides for interconnection at 
any technically feasible point. To the extent the Federal Act requires 
interconnection at any technical feasible point on the line-side of a carrier's 
network, it is outside the scope of this rule. The commission will make changes 
regarding this issue to the rule, where necessary, after evaluating the rules 
adopted by the FCC implementing the provisions of the Federal Act. 
 Teleport stated that the language regarding negotiations for additional points 
of interconnection should be replaced by language that would make the 
negotiation of additional points of interconnection mandatory. 
 The commission declines to make the change suggested by Teleport because 
Teleport's suggested change would require CTUs to negotiate additional points of 
interconnection, even if the requesting CTU is not interested in negotiating 
additional points of interconnection. 
 Teleport asserted that, with respect to the recovery of costs of construction 
and maintenance of facilities, subsection (d)(2)(D) should be modified to be 
consistent with the provision in the Federal Act, sec.252(d)(1) that 
interconnection rates shall be based on cost, be non-discriminatory, and may 
include a reasonable profit. 
 The commission declines to include any specific language regarding the recovery 
of costs until the standards of approval of agreements resulting from 
arbitration have been clearly delineated. 
 Proposed subsection (d)(2)(E) required the interconnecting CTUs to establish 
joint procedures for troubleshooting the jointly-used portions of the network. 
Each CTU would be responsible for maintaining its own network such that the 
overall integrity of the interconnected network is maintained to the highest 
quality possible for all customers, regardless of the CTU from which they obtain 
service. SWBT argued that the words highest quality possible in describing the 
integrity of the networks is an excessive standard. SWBT and TTA suggested 
changing this language to require the CTUs to meet industry standards and comply 
with the commission's quality of service standards under sec.23.61. Both TCTA 
and Time Warner stated that the language should be clarified to state that each 
CTU has the right and responsibility of monitoring its own network and 
maintaining its own network. 
 The commission agrees with SWBT and TTA that industry standards and sec.23. 61 
provide an adequate basis for describing the integrity of the network for 
purposes of maintaining the network; therefore, the language in subsection (d) 
(2)(E) is modified accordingly. The language is also clarified to address TCTA's 
and Time Warner's concern that CTUs be allowed to monitor their individual 
networks. 
 Teleport asserted that modified subsection (d)(2)(E) would permit the ILEC to 
arbitrarily determine that unnecessary and expensive maintenance and monitoring 
equipment be deployed by NCTUs. 
 The commission believes that Teleport's concern is without merit because the 
standards for maintaining the overall integrity of the networks must be 
consistent with industry standards and sec.23.61 of the commission's substantive 
rules. 
 Under proposed subsection (d)(2)(F), a CTU could provide intermediate transport 
arrangements between other interconnecting CTUs. AT&T suggested revising this 
subparagraph to require an ILEC with established transport arrangements between 
itself and any other ILEC to provide, with appropriate compensation, 
intermediate transport arrangements for a new CTU. At the public hearing, AT&T 
stated that such intermediate transport arrangements would be especially 
important for purposes of transporting EAS and EAS-like traffic. MFS held an 
opinion similar to that of AT&T, and suggested that the language be changed to 
reflect that it would be deemed unreasonable for an ILEC to refuse to provide 
intermediate transport if such facilities are already in place. Sprint opined 
that all parties involved in EAS-type arrangements need to be included in 
interconnection negotiations, and that this subparagraph should be clarified to 
state that an ILEC could be an intermediary between competing CTUs using EAS 
arrangements for their benefit. TTA stated that each ILEC should be able to 
negotiate its own agreements, and that it is insulting to suggest that SWBT or 
GTE should negotiate on behalf of another ILEC. In its reply comments, TSTCI 
commented that SWBT and GTE do not have the right or the responsibility to 
represent the interests of the TSTCI member companies. AT&T disagreed with the 
idea that all parties need to be included in the negotiations, because such a 
requirement would be unnecessarily burdensome on new CTUs. MCI preferred 
strengthening the language of this subparagraph to require DCTUs to provide 
intermediate transport arrangements upon request. SWBT disagreed with MCI's and 
AT&T's opinion that intermediate transport should be mandated, and urged the 
commission to adopt the language as proposed. SWBT argued that it should be able 
to negotiate the carriage of traffic on its facilities so that it can assess the 
volume of traffic, its capacities, and the appropriate compensation issues. AT&T 
stated at the public hearing that, because the total customer base will 
essentially stay the same in a competitive environment, it is unreasonable to 
expect an increase in traffic large enough to strain the network. AT&T did not 
oppose overall cooperative engineering requirements and/or agreements to prevent 
traffic overload. 
 For a CTU to meet its obligation to honor and recognize EAS/ELC/EMS 
arrangements under proposed subsection (d)(4)(C), Sprint and MFS opined that the 
language in subsection (d)(2)(F) should be revised to clarify that an ILEC 
should be an intermediary between CTUs that have an EAS or EAS-type arrangement 
between such ILECs. For efficiency reasons, the largest ILEC should be permitted 
to serve as a clearinghouse for ELCS/EMS/EAS billing, according to TCTA and Time 
Warner. 
 SWBT opined that it cannot be expected to serve as proxy for other ILECs who 
must be involved in the negotiations. SWBT stated that when one ILEC is involved 
in transporting traffic for a new CTU to another ILEC, the terminating ILEC 
cannot determine the exact origination of the call; as a result, it cannot 
jurisdictionally identify the call based on the appropriate exchange area and 
charge the appropriate interconnection rate. TTA commented that a CTU must 
negotiate interconnection arrangements with each of the other CTUs operating 
within its local calling area. 
 The commission's intent in drafting the provision regarding intermediate 
transport as permissive, rather than as mandatory, was to ensure that the 
transport of traffic of other CTUs would not impair the integrity of the network 
of the CTU providing the intermediate transport. The commission is, however, 
persuaded by the arguments put forth by AT&T, MFS, MCI, and Sprint regarding the 
importance of such intermediate transport, especially for purposes of 
transporting EAS and EAS-like traffic. The commission believes that it would be 
prohibitively expensive for new CTUs to deploy facilities required to complete 
calls to customers of other CTUs, given that the volume of traffic of new CTUs 
may not initially justify such deployment. The commission finds that, with the 
advent of competition, the customer base will not materially change, and hence 
the network of ILECs should not be strained. In the interest of promoting local 
exchange competition, the commission modifies the language in subsection 
(d)(2)(F) to mandate that a CTU with sufficient facilities in place provide 
intermediate transport between interconnecting CTUs, upon request. Over time, 
new CTUs may generate the volume of traffic which would economically justify the 
deployment of their own facilities. Regarding the issue of one CTU negotiating 
on behalf of another CTU, it was not the commission's intent to require the CTU 
providing intermediate transport to negotiate termination on behalf of another 
CTU. The commission believes that the new CTUs should negotiate the rates, 
terms, and conditions with all terminating CTUs, as well as with those that 
provide intermediate transport. The commission adds language to make this point 
clear. The commission finds that in order to facilitate negotiations and provide 
a forum for discussion of network efficiencies and intercompany billing 
arrangements, DCTUs within major metropolitan areas should, upon request, 
contact other CTUs and arrange meetings within 15 days of such request. The 
commission modifies the language in subsection (d)(2)(F) accordingly. 
 Proposed subsection (d)(2)(G) held each interconnecting CTU responsible for 
ensuring that traffic is properly routed to the connected CTU and 
jurisdictionally identified by percent usage factors. SWBT opined that the 
proposed rule should not mandate use of percent usage factors, but should allow 
use of other methods, particularly actual usage records. GTE and Sprint agreed 
that percent usage factors need not be mandated and that the parties should be 
able to negotiate routing and jurisdictional measuring arrangements. TTA 
suggested that the rule should require actual usage where possible and 
percentage usage factors only in the absence of actual data. In contrast, MFS 
stated that a requirement of using actual usage records, unless agreed to by the 
parties, would be excessively burdensome. Time Warner also stated that the use 
of actual data alone is too restrictive and that GTE's recommendation for 
negotiation is reasonable; however, Time Warner still supported the proposed 
language, which sets forth percent usage factors as a minimum standard. MCI 
opined that the rule precludes the option of using separate trunk groups for 
purposes of identifying local and toll traffic. In its reply comments, SWBT did 
not object to MCI's comments that separate trunk groups would better facilitate 
jurisdictional identification of calls, but SWBT observed that the cost of such 
trunk groups should be part of the negotiated compensation rate. SWBT reiterated 
that the best method available for determining the jurisdictional nature of 
traffic is self-recording and co-sharing of data with records containing 
originating and terminating points, i.e., actual records. SWBT also suggested 
that the commission adopt audit capabilities, similar to those included in the 
Percent of Interstate Usage rule (sec.23.23(d)(7)(A)), in order to guard against 
misreporting. 
 The commission recognizes that there may be several options available to 
determine the jurisdictional nature of traffic. However, the commission believes 
that it is important to retain the percent usage factors as a minimum standard 
while permitting negotiating CTUs to explore other options. The commission, 
therefore, adopts Time Warner's recommendation and revises subsection (d)(2)(G) 
to retain percent usage factors as a minimum standard unless the interconnecting 
CTUs agree upon another method to identify the jurisdictional nature of the 
traffic. 
 Under proposed subsection (d)(2)(H), interconnecting CTUs would allow each 
other non-discriminatory access to all facility rights-of-way, conduits, pole 
attachments, building entrance facilities, and other pathways, provided that 
such access is duly authorized by the property owner and/or appropriate 
governmental authority. GTE expressed concerns that subsection (d)(2)(H) may be 
interpreted as authorizing a right of access to an ILEC's physical facilities, 
and suggested deleting the language to protect property rights. MFS contended 
that GTE's arguments are without merit, and that this provision is needed to 
protect competitors pursuant to PURA 95, sec.3.2555. Sprint stated that non-
discriminatory compensation for rights-of-way, conduit, pole attachments, 
building entrances, and other pathways should be required and be subject to 
negotiations. TEXALTEL suggested that this subsection be revised to clarify that 
the CTU must obtain all required authorizations, i.e., no additional 
authorizations beyond those legally required. 
 The commission agrees with MFS that the provision in subsection (d)(2)(H) is 
necessary to ensure fair treatment for all competitors with respect to access to 
all facility rights-of-way, conduits, pole attachments, building entrance 
facilities, and other pathways; therefore GTE's assertion is rejected. The 
commission believes that to the extent subsection (d)(2)(H) requires non-
discriminatory access, Sprint's comment is adequately addressed. The commission 
modifies the language in subsection (d)(2)(H), as suggested by TEXALTEL, to 
ensure that the requesting CTU does not have to obtain authorizations beyond 
those legally required. 
 Teleport suggested that the requesting CTU should not have to demonstrate that 
it has acquired all the necessary authorizations because PURA 95, sec.3. 2555 
prevents municipalities from discriminating between ILECs and NCTUs. 
 The commission believes that if municipalities are prohibited from 
discriminating under PURA 95, then it would not be unduly burdensome for the 
requesting CTU to obtain the requisite authorizations. The commission, 
therefore, declines to make any changes to the rule. 
 Proposed subsection (d)(2)(I) required the physical interconnection between 
CTUs to be comparable to that existing between and/or among DCTUs. Physical 
collocation for the transmission of local exchange traffic could be implemented 
pursuant to a mutual agreement. Virtual collocation for the transmission of 
local exchange traffic could be implemented at the option of the CTU requesting 
the interconnection. Small ILECs could not be required to offer collocation 
until September 1, 1998. 
 SWBT argued that subsection (d)(2)(I) improperly imposes collocation 
requirements. Since collocation issues are pending in the courts, SWBT stated 
that the language in this subsection should be altered to allow collocation by 
negotiation. MFS disagreed with SWBT, stating that the proposed rule implements 
the requirements of PURA 95, sec.3.456. AT&T also disagreed with SWBT because as 
proposed, physical collocation is negotiable, and removal of the proposed 
language would signal a commission rejection of physical collocation altogether. 
AT&T supported both the commission's implementation of rules that are consistent 
with the FCC's collocation requirements and the rule's requirement that virtual 
collocation should be available upon request as a default for failed 
negotiations. Time Warner disagreed with SWBT, stating that new CTUs have 
extensive investment in existing collocation arrangements, which they should be 
allowed to use for interconnection for local exchange service. MCI expressed 
concerns with the use of the word comparable in that it might be interpreted to 
mean that NCTUs would be forced to interconnect in the same manner as ILECs have 
previously interconnected with each other. MCI suggested clarifying that the 
physical interconnection should be of a type and quality equal or superior to 
existing arrangements. 
 OPC recommended that the first sentence of subsection (d)(2)(I) should be 
modified to be consistent with the Federal Act,  sec.251(c)(2)(C), which 
requires interconnection to be at least equal in quality to that provided by the 
local exchange carrier to itself or to any subsidiary, affiliate, or any other 
party to which the carrier provides interconnection. OPC, AT&T, Time Warner, and 
Teleport suggested that consistent with the Federal Act, sec.251(c) (6), the 
rule should require a LEC to provide physical collocation unless the carrier 
demonstrates that physical collocation is not practical for technical reasons or 
space limitations. 
 The commission agrees with OPC's recommendation and modifies the language to 
require CTUs to provide each other physical interconnection in a non-
discriminatory manner. The commission notes that the term non-discriminatory is 
defined, under subsection (b)(13), as the type of treatment a CTU provides to 
itself or its affiliates or other CTUs. MCI's concern is adequately addressed by 
the modified language. The commission rejects SWBT's assertion that the rule 
improperly imposes collocation requirements. The commission also modifies 
subsection (d)(2)(I) to reflect the requirements regarding collocation under the 
Federal Act. 
 OPC stated that small ILECs are not exempted from providing physical 
collocation under the Federal Act. It remarked that subsection (d)(2)(I) should 
be modified to reflect the Federal Act requirements under which rural telephone 
companies must provide collocation upon a bona fide request and if the state 
commission finds such request to be technically feasible, not unduly burdensome 
and consistent with certain universal service requirements. 
 The commission rejects OPC's assertion regarding small ILECs. However, the 
commission recognizes that subsection (c)(2)(B)(i) exempts small ILECs from the 
requirements of the section including collocation. The commission, therefore, 
finds the exemption granted to small ILECs under subsection (d)(2) (I) to be 
redundant and therefore deletes the reference to small ILECs. 
 Proposed subsection (d)(2)(J) held interconnecting CTUs responsible for 
contacting administrators for their own NXX codes and for initiating NXX 
assignment requests. MCI stated that subsection (d)(2)(J) should include a 
requirement that numbering plan administrators treat all CTUs on a non-
discriminatory basis. OPC expressed concerns with the way in which NXX codes are 
administered, particularly with regard to fill rates. OPC suggested that the 
commission or the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) administrator be able to 
audit the fill rates and that a minimum fill rate should be achieved before the 
ILEC would be able to obtain additional codes for a particular central office. 
OPC and AT&T suggested that if the commission deems it necessary to consider 
number plan administration issues, then it should be done in a separate 
proceeding following resolution of this rulemaking. 
 The commission finds that the subject of number exhaustion and non-
discriminatory treatment by the NANP administrator merits extensive 
investigation; the commission is addressing these issues in a separate project. 
The commission makes minor modifications to subsection (d)(2)(J) for clarity. 
 Proposed subsection (d)(3)(A) required CTUs to exchange accurate information on 
billing records including, interconnection-point billing records, billing names, 
addresses, and Carrier Identification Codes (CICs) for billing jointly provided 
switched access services, on a timely basis. GTE and MCI recommended that the 
exchanged billing information should be consistent with standard industry 
billing arrangements. Sprint contended that, given the proprietary nature of the 
billing records, CTUs should be required to exchange only the minimum detail 
necessary for accurate billing of traffic. Sprint also pointed out that the 
requirement to include the CIC with the billing records is not feasible when 
interim number portability functionality (e.g., remote call forwarding) is 
involved in call processing between two service providers because two separate 
calls are involved in the completion of a single toll call to a customer of a 
new CTU. Sprint suggested that the rule should require interconnecting CTUs to 
negotiate a mutually acceptable settlement process for purposes of access 
billing. 
 The commission agrees with GTE and MCI that billing information should be 
exchanged in accordance with industry standards, so the language is modified to 
reflect this change. To address Sprint's concern, the language in subsection 
(d)(3)(A) is revised to require the inclusion of the CIC with billing records 
only where technically feasible. In the alternative, if the exchange of CIC 
codes is not technically feasible, the CTUs can agree on a mutually acceptable 
settlement process for purposes of billing interexchange carriers. 
 Under proposed subsection (d)(3)(B), CTUs would be required to enter into 
mutual billing and collection arrangements to ensure acceptance of each other's 
non-proprietary calling cards and operator-assisted calls. These arrangements 
would have to be comparable to those existing between and/or among DCTUs. GSC 
expressed concern that a CTU could potentially create a calling card or operator 
assisted service, deem it proprietary, and decline to allow its acceptance by 
other CTUs. GSC recommended the deletion of the word non-proprietary. AT&T 
disagreed with GSC's suggestion because proprietary cards are an element in the 
package of services offered today by competitive telephone providers and these 
cards are not meant to be used to purchase services from other telephone service 
providers that do not provide the services or features for which the card is 
intended. AT&T suggested modifying the language in (d)(3)(B) to clarify that the 
billing and collection arrangements between CTUs should be comparable to those 
existing between and/or among DCTUs as of the adoption date of this rule. 
 The commission agrees with AT&T that proprietary cards are designated as such 
by CTUs so that other CTUs may not process or use them, and therefore declines 
to make the changes recommended by GSC. The commission declines to accept AT&T's 
suggested language change regarding inclusion of the phrase as of the adoption 
date of this rule because the rule is intended to refer to arrangements between 
and/or among DCTUs existing on the adoption date of this section and to 
arrangements that are updated or adopted in the future. 
 AT&T proposed a new subsection (e)(2)(I) that deals with principles regarding 
end-user customers. The new provision would protect end-user customers from any 
degradation in service quality. It would also address issues ranging from 
installation, disconnection, and maintenance to the need for parity between 
resellers and ILECs in terms of promotions, discounts, and service guarantees. 
Further, it would also address issues such as billing for interexchange carrier 
services and notification to interexchange carriers if an end-user customer 
changes local exchange carriers. SWBT argued that AT&T's proposed addition is 
unnecessary because the protection against degradation in service is covered 
elsewhere in the rule. SWBT further argued that AT&T's proposed addition is 
outside the scope of the rule because the issue of resold services or unbundled 
loops belong in other proceedings and the billing and collection issues are 
dealt with in existing contracts between ILECs and interexchange carriers. With 
respect to AT&T's proposal requiring a CTU to notify interexchange carriers when 
an end-user customer changed local exchange carriers, TSTCI contended that an 
ILEC would not be able to determine whether a customer simply disconnected his 
or her service or whether an end-user customer switched to a competitor. TSTCI 
opined that such notification would require ILECs to incur unnecessary costs to 
set up a special procedure, and that it would violate customer privacy laws. 
TSTCI instead recommended that the new CTU should have the responsibility of 
notifying its customers of their long-distance carriers. 
 The commission agrees with SWBT that issues relating to installation, 
maintenance, and disconnection are addressed elsewhere in the rule, and the 
terms of promotions, discounts, and service guarantees for resale services are 
better addressed in the resale proceeding. The commission however believes that 
issues relating to notification and billing for interexchange carriers in the 
new competitive environment need to be addressed as part of interconnection. 
Subparagraphs (C) and (D) are added under subsection (d)(3) specifically to 
require a CTU that has been selected by an end-user customer to notify the 
primary interexchange carrier and to cooperate with interexchange carriers to 
ensure that end-user customers are properly billed for interexchange carrier 
services. 
 At the March 14 work session and in subsequent comments, AT&T suggested that 
new subsection (d)(3)(C) should be replaced in its entirety by language that 
would require CTUs providing the switching function to notify IXCs of the 
identity of a CTU reselling its service or the identity of the facilities-based 
carrier upon a customer's selection of the reseller CTU or the facilities-based 
carrier for the provision of local exchange service. 
 The commission declines to adopt the language suggested by AT&T. However, the 
commission adds language in subsection (d)(3)(C) that would require the 
disconnecting CTU to notify the primary IXC of the disconnection of a customer. 
 AT&T also suggested modifying the language in new subsection (d)(3)(D) to 
require all CTUs to cooperate with interexchange carriers to ensure proper 
billing for interexchange carrier services. 
 The commission modifies the language in subsection (d)(3)(D) as suggested by 
AT&T. 
 Under proposed subsection (d)(4)(B) (renumbered as subsection (d)(4)(C)), 
interconnection rates, terms, and/or conditions between DCTUs would have to be 
made publicly available. SWBT and TTA took strong exception to this requirement, 
claiming PURA 95, sec.3.458 is applicable only to new contracts regarding 
interconnection rates and does not extend to existing contracts negotiated under 
a different regulatory framework in which the public interest was the major 
concern. They claimed that existing contracts are therefore irrelevant to new 
CTUs seeking interconnection under PURA 95, sec.3.458. Time Warner refuted 
SWBT's assertion by stating that reasonable interconnection rates, terms, and 
conditions are critical for the development of a competitive local exchange 
market and that disclosure of such rates, terms, and conditions is therefore in 
the public interest. AT&T responded that if the old agreements remain in effect 
in the new competitive environment, then the claim of irrelevancy fails. 
 SWBT and TTA maintained that a case-by-case inquiry, subject to an appropriate 
protective order, rather than a review of all existing contracts would be 
reasonable in the context of the dispute resolution process. SWBT and TTA noted 
that the filing of all existing contracts between the 58 ILECs could prove to be 
an administrative burden on the commission. AT&T contended that the commission 
has the statutory obligation to ensure that the rates and regulations of ILECs 
are non-discriminatory. Therefore, any administrative burden associated with 
filing existing contracts is justified. Time Warner, AT&T, and MFS asserted that 
the commission has jurisdiction under PURA 95, sec.3.458 over the existing ILEC-
to-ILEC arrangements and that the filing requirement imposed by subsection 
(d)(4)(B) is reasonable and necessary to ensure that new CTUs are not unjustly 
discriminated against in their interconnection arrangements with ILECs. At the 
public hearing, TCTA concurred with Time Warner, AT&T, and MFS regarding the 
need to review inter-ILEC agreements. TEXALTEL stated that if the commission 
were to adopt TEXALTEL's interconnection proposal, discussed later in the 
preamble, the disclosure of EAS contracts would be unnecessary for purposes of 
interconnection. However, if the proposed language on exchange boundaries is 
retained, then the disclosure of EAS/ELCS agreements, as well as unwritten 
contracts, should be required, and such agreements should be made available to 
competitors, according to TEXALTEL. 
 The commission believes that the disclosure of inter-ILEC agreements as well as 
agreements between ILECs and new CTUs is necessary to ensure that rates are not 
discriminatory. The commission agrees with Time Warner and AT&T that if the 
inter-ILEC agreements remain in effect in the new competitive environment, then 
they are relevant and public disclosure of such rates, terms, and conditions 
would be appropriate to ensure reasonable interconnection arrangements. However, 
to reduce the administrative burden, the commission modifies renumbered 
subsection (h)(2) to require that contracts between or among DCTUs be disclosed 
only upon request and only to the extent that they relate to interconnection 
arrangements between or among CTUs for similar traffic. The commission also 
requires that disclosure be made pursuant to a commission-approved non-
disclosure or protective agreement. Subsection (d)(4) (B) is renumbered as 
subsection (d)(4)(C) and subsection (h)(4) is renumbered as subsection (h)(2). 
 Under proposed subsection (d)(4)(C) (renumbered as subsection (d)(4)(A)), the 
interconnection rates, terms, and conditions for local calls within an exchange 
area, as well as ELCS/EAS/EMS arrangements, would be negotiated on a non-
discriminatory basis between interconnecting CTUs. All CTUs would conduct 
negotiations and reach agreements, as necessary, to recognize and honor existing 
and future ELCS/EAS/EMS arrangements, commission-approved exchange boundaries, 
and established LATA boundaries. NCTUs would not be precluded from establishing 
their own local calling areas for purposes of retail telephone service pricing. 
 MCI agreed that negotiations to accommodate ELCS/EMS/EAS arrangements are 
appropriate but did not believe that the commission can mandate an agreement as 
a result of these negotiations. MCI, therefore, recommended deleting the 
requirement that parties reach agreement to recognize and honor existing and 
future EAS/ELCS/EMS arrangements. 
 The commission has deleted the requirement that CTUs negotiate and reach 
agreement to recognize and honor existing and future EAS/ELCS/EMS arrangements; 
hence MCI's concern is adequately addressed. 
 OPC and the City of Plano urged the commission to consider alternatives to the 
proposed rule which requires competitive telephone companies to mirror current 
exchange boundaries. Both commenters cited the local calling problem experienced 
by Plano to illustrate their concern. The City stated that approximately 90% of 
the City is served by GTE and 10% is served by SWBT. It explained that calls 
originating in SWBT's portion of the City and crossing the exchange boundary 
between SWBT and GTE are considered long-distance calls. Although EAS is 
offered, many residents do not subscribe to it because it is priced at $30 per 
month. The City opined that the rule should be crafted to permit a competitive 
telephone company to draw its boundaries so that the entire City is a local 
calling area. 
 GTE and SWBT responded that there is nothing in this rule that would prohibit 
new CTUs from offering local calls throughout the city of Plano. SWBT contended 
the rates charged by a competitor to its end-user customer need not equate to 
the interconnection (wholesale) rates the competitor pays for terminating 
traffic in another CTU's exchange. TEXALTEL rejected SWBT's view that wholesale 
rates should not affect retail rates by pointing out that competitors are less 
inclined to be innovative with calling scopes when underlying interconnection 
rates are unrealistically high. 
 SWBT and TTA contended that new CTUs can package local and long distance 
services or cable services, for example, and thereby avoid directly passing the 
interconnection rates to their end-user customers. TTA claimed that such 
packaging options are not available to ILECs today. TEXALTEL expressed concern 
that rules as crafted would permit ILECs to control the calling scopes of new 
competitors. Such control would cause competitors to offer services that are the 
same as an ILEC's services and merely permit competition through price or other 
limited means and thereby discourage innovation in services and features. 
TEXALTEL claimed that EAS issues will resolve themselves in a truly competitive 
market. 
 TEXALTEL expressed concern that if EAS is not included as a part of 
interconnection, a competitor's ability to complete its customer's calls on a 
seamless, high quality basis would be delayed, and its entry into the 
competitive market would be thwarted. Time Warner and TEXALTEL contended that 
the interconnection rates for calls between an NCTU's customers and ELCS/EAS/EMS 
areas of the ILECs should be no less favorable to the new CTUs than currently 
existing between ILECs. 
 TCTA, Time Warner, and MFS requested clarification of the requirement imposed 
on CTUs to recognize and honor EAS/ELCS/EMS arrangements. TCTA opined that the 
rule should be clarified as to whether new CTUs are required to match the prices 
and surcharges of ILECs for local service and ELCS. MFS commented that the 
reference to future EAS/ELCS/EMS arrangements creates unknown future obligations 
for both new CTUs and ILECs. 
 TSTCI recommended that, in areas which have mandatory calling scopes, all local 
exchange providers, including new CTUs, should be required to provide the 
minimum calling scopes. Alternatively, the ILEC should be released from its 
obligations to provide non-optional extended area and local calling 
arrangements. 
 Based on the comments received, the commission finds the issue of exchange 
boundaries and appropriate interconnection rates to be the most contentious 
issue in this rulemaking project The commission notes that PURA 95, sec.3.458 
defines interconnection as the termination of local intraexchange traffic of 
another local exchange company or holder of a SPCOA within the local calling 
area of the terminating local exchange company or certificate holder for calls 
that originate and terminate in Texas. Furthermore, the interconnection rates 
established pursuant to PURA 95,  sec.3.458 do not govern rates for the existing 
termination of cellular or interexchange traffic. PURA 95, sec.3.458(g) states 
that the commission may not use interconnection rates established pursuant to 
the section as a basis to alter interconnection rates for other services. The 
ILECs contend that provisions of the statute would require all CTUs to honor the 
ILEC's exchange boundaries to determine the jurisdiction of the call and that 
other interconnection rates, such as switched access rates, cannot be altered as 
a result of this section. The commission notes that the term exchange area is 
not defined in the statute. PURA 95, sec.3.458(a) is ambiguous with respect to 
whether the jurisdiction of the call is defined by the certificate holder 
originating the call or by the certificate holder terminating the call. 
Furthermore, interexchange calls under the current commission-approved exchange 
boundary maps, may be local calls (as when the local calling area of the ILEC 
encompasses more than one exchange), EAS/ELCS calls, or interexchange calls 
subject to switched access charges. 
 The commission believes that interconnection (wholesale) rates, paid by a CTU 
to the terminating CTU, are very important in determining what can be offered on 
the retail level by the CTU. While it is true that CTUs can package various 
services, such as long-distance service and cable service, with local service in 
order to mitigate the impact of very high interconnection rates on the retail 
rates, the commission concludes that unreasonable interconnection rates will not 
encourage innovations in service features or promote local exchange competition. 
 The commission has renumbered subsection (d)(4)(C) as subsection (d)(4)(A) (i). 
To address the concerns raised by TEXALTEL, TCTA, Time Warner, MFS, City of 
Plano, OPC, and TSTCI, the commission delineates the criteria for setting rates, 
terms, and conditions for local traffic as well as EAS/ELCS traffic. Under 
renumbered subsection (d)(4)(A)(i), local traffic which originates and 
terminates within the local calling area of a single DCTU shall be subject to 
local interconnection rates. The local interconnection rates will also apply to 
mandatory EAS rate calling arrangements between exchanges of the same DCTU. With 
respect to calls governed by a DCTU's ELCS arrangement, NCTUs will receive the 
arrangements that are not less favorable than those DCTUs provide to each other 
if the NCTU offers, on a mandatory basis, the same minimum ELCS calling scope to 
its customers within the ELCS calling area that a DCTU offers to its customers. 
This requirement does not preclude an NCTU from offering the ELCS minimum scope 
at any charge it deems appropriate or even offering it at no charge. With 
respect to mandatory EAS calling arrangements between exchanges of two or more 
DCTUs, the traffic of NCTUs shall be terminated at rates, terms, and conditions 
that are not less favorable than those between DCTUs for similar mandatory EAS 
traffic. With respect to optional flat rate calling arrangements between 
exchanges of one DCTU or between exchanges of two or more DCTUs, DCTUs shall 
terminate local traffic of NCTUs at rates, terms, and conditions that are not 
less favorable than those between DCTUs for similar traffic. In the event, the 
terms and conditions (such as the extent of facilities deployed) between an NCTU 
and a DCTU are different from those existing between DCTUs for similar EAS 
traffic, the criteria for setting rates for mandatory or optional calling 
arrangements is set forth in subsection (d) (4)(A)(i). 
 An additional provision is also included to accommodate NCTUs that may wish to 
define a local calling area, which is greater than the local calling area of 
SWBT or GTE, when NCTUs operate in exchanges contiguous to SWBT's and GTE's 
exchanges. A DCTU with more than one million access lines shall negotiate with 
an NCTU for the termination of traffic originated by the NCTU between the 
contiguous service areas of the DCTU and the NCTU, if the NCTU includes such 
traffic as part of its customer's local calling area. These interconnection 
arrangements shall be not less favorable than the arrangements between DCTUs for 
similar traffic. NCTUs continue to have the right to define local calling areas 
for purposes of retail pricing. In pricing their retail offerings, NCTUs are not 
required to match the charges or surcharges levied by ILECs for their retail 
offerings. 
 TEXALTEL proposed an interconnection framework under which any CTU is entitled 
to local interconnection rates to terminate its customers' local exchange 
calling based on exchanges defined by the competitor. A competitive local 
provider would be entitled to terminate, on local interconnection circuits, only 
local exchange traffic originated from its local exchange customers. In its 
initial comments, TEXALTEL proposed limiting, for purposes of obtaining 
interconnection, the ability of a CTU to define its exchange area, and therefore 
calling area, to the areas where the ILECs provide some form of EAS or EAS-like 
services. This proposal would provide some protection for the ILECs from loss of 
access revenues, and GTE appeared to support the proposal. Concerned that its 
initial proposal would still put ILECs in the position of defining a 
competitor's calling area, TEXALTEL, in its reply comments, modified its 
interconnection proposal. Under TEXALTEL's modified proposal, as long as SWBT 
and GTE are limited to providing services within LATAs, interLATA traffic 
carried by competitors would not be terminated on local interconnection circuits 
(except where waivers exist for specific interLATA EAS arrangements). TEXALTEL 
argued that competitors would not engage in predatory pricing of toll services, 
when customers are willing to pay toll rates, because business realities would 
cause competitors not to forego toll or other revenues that would put their 
price below market levels. ILECs would be eligible to obtain local 
interconnection rates throughout the expanded areas when they expand their local 
calling scopes. According to TEXALTEL, the proposed requirement in subsection 
(d)(4)(C) would not benefit end-user customers because the commission has no 
jurisdiction over the switched access rates charged by new CTUs. Therefore, the 
new CTU would have the incentive to charge very high switched access rates to 
the ILECs for termination of their EAS traffic, which could lead ILECs to 
discontinue local calling to customers of new CTUs. 
 OPC and AT&T recommended NCTUs be allowed to define their exchange boundaries 
for purposes of retail pricing. At the public hearing, AT&T stated that a new 
CTU should be allowed to define its exchange areas for both retail purposes and 
interconnection purposes, and such exchange areas may be limited to encompass 
the current EAS or EAS-type calling areas of ILECs. 
 SWBT and GTE are strongly opposed to any suggestions that would allow new CTUs 
to define their exchange boundaries for the purpose of paying the 
interconnection rates. SWBT and GTE asserted that exchanges are already 
established and represent the only viable method for determining the 
jurisdictional rating of a particular call. They contended that changing 
existing boundaries is tantamount to changing the terms of the access tariff. 
They also argued that changing existing exchange boundaries represents an 
attempt to avoid paying the established rates for interexchange traffic 
termination by manipulating exchange areas and boundaries under the guise of 
interconnection. According to SWBT, the interconnection provisions under PURA 
95, sec.3.458 do not apply to interexchange traffic. TTA opined that if new CTUs 
were able to avoid payment of switched access rates for calls that are today 
classified as toll, it would not only advantage the competitor but would also 
burden the remaining ILEC customers with recovery of contribution currently 
included in switched access rates. 
 The commission believes that TEXALTEL's proposal permitting CTUs to define 
LATA-wide calling areas would offer choices to customers in areas of Texas that 
will experience competition in the near future, but it may have an adverse 
impact on the local exchange rates of customers of ILECs located in areas that 
will not experience competition. This is because switched access rates in Texas 
have been traditionally set at a high level to keep the local exchange rates 
low, especially in high-cost areas. Therefore, the commission does not adopt 
TEXALTEL's proposal. The commission believes that using the ILECs' exchange 
boundaries for purposes of determining interconnection rates is fair and 
equitable as a starting point for competitive interconnection arrangements. The 
commission therefore declines to adopt OPC and AT&T's suggestion that a CTU be 
allowed to defined their own exchange boundaries. However, the commission notes 
that subsection (d)(4)(A)(i) does not preclude a CTU from establishing its own 
local calling areas or prices for purposes of retail telephone service 
offerings. 
 GTE, MFS, TCTA, and Time Warner suggested that the commission should initiate 
an investigation to address the numerous, complex issues relating to calling 
scopes, exchange boundaries, EAS arrangements, and the transition from a 
traditional monopoly environment to a competitive local exchange market. Time 
Warner did not object to retaining existing exchange boundaries, for purposes of 
intercompany compensation, for a maximum of two years from the inception of 
meaningful competition. SWBT contended that Time Warner's suggestion to adopt a 
two-year plan is not contemplated in the statute. SWBT suggested at the public 
hearing that, while it may be appropriate to delineate the issues that the 
commission will investigate within a certain time period, it is inappropriate to 
presume the outcome of such an investigation. TSTCI expressed concern that Time 
Warner's proposal that exchange boundaries may be retained for two years would 
negate the three year moratorium regarding competitive entry that small ILECs 
received from the legislature. 
 The commission recognizes that the requirements of subsection (d)(4)(A)(i) are 
based on the ILEC's boundaries and service offerings. The commission finds these 
requirements to be fair and equitable as a starting point for competitive 
interconnection arrangements. It is important to note that PURA 95, sec.3.458(f) 
gives the commission the authority to establish rules that are responsive to 
developments in the local exchange market. The commission concludes that an 
investigation into the issue of exchange areas and related issues is necessary 
to determine whether local interconnection rates should apply to traffic in 
addition to the traffic described in this section. Therefore, subsection 
(d)(4)(A)(ii) requires that the commission complete an initial review of the 
policies regarding the application of local interconnection rates to traffic not 
included in subclause (I) of subsection (d)(4)(A)(i). 
 At the March 14 work session and in subsequent comments, several commenters 
suggested further amendments to the modified language. A summary of the comments 
and commission responses follow. 
 Time Warner suggested that the rates, terms, and conditions for traffic between 
an NCTU and a DCTU, under subsection (d)(4)(B)(i)(I)-(V), should be no less 
favorable than the rates, terms, and conditions between DCTUs for similar 
traffic. 
 The commission agrees with Time Warner's suggestion and modifies subsection 
(d)(4)(B)(i)(I)-(V) accordingly. 
 Teleport asserted that requiring new entrants to mirror the calling plans of 
the ILECs would result in an inefficient use of numbering resources. SWBT stated 
that the optional EAS calling plan is the only calling plan for which ILECs 
assign separate NXX codes to end-user customers for billing purposes. 
 The commission is concerned about the potential for the accelerated use of NXX 
codes as a result of competition in the local exchange market. The commission is 
examining the issue of the inefficient use of NXX codes in Project Number 15345. 
 OPC stated that subsection (d)(4)(A) should incorporate the pricing standards 
for interconnection as set forth in the Federal Act, sec.252(d)(1) which 
provides that interconnection charges shall be based on cost and may include a 
reasonable profit. 
 The commission declines to adopt the pricing standards in the rule at this time 
before a thorough examination of the standards under the Federal Act is 
conducted. Such examination will be conducted by the commission in another 
proceeding. 
 Teleport suggested that consistent with the Federal Act,  sec.252(d)(2)(A), 
subsection (d)(4)(A) should be modified to require local traffic mutual 
compensation arrangements to be bill and keep when the additional cost for 
terminating calls is not quantifiable. 
 The commission believes that issue of specific interconnection rates, terms and 
conditions should be negotiated or resolved in the compulsory arbitration 
process and therefore declines to adopt Teleport's suggestion. 
 AT&T suggested that subsection (d)(4)(A) should be modified to require 
interconnection rates to be cost-based. It suggested that subsection (d)(4)(A) 
(i)(I)-(V) should be modified to require that each type of traffic specified in 
the subsection would be subject to the lesser of cost-based interconnection 
rates or the rates in effect between or among ILECs for such traffic. 
 The commission declines to adopt AT&T's recommendation because the issue of 
cost-based rates will be addressed in the compulsory arbitration process. 
 Teleport contended that subsection (d)(4)(A)(i) (I)-(IV) should be deleted 
because forcing NCTUs to enter into the traffic termination arrangements 
included in the EAS/ELCS calling plans of ILECs, without satisfying the 
standards set in sec.23.49, would violate Texas law. 
 The commission disagrees with Teleport's assertion. The commission believes 
that interconnection rates established under subsection (d)(4)(A)(i) ensure 
that, at a minimum, NCTUs have access to the same interconnection arrangements 
as those existing between DCTUs. Except for requiring that NCTUs offer the same 
minimum ELCS calling scope, NCTUs are not precluded from defining their local 
calling areas. NCTUs may set prices for retail purposes without meeting the 
requirements or standards in sec.23.49. The commission therefore declines to 
delete subsection (d)(4)(A)(i). 
 Teleport contended that subsection (d)(4)(A)(i)(I)-(IV) would preempt NCTUs 
from negotiating mutual compensation arrangements for the termination of local 
traffic, allowed under the Federal Act, sec.251(c)(1) and PURA 95, sec.3.458(b). 
 The commission disagrees with Teleport's assertion because the rule mandates 
negotiations for compensation arrangements but at the same time ensures that 
NCTUs will have access to the rates, terms, and conditions that are not less 
favorable than those existing between DCTUs. In addition, if the terms and 
conditions between an NCTU and a DCTU are different from those existing between 
DCTUs, the rates applicable to the NCTU will be adjusted to reflect the 
difference in costs to the DCTU. 
 OPC recommended that consistent with the Federal Act, sec.252(i), subsection 
(d)(4)(B) should be modified to require a CTU to provide any interconnection 
element or service provided under an approved agreement to any other 
telecommunications carrier. 
 The commission believes that the rule requires provision of non-discriminatory 
access to interconnection facilities, services and other arrangements which is 
consistent with the Federal Act, sec.252(i). 
 Proposed subsection (d)(4)(D) (renumbered as subsection (d)(4)(B)(i)) required 
CTUs, involved in interconnection negotiations, to ensure that all possible 
negotiation opportunities, including the dispute resolution process, are 
completed prior to the termination of the first commercial call. MFS, TEXALTEL, 
TCTA, MCI, and Time Warner urged the commission to allow a CTU to terminate its 
first commercial call before all possible negotiation opportunities have been 
completed. These commenters contended that PURA 95, sec.3.458 expressly 
contemplates that if negotiations are unsuccessful for any reason, 
interconnection should proceed under a bill and keep arrangement for an interim 
nine-month period, during which the commission would establish permanent 
interconnection rates, terms, and conditions. MFS, therefore, recommended the 
addition of language that would not delay a CTU from terminating traffic until a 
docketed proceeding is completed or until it completes negotiations despite the 
non-cooperation of another party. MCI and TCTA opined that it is extremely 
difficult to ascertain whether all possible negotiation opportunities have been 
commenced; therefore, the proposed language would deny the new CTU the ability 
to terminate any traffic. TCTA and Time Warner suggested modifying the language 
to require that all reasonable negotiation opportunities are completed prior to 
the termination of the first commercial call. Time Warner suggested that a CTU 
verify by affidavit that all reasonable negotiation opportunities failed prior 
to the effective date of the section or the completion of a dispute resolution 
process and the first commercial call can then be terminated on a bill and keep 
basis. TEXALTEL recommended that the language be modified to reflect that the 
dispute resolution process in proposed subsection (g)(1) through (6) must be 
completed prior to the termination of the first commercial call. GTE agreed that 
CTUs should be allowed to begin providing service once technical interconnection 
issues and basic terms and conditions have been resolved and good-faith 
negotiations have reached the point of submitting issues for dispute resolution. 
 Subsection (d)(4)(D) is renumbered as subsection (d)(4)(B)(i). The commission 
agrees with MCI and TCTA that the language should be revised to require that 
interconnecting CTUs complete all reasonable negotiation opportunities. Under 
the language as proposed, a new CTU, despite making a good-faith effort to 
complete all negotiations that it deems necessary, may be prevented from 
terminating any traffic. The commission believes that concerns raised regarding 
the ability of a CTU to exercise its statutory right to terminate traffic under 
an interim nine-month bill and keep arrangement, if negotiations fail, is valid; 
therefore the reference to the dispute resolution process is deleted. 
Furthermore, the commission clarifies that the reciprocal termination of traffic 
between interconnecting CTUs at no charge will take place in the event the 
negotiating parties fail to reach an agreement. If the negotiating parties have 
reached an agreement on rates, terms, and conditions, then the termination of 
traffic will be subject to such negotiated arrangements. 
 SWBT stated that the language should be modified to clarify that the bill and 
keep arrangement applies only to intraexchange traffic. AT&T suggested replacing 
the words new entrant with ACTU. 
 The commission declines to make changes proposed by SWBT because the term 
intraexchange does not add any meaning to the type of call subject to the 
interconnection rates. The commission replaces the terms new entrant with new 
CTU for clarity. However, because a new entrant can be a DCTU or an NCTU, the 
commission declines to make the change proposed by AT&T. 
 Teleport recommended amending renumbered subsection (d)(4)(B)(i) to be 
consistent with PURA 95, sec.3.458(c). It suggested that the reference to call 
carriage between carriers should be added to the language referring to the date 
on which the first commercial call is terminated between the carriers. 
 The commission agrees with Teleport and adds the words between CTUs to 
renumbered subsection (d)(4)(B)(i). 
 Teleport stated that the reference to a nine-month commission proceeding to 
establish reciprocal interconnection rates, terms, and conditions in renumbered 
subsection (d)(4)(B)(i) should be changed to make the provision consistent with 
the Federal Act, sec.252(b) which requires negotiating parties to submit to 
compulsory arbitration if they fail to reach agreement. 
 The commission modifies renumbered subsection (d)(4)(B)(i) such that reciprocal 
interconnection rates, terms, and conditions will be established pursuant to the 
compulsory arbitration process in subsection (g). 
 Renumbered subsection (d)(4)(B)(i) does not require new CTUs to submit cost 
studies for three years from termination of the first commercial call. 
 Teleport asserted that neither PURA 95 nor the Federal Act contemplates new 
CTUs to ever perform cost studies. 
 The commission notes that PURA 95, sec.3.458(d) permits the commission, upon 
receiving a complaint, to require cost studies from a new entrant three years 
after the date the first commercial call is terminated. Furthermore, the Federal 
Act, sec.252(d)(2)(A) requires that the terms and conditions for interconnection 
provide for the recovery by each carrier of costs associated with the transport 
and termination of calls on the basis of reasonable approximation of the 
additional costs of terminating calls. The commission therefore rejects 
Teleport's assertion and declines to modify renumbered subsection (d)(4)(B)(i). 
 Subsection (d)(4)(E) (renumbered as subsection (d)(4)(B)(ii)) would permit an 
ILEC to adopt the tariffed interconnection rates approved for a larger ILEC. 
AT&T suggested replacing the term new entrant with ACTU. Additionally, AT&T 
recommended an explicit requirement that interconnection rates, terms, and 
conditions should be tariffed and an ILEC adopting the rates of a larger ILEC 
should file tariffs reflecting such rates. Sprint commented that the language 
should be clarified to permit adoption of the interconnection rates of a larger 
ILEC whether such rates are filed as tariffed rates, filed by negotiated 
contract, or agreed to as part of the dispute resolution process. 
 Subsection (d)(4)(E) is renumbered as subsection (d)(4)(B)(ii). The commission 
replaces the terms new entrant with new CTU for clarity. However, because a new 
entrant can be a DCTU or a ACTU, the commission declines to make the change 
proposed by AT&T. The commission notes that PURA 95, sec.3.458(e) permits an 
ILEC to adopt the interconnection rates approved for a larger ILEC without 
demonstrating cost justification. Because the dispute resolution process under 
proposed subsection (g) is eliminated, the reference to interconnection rates, 
terms, and conditions resulting from the dispute resolution process is 
unnecessary and is eliminated. The commission, therefore, finds that it is 
appropriate to permit an ILEC to adopt the rates of a larger ILEC when those 
rates have been approved either as a result of a negotiated agreement or a 
compulsory arbitration process. The commission adopts AT&Ts recommendation by 
requiring an ILEC that adopts a larger ILECs rates, to file tariffs referencing 
the appropriate ILECs rates. 
 Renumbered subsection (d)(4)(B)(ii) permits ILECs to mirror the tariffed 
interconnection rates of larger ILECs and permits new CTUs to mirror such rates. 
 Teleport stated that the Federal Act, sec.252(h) would require only public 
filing of the agreement with the commission instead of tariff filings and that a 
local exchange carrier is required to make available interconnection, service, 
or network element upon the same terms and conditions as those provided in the 
agreement to any requesting telecommunications carrier. 
 The commission believes that it would be appropriate to retain the language as 
drafted because, under the rule, telecommunication carriers are required to 
provide the same rates, terms, and conditions to other carriers whether filed as 
a tariff or as an agreement. 
 Proposed subsection (d)(4)(A) set forth exceptions in the application of 
interconnection rates, terms, and conditions. 
 The commission deletes this subparagraph because renumbered subsection (d) 
(4)(A)(i) clarifies the types of traffic to which the interconnection rates, 
terms, and conditions established pursuant to this section apply. 
 Under proposed subsection (e)(1), interconnecting CTUs would provide each 
other, pursuant to a mutual agreement, access to ancillary services such as 
repair services, E-911, 411, directory, and operator services. 
 Consumers Union and OPC supported the minimum interconnection arrangements 
under proposed subsection (e)(1). Consumers Union remarked that new CTUs should 
bear certain responsibilities dictated by the public interest and that ILECs 
should not misuse their dominant position to prevent NCTUs from providing vital 
emergency services and directory listings. 
 Teleport and GTE Mobilnet stated that the commission's preliminary order in 
Docket Numbers 14654, 14655, and 14659, relating to resale of local loops, 
required issues relating to 911, operator services, directories, and directory 
assistance to be addressed in this rulemaking proceeding. Teleport, therefore, 
proposed highly detailed rules on these issues and GTE Mobilnet requested 
further clarification on these issues. 
 The commission declines to adopt Teleport's suggestion to include highly 
detailed requirements because the commission's intent is to provide guidelines 
for negotiations and to permit parties to explore various means of achieving the 
necessary interconnection arrangements. The commission believes that minimum 
interconnection arrangements as modified are adequately clarified and GTE 
Mobilnet's comments are, therefore, addressed. 
 SWBT and GTE suggested that the rule explicitly state that CTUs shall negotiate 
reasonable compensation for providing services to one another to satisfy the 
minimum interconnection arrangements. MFS contended that because PURA 95, 
sec.3.458 contemplates that the commission will approve negotiated rates for 
interconnection arrangements, there is no reason to expect that ILECs will not 
be compensated. However, MFS stated that CTUs may well decide to provide each 
other services or facilities on a reciprocal, in-kind exchange basis. 
 The commission believes that SWBT's concern regarding compensation is addressed 
by the requirement in subsection (d)(1)(D) that parties must negotiate rates, 
terms, and conditions for interconnection arrangements. 
 AT&T recommended that the phrase non-discriminatory access be inserted in 
subsection (e) and that any agreement reached pursuant to the subsection (e) be 
tariffed. 
 The commission modifies the language in subsection (e)(1) to include the term 
non-discriminatory as suggested by AT&T. However, the commission declines to 
accept AT&T's recommendation regarding filing of tariffs for reasons enumerated 
later in the preamble. 
 SWBT interpreted proposed subsection (e)(1) to mandate that a CTU offer repair 
services to other CTUs and strongly objected to such a requirement. It noted 
that it does not offer repair services to independent ILECs. Time Warner 
strongly opposed SWBT's proposed deletion of repair services because in 
instances involving collocated equipment, SWBT does not permit other parties to 
repair facilities ordered by the interconnector. AT&T supported the retention of 
the reference to repair services with the understanding that an ILEC is required 
to provide repair services to resellers of its services as well as provide 
information to new CTUs regarding the scope, timing, and completion of repairs 
on a real-time and continuing basis. At the public hearing, SWBT agreed that 
ILECs would repair their own facilities regardless of whether they are used for 
the ILECs' own retail use or resold by other CTUs. 
 With respect to repair services, it is not the commission's intent to require 
interconnecting CTUs to repair the facilities of other CTUs. To address the 
concerns raised by SWBT, AT&T, and Time Warner, subsection (e)(1) (A) is added 
to specifically state that a CTU is required to provide repair services for its 
own facilities. This requirement applies if such facilities are used by the CTU 
for either retail purposes or provided by the CTU for resale purposes or if such 
facilities are ordered by another CTU for purposes of collocation. 
 Sprint commented that requirements regarding directories should be negotiated 
and the rates, terms, and conditions should be reasonable, non-discriminatory, 
and consistent with those charged by ILEC for the same services. 
 The commission believes that Sprint's suggestion is addressed because 
subsection (e)(1) requires CTUs to provide each other non-discriminatory access 
to directories pursuant to a mutual agreement. The commission further defines 
the term non-discriminatory in subsection (b)(13) as the type of treatment that 
a CTU provides to itself, or its affiliates, or other CTUs. 
 Proposed subsection (e)(1)(A) (renumbered as subsection (e)(1)(B)(i)) held each 
CTU responsible for ordering the trunk groups necessary to provide E-911 
services as well as routing and interconnecting traffic originating on its 
network to the appropriate CTU's E-911 tandems as designated by the appropriate 
E-911 authority. ACSEC commented that, because some CTUs may be providing local 
telephone service for the first time and because of the potentially tragic, life 
threatening situations that could occur from any confusion or misunderstanding, 
it is critical to modify the language of this requirement: 1) to state that the 
number 9-1-1 is intended only for emergency service; 2) to state the 
requirements for Automatic Number Identification (ANI) , Selective Routing, and 
Automatic Location Identification (ALI); 3) to define what is intended by 
requiring routing of interconnecting traffic to the appropriate CTU tandems; and 
4) to define E-911 to include ANI or any other enhanced services. Teleport and 
Consumers Union concurred with ACSEC's suggestions. MCI stated that the rule 
should permit use of facilities other than the ILEC's facilities for purposes of 
connection with the E-911 tandem. ACSEC replied that MCI's concern would be 
addressed adequately by adopting ACSEC's requested modifications. 
 Subsection (e)(1)(A) is renumbered as subsection (e)(1)(B). The commission 
concurs with ACSEC that adequate and efficient provisioning of E-911 services is 
a prerequisite for competition in the local exchange market. The commission 
finds ACSEC's recommended language to be reasonable; ACSEC's language is, 
therefore, adopted in renumbered subsection (e)(1)(B)(i). The commission 
believes that MCI raised a valid concern and modifies the subsection to include 
the term provisioning in subclause (I) of subsection (e)(1)(B)(i). 
 MCI suggested that language should be included in renumbered subsection (e) 
(1)(B)(i)(IV) to require the appropriate CTU and/or appropriate 9-1-1 entity to 
provide routing information to a CTU for routing purposes. 
 The commission agrees with MCI and modifies the renumbered subsection (e)(1) 
(B)(i)(IV) accordingly. 
 Under proposed subsection (e)(1)(B) (renumbered as subsection (e)(1)(B)(ii)) , 
each interconnecting CTU would be responsible for providing to the local 
authority and the appropriate CTU, accurate and timely current information for 
all published, nonpublished, and nonlisted information associated with its 
customers for the purposes of emergency or E-911 services. 
 ACSEC recommended that the language be modified to clarify what is considered 
accurate and timely for purposes of 9-1-1 database information for the benefit 
of the new CTUs. ACSEC suggested that the information would be considered timely 
if it is delivered within 24 hours to the appropriate CTU and the local 
authority and/or placed into the database by the appropriate CTU within 24 
hours. AT&T recommended that the operative beginning time for ACSEC's proposal, 
for information to be delivered and placed into the 9-1-1 database within 24 
hours, needs to be clarified. At the public hearing, ACSEC clarified that 
information must be delivered within 24 hours of receipt of any changes in the 
information. 
 Subsection (e)(1)(B) is renumbered as subsection (e)(1)(B)(ii). The commission 
finds ACSEC's proposed clarification regarding accurate and timely information 
to be reasonable and has added the requested language. 
 ACSEC suggested language that clarifies subsection (e)(1)(B)(ii). ACSEC also 
recommended that the commission delete the minimum accuracy standard, in 
subsection (e)(1)(B)(ii)(III), for 9-1-1 records at a percentage of 99% or 
greater in light of the fact that there may not be sufficient information in the 
record to support the percentage. Instead it suggested language that would set 
the accuracy as close to 100% as possible. It also suggested that the issue of 
minimum accuracy standard for 9-1-1 records should be evaluated in a separate 
project. 
 The commission modifies the language in subsection (e)(1)(B)(ii)(III) as 
suggested by ACSEC. It also agrees with ACSEC that it would be appropriate to 
evaluate the issue of a minimum accuracy standard for 9-1-1 records in a 
separate project. 
 While SWBT agreed with the intent of proposed subsection (e)(1)(B), it 
recommended that the language be clarified to avoid unauthorized and unnecessary 
disclosure of non-published numbers. ACSEC commented that SWBT's confidentiality 
concerns relating to the release of nonpublished numbers can be addressed by 
requiring new CTUs to execute confidentiality agreements with each other similar 
to those used by the small ILECs for 9-1-1 database purposes and by requiring 
that the information be used for only 9-1-1 purposes. 
 The commission addresses SWBT's concern regarding proprietary information by 
adding subsection (e)(1)(B)(ii)(IV) which requires interconnecting CTUs to 
execute confidentiality agreements with each other to prevent the unauthorized 
disclosure of non-published numbers. 
 MCI commented that for CTUs to implement the requirements of proposed 
subsection (e)(1)(B), NCTUs should be permitted access via a mechanized 
interface to the same systems used by the DCTU to edit their customer data. This 
would ensure the uniform listing of street addresses for the benefit of the 
emergency personnel. Furthermore, NCTUs need automated access to the ALI 
database for purposes of adding, deleting, or modifying NCTUs' customer data. 
ACSEC opined that, in the interest of protecting the integrity of the 9-1-1 
database, the safer practice is to require NCTUs to be responsible for accurate 
and timely transmittal of the 9-1-1 database information, as well as the daily 
updates, to the appropriate CTU, who will then be responsible for directly 
inputting information into and deleting information from the 9-1-1 database in a 
timely and accurate manner. ACSEC, however, agreed that NCTUs should be allowed 
reasonable verification procedures for the transmitted data. 
 The commission agrees with MCI's suggestion and therefore adds language that 
would require the local 9-1-1 entity to provide CTUs with non-discriminatory 
access to the Master Street Address Guide. Language is also added in renumbered 
subsection (e)(1)(B)(ii)(IV) to permit an interconnecting CTU access to the ALI 
database for verification purposes. 
 TEXALTEL commented that the interconnecting CTU should be required to provide 
accurate and timely information for emergency services only to the local 
authority. 
 The commission believes that 9-1-1 information should be transmitted to the 
appropriate CTU in addition to the local emergency authority and therefore 
declines to accept TEXALTEL's recommendation. 
 ACSEC recommended that the rule require each CTU to develop and file a 9-1-1 
disaster recovery, service restoration plan in order to ensure the efficient and 
timely restoration of 9-1-1 service in the event of a network based 9-1-1 
service failure. 
 The commission finds ACSEC's recommendation with respect to developing and 
filing a 9-1-1 service restoration plan to be prudent and in the public 
interest. The commission adds subsection (e)(1)(B)(iii) setting forth this 
requirement. 
 MCI and GTE suggested that language should be included in subsection (e)(1) (B) 
that would require interconnecting CTUs to provide each other timely 
notification of scheduled and unscheduled outages of 9-1-1 trunks. 
 The commission agrees with MCI and GTE and adds clause (iv) in subsection 
(e)(1)(B) to require interconnecting CTUs to provide each other and the 
appropriate 9-1-1 entity timely notification of scheduled and unscheduled 
outages of 9-1-1 trunks. 
 ACSEC opined that because the ILEC's rates for 9-1-1 service previously have 
been found reasonable by the commission, the rule should require the new NCTUs 
to concur in, or adopt, an ILECs tariff for 9-1-1 service and that such tariffed 
rates should serve as the ceiling rates for 9-1-1 service. AT&T argued that the 
commission does not have the jurisdiction to comply with ACSEC's proposal 
setting a cap on 9-1-1 rates. 
 With respect to a ceiling on a CTU's 9-1-1 rates, the commission agrees with 
ACSEC that a captive 9-1-1 public safety answering point (PSAP) should not be 
charged unreasonable rates. The commission believes that it can regulate the 9-
1-1 rates of a CTU as a condition for interconnection. Because the 9-1-1 rates 
charged by an ILEC to a PSAP were previously found to be reasonable by the 
commission, subsection (e)(1)(B)(v) is added under which the rates charged by an 
NCTU shall be presumed to be reasonable if they do not exceed the rates charged 
by the ILEC for similar service. Such a presumption would not preclude NCTUs 
from proposing higher rates for purposes of cost recovery or other reasons. 
 Under proposed subsection (e)(1)(C), interconnecting CTUs are required to 
negotiate to ensure the interoperability of operator services between networks, 
including but not limited to the ability of operators on each network to perform 
such operator functions as reverse billing, line verification, and call 
interrupt. 
 TEXALTEL suggested the addition of call screening to the list of operator 
functions required by this provision. SWBT expressed concern that permitting 
direct access to line verification facilities may breach security of the system 
and end-user customer privacy. SWBT, therefore, suggested that the language 
should be modified to clarify that busy line verification and call interrupt 
will be performed by accessing the local operator of the DCTU. SWBT further 
recommended that the reference to reverse billing be deleted because it is 
addressed in the billing and collection arrangements under proposed subsection 
(d)(3)(B). 
 The commission agrees with TEXALTEL that call screening should be included in 
the list of operator functions and modifies language in subsection (e)(1)(C) 
accordingly. The commission believes that SWBT's concern regarding the breach of 
system security and end-user customer privacy is valid and therefore 
incorporates language in new subsection (d)(1)(E) to prevent such access by 
another CTU. The commission declines to delete the reference to reverse billing 
because it is associated with the operator function of processing collect calls. 
 Proposed subparagraphs (D)-(I) of subsection (e)(1) (renumbered as subsection 
(e)(1)(D)) set forth requirements regarding provision of telephone directories 
and directory assistance services. 
 TTA contended that the proposed rule completely ignores PURA 95, sec.3.2615, 
which allows for negotiated terms and conditions with respect to the provision 
of directories and directory assistance and does not preclude new CTUs from 
providing their own listings and assistance nor does it necessarily require the 
ILEC to do it for them. 
 The commission rejects TTA's assertion that ILECs should not be required to 
publish directories for other CTUs. The commission believes that it is in the 
public interest for customers to be able to continue to consult a single source 
for listings of customers located in a given geographic area in the new 
competitive environment. 
 Proposed subsection (e)(1)(D) (renumbered as subsection (e)(1)(D)(i)) required 
that the telephone numbers of the customers of NCTUs be included on a non-
discriminatory basis in the DCTU's white and yellow pages and directory listings 
associated with the geographic area covered by the white and yellow pages 
directories published by the DCTUs. Similarly, directories provided by NCTUs to 
its customers would have corresponding DCTU listings available on a non-
discriminatory basis. The CTU or its affiliate publishing the telephone 
directory would not directly charge the customer of another CTU for yellow and 
white pages listings or directories. 
 SWBYP recommended that proposed subparagraphs (D), (E), (F), (G), and (I) of 
subsection (e)(1) of the rule be modified to clarify that the term telephone 
directory refers only to telephone directories required by the commission's 
rules and published by or on behalf of CTUs. SWBYP contended that jurisdictional 
and constitutional concerns arise if a non-utility directory publisher (such as 
SWBYP) is deemed subject to the requirements of the rule. SWBYP contended that 
the rule would be in violation of the first and fifth amendments of the U.S. 
Constitution if it mandates the parties with whom a non-utility publisher must 
associate or requires that a CTU's listings, service information or directories 
be printed and distributed by non-utility publishers without compensation. To 
address SWBYP's concern regarding the commission's jurisdiction over an 
affiliate publishing the yellow pages telephone directory, MFS suggested that if 
an affiliate of the ILEC publishes the directory, then the ILEC should provide 
to its affiliate the subscriber listings supplied to it by new CTUs (for the 
geographic area covered by the yellow pages directory) on the same basis as it 
provides listings to its affiliate for its own subscribers. 
 TTA, SWBT, and GTE also asserted that yellow pages publication is a non-
regulated competitive business and that competitors can contract for the service 
with yellow pages publishers just as ILECs currently do. SWBT recommended 
deleting references to yellow pages. GTE opined that, if the language regarding 
yellow pages is retained in the rule, then it should be clarified to distinguish 
between a yellow pages listing and a yellow page advertisement, the latter being 
a competitive business and that cannot be provided without compensation. AT&T 
contended that in adopting sec.23.96 (concerning Telephone Directory), the 
commission rejected SWBT's argument that ILECs be relieved of the obligation to 
provide customers of new CTUs with non-discriminatory yellow pages listings and 
that sec.23.96 applies the obligations of that section to an affiliate of a CTU. 
According to AT&T, the language prohibiting a CTU from directly charging the 
customer of another CTU for yellow and white pages listings should be deleted. 
 The commission agrees with SWBYP, TTA, SWBT, and GTE that yellow pages 
publication is a non-regulated, competitive business and that new CTUs have 
several options with respect to contracting for publication of yellow pages. The 
commission believes that in the new competitive environment, new CTUs should be 
able to sell listings to yellow pages publishers such as SWBYP, at negotiated 
rates, terms, and conditions, in the same manner as ILECs currently provide 
listings to yellow pages publishers. The commission therefore declines to adopt 
MFS's suggestions. The commission notes that subsection (e)(1)(D)(iv) is added 
(discussed later in the preamble) to ensure that CTUs provide accurate and 
current subscriber listings, on a non-discriminatory basis, to yellow pages 
publishers in the new competitive environment. The commission notes that  
sec.23.96 relates to publication of white pages directories and not yellow pages 
directory and therefore finds AT&T's argument to be unpersuasive. The 
commission, therefore, deletes all references to yellow pages in subparagraphs 
(D)-(H) of subsection (e)(1), now renumbered as subsection (e)(1) (D). Further, 
the commission believes that customers of another CTU should not be charged for 
white pages listings or directory by a CTU, or its affiliate publishing the 
white pages telephone directory. For this reason, the commission rejects AT&T's 
suggestion to delete this provision. The term telephone directory has been 
clarified to refer only to the white pages telephone directory published by the 
CTU or its affiliate on behalf of the CTU. 
 AT&T recommended that the directory listing features should be offered on the 
same terms and conditions to an NCTU's customers as those features are offered 
to the DCTU's end-user customers. In addition, it advocated that other 
appropriate information of customers of other CTUs should be included on a non-
discriminatory basis by the DCTU in its white pages directory. TEXALTEL and MCI 
recommended specific language to ensure that listings of an NCTU's customers are 
included on a non-discriminatory basis. They suggested that the entries of an 
NCTU's customers should be interspersed with the entries of the DCTU's customers 
and should not vary in style, size, or format from the entries of the DCTU's 
customers, unless variation is requested by the NCTU or its customer. AT&T also 
proposed that an NCTU be required to include the DCTU's customer listings in its 
directory only if the NCTU provides directories. 
 To address AT&T's concern, the commission requires a DCTU to include an NCTU's 
customer information in the DCTU's white pages telephone directory on a non-
discriminatory basis. The commission finds the suggestion of TEXALTEL and MCI, 
regarding the non-discriminatory listing of NCTU customers, to be reasonable. 
However, language added in subsection (e)(1)(D)(i) would only permit the NCTU, 
not its customer, to request variation in the listings of its customers. To 
ensure non-discriminatory inclusion of listings, the commission also adds 
subsection (e)(1)(D)(ii); so that, if a CTU wants to include additional listings 
that are unique to its local calling area, such listings can be provided in a 
separate section of the directory. The rates, terms, and conditions for such 
access should be negotiated. As suggested by AT&T, the commission clarifies 
subsection (e)(1)(D)(i) to require an NCTU to include the listings of other CTUs 
only if it provides directories. 
 MCI suggested that the telephone numbers of customers of NCTUs should be 
included in the DCTU's white pages residential and business listings, yellow 
pages standard listings, and blue pages government listings. 
 The commission believes that requiring a DCTU to include the customers of NCTUs 
in its white pages directory would ensure inclusion of NCTU customer listings in 
white pages residential and business listings and blue pages government 
listings. Since the yellow pages publication is a competitive business, the 
commission does not believe that a DCTU should be required to include NCTU 
customers in its yellow pages directory. The commission, therefore, declines to 
adopt MCI's proposed change. 
 Teleport, MFS, TEXALTEL, and MCI opined that neither a CTU nor its affiliate 
should be charged for standard listings. Teleport wanted free white pages and 
yellow pages listings for its customers. At the public hearing, Time Warner 
commented that if ILECs cannot separately identify the costs of including 
customer listings in the directory, then neither competitors nor their end-user 
customers should be charged for the listings. Time Warner also pointed out that, 
because the customer base will essentially stay the same, the cost of preparing 
the directory should not change materially. MCI opined that customers of all 
CTUs should be subject to the same terms and conditions with respect to 
advertising in yellow pages telephone directories. While OPC agreed that there 
should be no charge for white pages directory listings, it noted that it may be 
appropriate for an NCTU's customer to pay the appropriate advertising rate for 
advertising in the yellow pages. SWBT characterized the requests for free 
listings, directories, logos, and call guide inserts as unfair, discriminatory, 
and an unlawful taking of an ILEC's property. SWBT disagreed with TEXALTEL's 
assertion that because ILECs do not charge their end-user customers, new CTUs 
should not be charged for directories. SWBT explained that its end-users are 
charged for the white pages telephone directory through the charge for local 
exchange service and that local exchange service has historically been 
subsidized by SWBT's other services. SWBT commented that the pure resellers 
purchasing from its flat-rate resale tariff should not be charged for 
directories because the customers of pure resellers continue to purchase SWBT's 
vertical services and switched access, which provide support for the local 
exchange rates. SWBT claimed this is not true for its other competitors. SWBT 
opined that ILECs are entitled to cost recovery for services rendered and that 
these rates should be the subject of negotiations. 
 The commission declines to require that ILEC include listings of another CTU at 
no charge. The commission believes that a CTU should be able to recover costs 
incurred in printing, publishing, and distributing the directories to customers 
of other CTUs, provided such costs are clearly identified. The commission 
concludes that any issues of cost recovery and the appropriate rates, terms, and 
conditions should be negotiated between interconnecting CTUs. 
 At the public hearing, SWBT opined that the language prohibiting CTUs from 
charging customers of other CTUs for listings as proposed, would imply that SWBT 
can no longer assess the foreign listings charge on customers of competing CTUs 
that request to be listed in the DCTU's white pages telephone directory but are 
located outside the geographic area covered by white pages telephone directory. 
 To address SWBT's concern regarding foreign listings, the commission revises 
subsection (e)(1)(D)(i) to prohibit a CTU or its affiliate publishing the white 
pages telephone directory from charging customers of other CTUs located in the 
geographic area covered by the white pages telephone directory. 
 Teleport stated that subsection (e)(1)(D) should be amended to be consistent 
with the Federal Act, sec.271(c)(2)(B)(viii) which places the obligation of 
including customer listings in the directory on the ILECs and not all CTUs. 
 The commission notes that it is in the public interest that customers of all 
CTUs located in a geographic area, whether of an ILEC or of another CTU be able 
to consult a single source to find telephone numbers. Requiring any CTU that 
publishes a white pages directory to include listings of all CTUs in a 
geographic area accomplishes this goal. The commission believes that to the 
extent that ILECs are also subject to this requirement, subsection (e)(1)(D) is 
consistent with the Federal Act and therefore declines to adopt Teleport's 
recommendation. 
 In its additional comments, Teleport stated that new subsection (e)(1)(D) (ii) 
which would permit ILECs to list the customers of NCTUs in a separate section of 
the white pages telephone directory is unduly discriminatory. Time Warner 
requested clarification of the provision in new subsection (e)(1)(D)(ii) . 
 The commission's intent in adding new subsection (e)(1)(D)(ii) is to allow the 
listings of the customers of an NCTU that are located within the local calling 
area of a NCTU, but not located within the local calling area of the CTU 
publishing the white pages telephone directory, in a separate section of the 
white pages telephone directory. This would be allowed at the option of the 
requesting NCTU. The commission believes that the provision would ensure the 
provision of all customer listings of the NCTU within its local calling area and 
at the same time would not confuse the customers of the CTU publishing the white 
pages telephone directory regarding their local calling area. The commission 
modifies new subsection (e)(1)(D)(ii) to reflect its intent. 
 Under proposed subsection (e)(1)(E) (renumbered as subsection (e)(1)(D)(iii) ), 
CTUs would provide directory listings and related updates to the CTU or its 
affiliate publishing the telephone directory, in a timely manner in order to 
ensure inclusion in the annual white and yellow pages listings. 
 TEXALTEL suggested that the language be revised to require CTUs to provide, at 
no charge, directory listings and related updates to any CTU providing directory 
assistance, in addition to the CTU publishing the directory. SWBT recommended 
that the word annual be changed to periodic to reflect that some directories may 
not be published at the same time every year in every instance. Consumers Union 
commented that in adopting sec.23.96, the commission has already rejected SWBT's 
proposal to eliminate the annual publication requirement. AT&T proposed holding 
the CTU or its affiliate publishing the directory responsible for providing each 
CTU with information about deadlines associated with its published telephone 
directories. 
 In renumbered subsection (e)(1)(D)(iii), the commission adopts TEXALTEL's 
recommendation regarding the need to provide directory listings and related 
updates to CTUs for directory assistance. However, the issue of whether the 
provision of such updates should be free of charge is subject to negotiations. 
The commission notes that in adopting sec.23.96, SWBT's request that directories 
be published on a regular basis rather than annual basis was rejected by the 
commission because directories become obsolete as soon as they are published and 
delaying republication even further would not be in the public interest. The 
commission, therefore, again rejects SWBT's request. The commission finds AT&T's 
request that the publishing CTU or its affiliate be held responsible for 
providing other CTUs with information about deadlines for publication to be 
reasonable and therefore adopts AT&T's suggestion in renumbered subsection 
(e)(1)(D)(iii). 
 SWBYP explained that it is an advertising company that publishes classified 
business directories in Texas and four other states. It oversees the printing 
and distribution of white pages telephone directories compiled and published by 
its affiliate, SWBT. SWBYP suggested that language be added in subsection (e)(1) 
to require CTUs to provide accurate and current subscriber listings (name, 
address, telephone number) and updates in a readily usable format, in a timely 
manner, and under reasonable and non-discriminatory rates, terms, and 
conditions, to publishers of both white pages and yellow pages telephone 
directories. Non-listed numbers should be excluded from such lists. SWBYP 
stressed that over 19 different directory publishers will benefit from such a 
requirement and that this is critical, given the potential of less centralized 
maintenance of this information as result of the influx of CTUs in Texas. 
 The commission finds SWBYP's recommendation to be reasonable. The commission, 
therefore, adds language in subsection (e)(1)(D)(iv) to require CTUs to provide 
subscriber listings to yellow pages publishers on a non-discriminatory basis 
because the commission believes that publication of a complete yellow pages 
directory is in the public interest in the new competitive environment. The 
commission declines to include a reference to white pages directories in this 
subsection since provision of listings for publication in white pages 
directories is addressed in subsection (e)(1)(D)(i) -(iii). 
 Proposed subsection (e)(1)(F) (renumbered as subsection (e)(1)(D)(v)), required 
telephone directories to be distributed to all customers on non-discriminatory 
terms and conditions by the CTU or its affiliate publishing the telephone 
directory. 
 AT&T suggested language clarifying that the telephone directory should be 
distributed only to customers who are located within the area covered by the 
directory. SWBT suggested language that would hold each CTU responsible for 
providing telephone directories to its own customers. Under SWBT's proposal, the 
publishing CTU should deliver the directories at a negotiated rate to a single 
site designated by the requesting CTU, who could then distribute (or contract 
for distribution) the directories to its own customers. MFS opined that the 
method of distributing directories should be the subject of negotiation between 
interconnecting CTUs and not prescribed by the rule. TTA contended that there is 
no statutory requirement for the CTU publishing the telephone directory to 
distribute the directories to all customers of their competitors. Rather, TTA 
commented that the terms and conditions for this service should be negotiated. 
 The commission agrees with AT&T's suggested clarification with respect to 
requiring distribution of the white pages telephone directory only to customers 
located in the area covered by the white pages telephone directory. Subsection 
(e)(1)(F), which is renumbered as subsection (e)(1)(D)(v), is modified 
accordingly. The commission also agrees with MFS that the method of distributing 
the white pages telephone directory should be subject to negotiations and 
therefore declines to adopt SWBT's proposed language changes. Subsection 
(e)(1)(D)(v) is modified to reflect MFS's recommendation. The commission 
believes that TTA's concern is adequately addressed by the modification to 
subsection (e)(1)(D)(v), which permits interconnecting CTUs to negotiate 
distribution of the white pages telephone directory. 
 Under proposed subsection (e)(1)(G) (renumbered as subsection (e)(1)(D)(vii) ), 
CTUs would have to provide information that identifies customers who desire non-
listed and/or non-published numbers to the CTU or its affiliate publishing the 
telephone directories and maintaining the directory database. MCI recommended 
that the CTU or its affiliate publishing the directory be explicitly prohibited 
from publishing non-listed and/or non-published numbers of customers of other 
CTUs. 
 The commission finds MCI's concern to be valid and therefore revises the 
language in subsection (e)(1)(G), renumbered as subsection (e)(1)(D)(vii), to 
explicitly prohibit the disclosure of non-listed and/or non-published numbers 
and addresses. 
 AT&T suggested renumbered subsection (e)(1)(D)(vii) should be modified to 
recognize the distinction between non-listed names and addresses and non-
published names and addresses in the application of this subsection. 
 The commission agrees with AT&T's suggestion and modifies renumbered subsection 
(e)(1)(D)(vii) to prohibit the CTU or its affiliate publishing a white pages 
telephone directory on behalf of the CTU from releasing non-listed and/or non-
published telephone numbers or addresses. The CTU maintaining the directory 
assistance database is prohibited from divulging information on non-published 
telephone numbers or addresses. 
 Under proposed subsection (e)(1)(H) (renumbered as subsection (e)(1)(D) 
(viii)), CTUs would be required to provide each other non-discriminatory on-line 
access to directory assistance databases at a per-database dip charge. 
 GTE opined that the rule should not delineate the specific form of providing 
the service or a specific method of charging for the service. TTA suggested that 
the language be revised so that CTUs are able to provide each other non-
discriminatory directory assistance service at mutually agreeable rates, terms, 
and conditions. GTE Mobilnet commented that proposed subsection (e)(1)(H) should 
be modified to require CTUs to provide each other non-discriminatory on-line 
access to directory assistance databases at a reasonable per-database dip 
charge. 
 SWBT stated that it, currently, provides independent telephone companies access 
to its directory assistance services via a live operator, on a per call charge 
basis. SWBT further stated that it would be willing to offer other CTUs the same 
service on the same terms and conditions. SWBT and GTE recommended that the 
reference to on-line access and the per-database dip charge be deleted. Citing 
concerns of technological incompatibility, unreasonable expenses, security, and 
customer privacy, SWBT strongly objected to another provider having direct 
access to its directory assistance databases. SWBT contended that the function 
needed by an interconnecting CTU can be satisfied with the information derived 
from the database without permitting direct access to the underlying 
electronically stored data. MFS contended that SWBT's proposal should be 
rejected because it would foreclose the development, in a competitive 
marketplace, of new ways to deliver directory assistance service and new 
services that may be created based upon the information in the database. MFS 
further commented that any concerns regarding technical incompatibility of the 
equipment can be addressed by requiring CTUs to enter into reciprocal directory 
listings license agreements. MFS opined that at a minimum, the terms of such 
agreements should be no less favorable than those between ILECs. 
 The commission believes that it is important for CTUs to provide non-
discriminatory access to directory assistance databases. This access can be in 
the form of on-line access or by other means, and such access may be provided at 
a per-database dip charge or pursuant to other pricing arrangements. The 
language is, therefore, revised in subsection (e)(1)(H), renumbered as 
subsection (e)(1)(D)(viii), to permit parties to negotiate the type of access 
allowed to the databases as well as the rates at which access should be 
provided. Additionally, the rule requires that such access shall be non-
discriminatory. 
 Proposed subsection (e)(1)(I) (renumbered as subsection (e)(1)(D)(vi)) required 
all CTUs publishing directories to provide non-discriminatory access to the 
information section of the white pages and yellow pages telephone directories in 
order to permit CTUs to explain their services, calling areas, and other related 
information. GTE, SWBT, and TTA contended that the new CTU has the primary 
responsibility of educating its customers by marketing its services through 
various means including advertising in the yellow pages, marketing through 
direct mail to customers, advertising in newspapers or on television, and 
furnishing its own call guide. SWBT argued that printing the information of 
several providers in a single directory would result in a heavy, costly, 
unwieldy, and confusing directory which would have little use to the end-user 
customer who may only be interested in the section applicable to his or her CTU. 
SWBT and GTE suggested that the language should be modified to require the 
printing of only critical customer contact information of new CTUs in the 
information pages of the directory. 
 AT&T stated that SWBT's suggestion places a new CTU at a competitive 
disadvantage and that any charge for access to the information services section 
should recover only the cost incurred by the ILEC or its affiliate publisher. At 
the public hearing, TCTA also commented that, from a marketing perspective, 
SWBT's suggestion would give the ILEC a significant competitive advantage. TCTA 
supported the provision as proposed because it would afford a fair opportunity 
for others to put relevant information in the directory. MFS refuted SWBT's 
assertion by citing the example of ILECs in other states that have voluntarily 
agreed to publish such information. MFS opined that in order to address the 
concern of increasing the volume of the directory, it may be reasonable to limit 
the inclusion of information about a CTU to a certain number of pages or column-
inches. Teleport opined that access to the information section should be 
provided at no charge to new CTUs and that the new CTU's logo should be included 
on the front cover of all telephone directories distributed to its customers. 
 The commission believes that access to the information section is critical for 
a competing CTU both from a customer education perspective and from a marketing 
perspective. The commission agrees with SWBT that if new CTUs were given 
unlimited access to the information section of the telephone directory, the 
volume of the directory would increase excessively and the directory could 
become a source of information with little value to an end-user customer. The 
commission concludes that it is reasonable to permit every CTU to have access to 
a single page per CTU in the information section of the white pages directories. 
On a CTU's particular page, it may provide critical customer contact information 
along with pertinent marketing information. Therefore, subsection (e)(1)(I), 
renumbered as (e)(1)(D)(vi), is revised accordingly. Renumbered subsection 
(e)(1)(D)(vi) permits additional access to the information section of the white 
pages directory, subject to negotiations between the publishing CTU and the CTU 
requesting additional access. It is conceivable that CTUs may negotiate to 
include only the information regarding the services offered by a particular CTU 
in the directory provided to the customers of that CTU. In other words, in lieu 
of a directory with multiple information pages containing information about a 
variety of CTUs, the customer of a particular CTU could be provided with a 
directory with the logo of his or her CTU on the cover of the directory and 
information about his or her CTU's services in the information section. 
Information about other CTUs would be limited to a single page per CTU and would 
reflect critical customer contact information and pertinent marketing 
information. 
 Proposed subsection (e)(2) required interconnecting CTUs to negotiate to ensure 
certain minimum interconnection arrangements, other than access to ancillary 
services as required by subsection (e)(1). Proposed subsection (e)(2) (A) 
required interconnecting CTUs to negotiate to ensure access, where technically 
feasible, to databases such as 800, LIDB, and Advanced Intelligent Network 
(AIN). 
 Regarding subsection (e)(2)(A), SWBT, GTE, and Sprint pointed out that AIN is 
an architecture and not a database (although there are multiple AIN-related 
databases). Therefore, they concluded that it is inappropriate to require access 
to AIN. 
 The commission believes that to the extent a CTU has deployed AIN, other CTUs 
should have access to AIN. To address concerns raised by SWBT, GTE, and Sprint, 
that access to AIN should not be required because it is not a database, the 
commission adds subsection (e)(2)(I) to specifically require CTUs to provide 
non-discriminatory access to AIN where technically available. 
 SWBT and TTA contended that new CTUs will need information resident in the 
ILEC's databases and that new CTUs do not need access to databases themselves. 
GTE suggested that access should be limited to the functions and services 
absolutely necessary to provide seamless and transparent interconnection. AT&T 
and TEXALTEL commented that new CTUs will be at a competitive disadvantage 
without real-time and interactive access via electronic interfaces. They stated 
that such access is necessary for purposes of assigning numbers, processing 
service orders, and providing repair services, especially in a resale 
environment. 
 SWBT, GTE, and Sprint commented that proprietary concerns could arise if new 
CTUs are allowed unfettered access to ILEC databases and argued against any 
commission mandate requiring ILECs to provide on-line access to their databases. 
SWBT commented that an interface for each database will have to be developed to 
allow the appropriate level of access. SWBT claimed that AT&T wants real-time 
access to proprietary information such as the location of ILECs' existing 
facilities. TSTCI mentioned that it would potentially be willing to provide 
blocks of phone numbers to new CTUs, but that it is against providing full 
access to the databases or having to expend capital resources to create 
interfaces to the databases. 
 AT&T stated that it has no intention of harming the network or divulging 
proprietary information. It opined that interfaces will need to be developed to 
allow new CTUs to make changes to the database on an agreed turnaround basis 
(not real-time). AT&T pointed out that, for billing purposes, it is presently 
allowed access on a read-only basis to 800 databases. 
 Time Warner stated that it needs to have the capability to access information 
in databases on a timely, read-only basis, and that it does not need access to 
proprietary data. Time Warner provided alternative language, at the public 
hearing, for subsection (e)(2)(A) that would require: ....the exchange of 
information to and from databases such as 800, line information database, and 
advanced intelligent network on a non-discriminatory basis and within a 
reasonable time frame. With respect to Time Warner's proposed language, AT&T 
commented that exchange of information does not necessarily imply read-only 
capability of the data for number assignments or provisioning. AT&T opined that 
reasonable time frame and non-discriminatory are both terms that are subject to 
interpretation. TEXALTEL shared AT&T's concern with respect to the term 
reasonable time frame and argued that information should be available to other 
CTUs on whatever time frame the owner of the databases affords itself. SWBT 
concurred with Time Warner's proposed language. 
 Consumers Union remarked that new CTUs should have whatever level of access to 
databases is required to provide timely, efficient, reliable, and high quality 
service to end-user customers. TEXALTEL and AT&T opined that the rule should 
require interconnecting CTUs to work together to make access to databases 
available to the extent necessary for customer service and reasonable and fair 
competition. They commented that in the event of a disagreement, the companies 
could use the dispute resolution process outlined in proposed subsection (g) to 
address the differences. 
 The commission finds that, to the extent possible, it is important to provide 
new CTUs access to databases on real-time and interactive basis via electronic 
interfaces for purposes of assigning numbers, processing service orders and 
providing repair services. At the same time, the commission believes that the 
ILECs have a legitimate concern that such access may compromise network 
proprietary information and customer proprietary network information. The 
commission modifies the language in subsection (e)(2)(A) to require 
interconnecting CTUs to provide non-discriminatory access to databases to ensure 
interoperability of networks and timely, efficient provision of services to end-
user customers. At the same time, under new subsection (d)(1) (E), access to a 
CTU's network proprietary information or customer proprietary network 
information is restricted, unless otherwise permitted in this section. 
Furthermore, in subsection (b)(13), the commission defines the term non-
discriminatory to mean a type of interconnection that is no less favorable than 
that provided by the CTU to itself, its affiliates, or other CTUs. 
 Teleport contended that if access to a CTU's network proprietary information or 
customer proprietary network information is restricted under subsection 
(d)(1)(E), ILECs will declare volumes of information as proprietary information 
to prevent access to necessary databases by carriers in direct violation of the 
Federal Act. 
 The commission notes that the Federal Act, sec.251(d)(2) requires determination 
by the FCC whether access to proprietary information is necessary and whether 
failure to provide such access would impair the ability of telecommunication 
carriers to offer their services. Furthermore, the Federal Act, sec.251(d)(3)(C) 
does not preclude the enforcement of any regulation, order, or policy of a state 
commission that does not substantially prevent implementation of the 
requirements of sec.251 and the purposes of the Federal Act. The commission 
believes that it has made a determination that restricting access to network 
proprietary information and customer proprietary network information is 
appropriate which is consistent with the Federal Act. The commission finds that 
any disputes regarding the validity of claims by ILECs regarding the proprietary 
nature of information can be resolved through the compulsory arbitration 
process. The commission therefore declines to make any changes to subsection 
(e)(2)(A) or to subsection (d)(1)(E). 
 Proposed subsection (e)(2)(C) required interconnecting CTUs to negotiate to 
ensure Common Channel Signaling (CCS) interconnection including transmission of 
the privacy indicator where technically feasible. GSC requested that in 
subsection (e)(2)(C), CCS should be spelled out to clarify that it means Common 
Channel Signaling. In addition, GSC recommended strengthening the where 
technically feasible language with except where significant obstacles make such 
technically infeasible. 
 The commission agrees with GSC that the acronym CCS should be spelled out but 
declines to adopt GSC's recommendation regarding technical feasibility. The 
commission believes that, consistent with the language in subsection (d)(2) (C), 
CTUs should be required to provide CCS interconnectivity where technically 
available. The language in subsection (e)(2)(C) is modified accordingly. 
 Under proposed subsection (e)(2)(D), interconnecting CTUs would be required to 
negotiate to ensure access to all signaling protocols and all elements of 
signaling protocols used in the routing of local and interexchange traffic, 
including signaling protocols used to query call processing databases. GTE 
stated that the language in subsection (e)(2)(D), relating to access to 
signaling protocols and elements, is too vague, and should be either eliminated 
or modified. If modified, the language should be combined with subsection 
(e)(2)(C) relating to CCS interconnection, since access is provided by 
interconnection of SS7 networks. GTE further commented that such access should 
be provided in a non-discriminatory manner and where technically and 
economically feasible. 
 The commission disagrees with GTE that language in subsection (e)(2)(D) 
relating to access to signaling protocols and elements is too vague and declines 
to combine it with subsection (e)(2)(C). The commission believes that it is 
imperative that new CTUs be provided access to signaling protocols and elements, 
whether through CCS interconnectivity or through other means. Subsection 
(e)(2)(D) deals with access to signaling protocols and elements which may be 
provided through CCS or through other means that may be developed in the future. 
 Proposed subsection (e)(2)(E) required interconnecting CTUs to negotiate to 
ensure number portability and the inclusion of the ACTU's NXX code(s) in the 
Local Exchange Routing Guide and related systems. GTE suggested that number 
portability should be excluded from this list of minimum requirements. 
 The commission declines to eliminate number portability from the list of 
minimum requirements because number portability, whether provided on an interim 
or a permanent basis, is a critical interconnection issue that should be 
resolved before local exchange competition can be effective. 
 Proposed subsection (e)(2)(F) required interconnecting CTUs to negotiate to 
ensure non-discriminatory handling of mass announcement/audiotext calls. MCI 
stated that mass announcement/audiotext calls are not defined. If this section 
relates to 976 calls, MCI stated that NCTUs should not be required to carry such 
calls. According to MCI, if the provision is retained and an NCTU chooses to 
complete such calls, then the DCTU should provide non-discriminatory billing and 
collection arrangements. 
 The commission declines to delete the requirement as suggested by MCI. However, 
the commission clarifies that the phrase mass announcement/audiotext calls 
refers to caller-paid information such as 976-XXX services as well as to calls 
to information service providers. The commission agrees with MCI concerning the 
need for non-discriminatory billing and collection arrangements and modifies the 
language to require non-discriminatory billing of mass announcement/audio-text 
calls. 
 Time Warner suggested that a DCTU should serve as a clearing house for billing 
information to 900 and 976 service providers. 
 The commission notes that the issue of billing for 900 and 976 calls is 
addressed in subsection (e)(2)(F). The commission modifies subsection (e)(2)(F) 
to clarify its intent. 
 Proposed subsection (e)(2)(G) required interconnecting CTUs to ensure provision 
of intercept services for a specific telephone number in the event a customer 
discontinues service with one CTU and initiates service with another CTU and the 
customer's telephone number changes. AT&T recommended that in addition to 
intercept services, number retention services should be provided. This would 
allow a customer to retain a specific telephone number in the event of 
disconnection of service. 
 The commission declines to adopt AT&T's recommendation because the issue of 
number retention would be adequately addressed when number portability becomes 
available. 
 Under proposed subsection (e)(2)(H), interconnecting CTUs would be required to 
negotiate to ensure cooperative engineering, operations, maintenance, and 
billing practices and procedures. GTE Mobilnet suggested that detailed language 
is needed in subsection (e)(2)(H) with respect to cooperative engineering, 
operations, maintenance, and billing practices and procedures. GTE Mobilnet 
suggested holding a workshop specifically to address this issue. 
 The commission believes that subsections (d) and (e) provide adequate 
guidelines regarding engineering, operations, maintenance, and billing practices 
and procedures and that these guidelines should serve as the basis for good-
faith negotiations between CTUs. Therefore, the commission declines to adopt GTE 
Mobilnet's suggestion. 
 Proposed subsection (f), relating to negotiations, set forth the requirements 
for correspondence and timelines to be followed during the negotiations process. 
 The new CTUs and ILECs were divided in their opinions on the efficacy and the 
requirements for the duration of the negotiations process. The new CTUs find the 
negotiation requirements to be time consuming and burdensome, while the ILECs 
suggest that the negotiations should allow sufficient time to resolve complex 
interconnection issues. GTE Mobilnet recommended shortening the minimum period 
for negotiations from 45 days to 30 days. Teleport suggested that the rule 
should prescribe a single deadline for the completion of negotiations (30 days) 
and if negotiations fail, the issues should be addressed in a contested 
proceeding and the commission should render a decision within 30 days. 
 SWBT commented that shortening the negotiation period or establishing deadlines 
as suggested by certain parties, would chill negotiations. GTE opined that the 
rules should be structured such that parties do not have an incentive to 
stonewall negotiations in hopes of a regulated solution. GTE and SWBT opined 
that the issues involved in interconnection between CTUs are new and complex, 
and involve technically sophisticated operating systems, multiple equipment 
vendors, and complicated operating procedures. They suggested that the 
commission allow sufficient time for technical and compensation issues to be 
resolved through negotiations. GTE suggested extending the period for 
negotiations from the proposed 45 days to 60 days before a party could invoke 
the dispute resolution process. GTE also stated that at least 60 additional days 
should be required following notification of a negotiations impasse before the 
dispute resolution process may begin. According to GTE, negotiating parties can 
periodically advise the commission about the status of the negotiations. MCI 
commented that the rule should not preclude interim arrangements reached by 
parties. At the public hearing, TEXALTEL suggested that the rule permit parties 
to circumvent the timelines set forth in the rule and expedite the negotiating 
process so that agreements may be reached in a shorter time frame than specified 
in the rule. 
 The commission's intent in setting forth procedures and timelines for the 
negotiations process is to provide incentives for parties to negotiate for a 
reasonable length of time. It is also the commission's intent to prevent any 
negotiating party from engaging in stalling tactics by not responding to 
requests in a timely manner. Because parties can request mediation by a 
commission designee(s) at any time during the course of the negotiations under 
new subsection (f)(6), the commission believes that it is reasonable to extend 
the period of negotiations from the proposed 45 days to any time between the 
135th day to 160th day after the date the CTU from which interconnection is 
sought has received the request for negotiation. The commission agrees with 
TEXALTEL that parties who are willing to reach agreements through negotiations 
on an expedited basis should be allowed to do so, and therefore adds subsection 
(f)(7). The commission, however, notes that parties who accelerate the 
negotiation process but fail to reach an agreement, may notify the commission 
about the impasse in negotiations no earlier than the 135th day after the date 
the interconnection request is received by the CTU from whom interconnection is 
sought. 
 AT&T suggested that parties should not have the option of establishing a 
mutually agreeable date for the start of negotiations as allowed by proposed 
subsection (f)(3), but that negotiations should be deemed to begin on the date 
the request for interconnection is mailed by the requesting CTU. Under AT&T's 
proposal, the CTU from whom interconnection is requested would respond in ten 
working days rather than 14 working days, as required by proposed subsection 
(f)(4). Further, AT&T commended that the deadline for the written response 
required from the negotiating party before the requesting CTU can notify the 
commission about an impasse in negotiations should be 15 working days rather 
than 20 working days, as required by proposed subsection (f)(4). 
 To give the parties the flexibility to determine an alternative starting date 
for negotiations, the commission retains the proposed language with respect to 
establishing a mutually agreed upon starting date for negotiations. The 
commission declines to accept AT&T's changes regarding the deadlines for 
responses to an interconnection request and notification to the commission. In 
paragraphs (1) and (4) of subsection (f), the commission adopts the other minor 
clarifications suggested by AT&T. 
 Subsection (f)(3) sets the date for the start of negotiations and requires the 
CTU requesting interconnection to make the request in writing, send the request 
by certified mail and identify the specific issues to be resolved as well as the 
underlying facts and proposed resolution of each issue. AT&T and TEXALTEL 
expressed concern that it may not be possible for a requesting CTU to foresee 
all possible issues to be negotiated at the beginning of negotiations. AT&T 
stated that because the date of request for compulsory arbitration triggers the 
date when negotiations are deemed to begin, it is critical that the date for the 
start of negotiations is not restarted if CTUs identify additional issues later 
in the negotiation process. 
 The commission's intent in requiring the requesting CTU to identify issues and 
suggested solutions for these issues was to ensure that the parties engage in 
good-faith negotiations. The commission agrees with AT&T and TEXALTEL that a 
requesting CTU should be allowed to raise additional issues during the 
negotiation period without altering the date on which negotiations are deemed to 
begin. The commission modifies the language in subsection (f)(3) and adds 
paragraph (4) in subsection (f) to address concerns expressed by AT&T and 
TEXALTEL. 
 AT&T also suggested that under subsection (f)(3), the formal request for 
negotiations when sent in writing not be restricted to certified mail. 
Subsection (f)(3) should permit other means of delivering the interconnection 
request such as hand-delivery and facsimile. 
 The commission modifies the language in subsection (f)(3) and renumbered 
subsection (f)(5) to address AT&T's concern. 
 AT&T suggested that proposed subsection (f)(5) be deleted. 
 The commission believes that notification required under proposed subsection 
(f)(5) merely makes the negotiation process unduly burdensome. Proposed 
subsection (f)(5) is therefore deleted. 
 Teleport asserted that subsection (f) relating to negotiations be made 
consistent with the compulsory arbitration and negotiations provisions set forth 
in the Federal Act, sec.252(b). 
 The commission notes that the Federal Act does not preclude the commission from 
setting timelines and requirements for the negotiation process and therefore 
retains the language on timelines and requirements but modifies the language as 
discussed earlier. The commission modifies subsection (f)(6) (renumbered 
subsection (g)(1)) to make it consistent with the language in the Federal Act 
regarding the petition for arbitration, if negotiations fail. 
 MFS suggested further revisions to subsection (f) to recognize the fact that 
some CTUs may have already begun negotiations for interconnection and should not 
be required to repeat actions taken prior to the effective date of this section. 
Time Warner contended that if a CTU has initiated negotiations before the 
effective date of this section, negotiations shall be deemed to begin on the 
earlier of the date which the CTU can document to the commission that 
substantive negotiations have begun or the date on which the CTU mailed its 
request for information that included information required by subsection (f)(3). 
Time Warner and TCTA also suggested that their suggested change is consistent 
with the language and intent of the Federal Act. 
 The commission agrees with MFS, Time Warner and TCTA. The commission believes 
that competitive entry in the local exchange market should not be delayed if a 
CTU can demonstrate that it has initiated negotiations and engaged in good-faith 
negotiations before the effective date of this section. Accordingly, paragraphs 
(8)-(9) are added to subsection (f). Under new subsection (f)(9), negotiations 
are deemed to begin on the first date for which there is written evidence that a 
CTU requested interconnection. 
 AT&T suggested that the negotiations should address interconnection 
arrangements, including but not limited to points of interconnection, type of 
collocation, terms and conditions, and rates. 
 The commission declines to accept AT&T's suggestion to spell out the types of 
interconnection issues that should be negotiated because the proposed language, 
referring to interconnection arrangements, is broad enough to encompass all the 
issues addressed in the rule, including those suggested by AT&T. 
 The commission adds language in subsection (f)(2) to facilitate negotiations 
between new CTUs and other CTUs in the areas in which they operate, as well as 
those in surrounding areas, especially major metropolitan calling areas. 
Specifically, the commission requires DCTUs within major metropolitan calling 
areas to contact other CTUs and arrange meetings within 15 days of a request for 
such meetings. The commission believes new CTUs will greatly benefit from such 
meetings because they will provide a forum for discussions on network 
efficiencies and intercompany billing arrangements. 
 Proposed subsection (g) established the requirements regarding commission 
notification to parties of the date, time, and place for the dispute resolution 
process, and rules and procedures for the completion of the dispute resolution 
process within 20 working days after initiation. 
 SWBT supported the adoption of the dispute resolution process in the proposed 
rule because it would facilitate negotiations and resolve disputes in a short 
span of time, avoid global litigation, and focus on highly technical issues and 
while, at the same time, it would serve as an educational process for staff and 
parties. SWBT and GTE opined that if the dispute resolution process is 
eliminated, there will be no incentive to negotiate and every issue will be 
litigated at the commission. GTE proposed modifying the subsection to extend the 
dispute resolution process from 20 days to 60 days to allow time to resolve the 
numerous complex interconnection issues that are likely to arise. GTE opined, in 
its reply comments, that concerns about the significance of a non-binding 
dispute resolution process will be addressed if potential competitors are 
allowed to commence service once major technical interconnection issues are 
resolved, but before all issues are negotiated and resolved. 
 While AT&T and MCI supported the concept of a dispute resolution process, they 
commented that the dispute resolution process, as proposed, is not binding and 
will very likely lead to further negotiations which will merely serve to delay a 
new CTU's provision of service to customers. Teleport concurred and suggested 
that, in lieu of the proposed dispute resolution process, the matter should go 
to a full hearing within an expedited timeframe. MCI proposed that the 
commission resolve all disputes between the parties through a contested hearing 
within a 9-month period, during which the CTUs will reciprocally terminate each 
other's traffic at no charge. MCI also suggested that the commission's order in 
such a contested hearing should be implemented within 30 days from the date of 
such order. 
 AT&T suggested that in order to make the dispute resolution process effective 
and meaningful, the results of the process should be binding upon the parties, 
except as to rates, until such time as the parties either agree on a negotiated 
settlement or the commission has issued a final order in a contested proceeding. 
At the public hearing, SWBT stated that it views the dispute resolution process, 
as proposed, as a means to help the negotiating parties get redirected and as a 
catalyst to stimulate further negotiations, if needed. SWBT contended that a 
binding dispute resolution process as proposed by AT&T will be used by parties 
as a springboard to litigation. SWBT also noted the absence of explicit 
guidelines to be adhered to by the panel in making its decision. SWBT expressed 
concern that, absent a predetermined time frame for the ensuing commission 
proceeding, AT&T's proposal would require an ILEC to incur costs to implement 
the panel's recommendation, which could be reversed by the commission upon 
appeal from the ILEC. TEXALTEL opined that SWBT's concern can be addressed if 
the panel's recommendation is reviewed by the commission on an expedited basis. 
In order to make the dispute resolution productive and meaningful, the 
commenters at the public hearing suggested that the panel should decide upfront, 
based on input from parties involved in the dispute, whether the issue should be 
resolved by the panel or whether the issue is a religious issue and should, 
therefore, be resolved in a contested commission proceeding without first being 
considered by the panel. TEXALTEL suggested that if the panel were to consider 
the issue, then its recommendation should be binding on an interim basis. 
 AT&T suggested intervention by any other person should be allowed if and when 
the matter becomes a docketed proceeding before the commission. In light of the 
commission's preliminary order in consolidated Docket 14659, which states that 
the interconnection rule is the appropriate vehicle for addressing certain 
issues, AT&T suggested that the scope of the dispute resolution process be 
expanded to include all issues relating to resale of local exchange services, 
unbundling of network elements as required by the commission, operational and 
technical issues, and any other issues generally disputed in connection with 
local and intraLATA toll competition. In addition, AT&T recommended that all 
recommendations made by the panel should be filed of public record with the 
commission. SWBT responded that the issues raised by AT&T are well outside the 
scope of interconnection and would introduce another layer of bureaucracy. 
 Under proposed subsection (g)(7), a participant in the dispute resolution 
process that is not satisfied with the recommendation of the panel could request 
that the Secretary of the commission docket the proceeding. MFS recommended 
that, in order to prevent delays in the process, a dissatisfied participant in 
the dispute resolution process should request within 15 days after being served 
with the written report of the panel that the Secretary of the commission docket 
the proceeding. 
 Sprint opined that, since the initiation date is not defined, it is unclear 
whether initiation refers to the beginning date of the dispute resolution 
hearings, which could be subject to regulatory lag absent a clear time frame, or 
if initiation means the date of notification of the hearing date, which would 
alleviate regulatory lag. TEXALTEL suggested that the language be revised to 
require that the CTU, from which interconnection is sought, include all cost 
data that formed the basis for its proposed interconnection rates in its 
statement of position submitted during the dispute resolution process. TEXALTEL 
commented that the proposed language prohibiting commission staff persons who 
conduct the dispute resolution process from participating in any future 
commission proceeding addressing the issues resolved by the panel, should not 
apply to the General Counsel division. TEXALTEL suggests that the parties should 
have the right to limited discovery to the extent that the panel concludes such 
discovery is necessary. 
 The commission agrees with commenters that if a party is required to bring 
every unresolved issue before the dispute resolution panel, whose recommendation 
is non-binding, a new CTU's provision of service to customers may be delayed. 
The commission recognizes that the dispute resolution process may serve as a 
catalyst for further negotiations and would be an educational process for all 
parties involved. In response to the comments and consistent with the Federal 
Act, the commission eliminates subsection (g) relating to the dispute resolution 
process. Instead the commission adds subsection (f)(6) so that interconnecting 
CTUs may request, at any time during the negotiations, that the commission 
designee(s) participate in the negotiations and mediate any differences arising 
out of negotiations. 
 Furthermore, if negotiations fail, a negotiating CTU may petition the 
commission to arbitrate any unresolved issues under new subsection (g) relating 
to compulsory arbitration process. 
 Teleport suggested that the compulsory arbitration process contemplated under 
the Federal Act is not a contested hearing but a bilateral arbitration hearing 
involving only the parties involved in the negotiations. Teleport suggested that 
the alternative dispute resolution process established in sec.23. 67 should be 
adopted with the caveat that the commission, not OPD or SOAH, should make the 
final determination on arbitration, consistent with the Federal Act. 
Furthermore, it stated that the arbitration panel's decision should be final and 
not subject to appeal to the commission. Any appeals of the commission's 
approval of the arbitration panel's decision should be reserved to the FCC or 
the federal courts. AT&T contended that the compulsory arbitration process 
contemplated under the Federal Act is a contested proceeding in which all 
interested parties can intervene. AT&T suggested language that would require the 
commission to complete the hearing within nine months after the date the request 
for interconnection was received. TCTA contended that under the Federal Act, the 
compulsory arbitration process can be either a commission proceeding restricted 
to parties involved in the negotiations or an arbitration process akin to the 
alternative dispute resolution process contemplated in sec.23.67. TCTA noted 
that PURA permits the appeal of the decision of an APA-type commission 
proceeding to the state courts which is inconsistent with the Federal Act which 
permits appeals of commission decision only to federal courts. TCTA did not 
object to an appeal of decision rendered by an outside arbitration panel to the 
commission as contemplated in sec.23.67. 
 The commission declines to set out procedures for the compulsory arbitration 
process until the issue is thoroughly examined in the light of the Federal Act. 
However, consistent with the Federal Act, new subsection (g) establishes the 
requirements for a negotiating CTU that may want to initiate the compulsory 
arbitration procedure as well as the starting date of the compulsory arbitration 
process for a CTU that initiated negotiations before the effective date of the 
section. Furthermore, the commission adds language in subsection (g) that would 
require the completion of the compulsory arbitration process within nine months 
after the date the request for interconnection is received. 
 Proposed subsection (h) set forth certain non-discriminatory and public 
interest standards for commission approval of negotiated rates, terms, and 
conditions. It also set forth certain requirements for the filing of rates, 
terms, and conditions resulting from negotiations, dispute resolution, and 
commission proceedings as well as the requirements for the filing of existing 
agreements between ILECs. 
 The commission eliminates proposed subsection (h)(2) regarding filing of rates, 
terms, and conditions resulting from dispute resolution because proposed 
subsection (g) relating to the dispute resolution process is eliminated. 
 OPC stated that consistent with the Federal Act, sec.252(e)-(i), subsection (h) 
should be modified so that the commission would 1) approve negotiated agreements 
within 90 days and agreements resulting from arbitration within 30 days, using 
the standards set forth in the Federal Act; 2) require that the agreements be 
made publicly available absent protective agreements ; and 3) allow the filing 
and approve a Statement of Generally Available Terms by SWBT. TEXALTEL and AT&T 
suggested that consistent with the Federal Act, subsection (h)(1)(C) should be 
modified to require the filing of agreements which should be made available for 
public inspection and copying. 
 The commission revises proposed subsection (h)(1)(A)-(B) to reflect the 
requirements under the Federal Act for the filing and disclosure of rates, 
terms, and conditions resulting from negotiations, compulsory arbitration 
process, and statement of generally available terms. 
 TCTA contended that standards set forth in proposed subsection (h)(1)(C) for 
commission-approval of negotiated agreements should be deleted from the proposed 
rule because PURA 95, sec.3.458(b) requires the commission to approve the 
agreements as negotiated. AT&T, however, supported the standards and argued that 
the provisions of PURA 95, sec.3.458 should be read in conjunction with the 
provisions contained in PURA 95, sec.3.451(a), which require the commission to 
ensure that the rates and regulations of ILECs are not unreasonably 
preferential, prejudicial, or discriminatory. 
 AT&T suggested that language in proposed subsection (h)(1)(C) should be 
modified to reflect the language in the Federal Act regarding approval of 
agreements adopted by negotiation or arbitration. TEXALTEL suggested that the 
standards for commission-approval of agreements adopted by negotiation as set 
forth in subsection (h)(1)(C) should amended to reflect the language in the 
Federal Act, sec.252(e)(2)(A). 
 The commission agrees with AT&T that PURA 95, sec.3.451 under competitive 
safeguards, vests the commission with the responsibility of ensuring that, to 
the extent necessary, competition in telecommunications is fair to all 
participants, and, therefore, that the rates and regulations of an ILEC are not 
unreasonably preferential, prejudicial, or discriminatory. This general 
provision under the competitive safeguards section of PURA 95 should be read in 
conjunction with the specific provisions relating to the various competitive 
safeguards, including interconnection. The commission therefore rejects TCTA's 
claim that the standards proposed in the rule for commission approval of 
negotiated contracts conflict with the requirement in PURA 95, sec.3.458 
relating to interconnection. Furthermore, the commission modifies subsection 
(h)(1)(C) and adds subsection (h)(1)(D)-(E) to reflect the standards under the 
Federal Act for the approval of agreements adopted by negotiations and 
arbitration; and for the commission review of the statement of generally 
available terms filed by SWBT. 
 Teleport, MCI, and AT&T strongly supported the provisions of proposed 
subsection (h) that the public disclosure of rates, terms, and conditions must 
be made. They argued that the rates, terms, and conditions between CTUs, as well 
as existing agreements between ILECs, should be made publicly available to 
ensure that new CTUs are not discriminated against in interconnection agreements 
and to prevent the ILEC from deciding which competitors flourish and which 
perish. MCI suggested requiring the rates, terms, and conditions to be made 
public and available to any interested party for review. AT&T suggested that the 
identity of the CTU from which interconnection is sought and the rates, terms, 
and conditions resulting from negotiations should not be redacted. AT&T 
suggested elimination of the reference to disclosure agreements pursuant to the 
Federal Act. 
 TTA and GTE termed the requirement in proposed subsection (h)(4) regarding the 
filing of contracts describing rates, terms, and conditions between ILECs and/or 
new CTUs to be an absolute administrative overkill. TTA contended that these 
contracts should be made public on a case-by-case basis during dispute 
resolution. GTE opined that because these agreements are vestiges of the 
monopoly telephone environment, they have no relevance to the interconnection 
arrangements contemplated under the proposed rule. TSTCI opined that making the 
results of prior negotiated contracts public is inconsistent with the concept of 
good-faith negotiations and would confer an advantage to the new CTU in the 
negotiating process. 
 The commission agrees with Teleport, MCI, and AT&T that public disclosure of 
rates, terms, and conditions between ILECs and new CTUs is imperative in order 
to prevent potential discrimination that new CTUs may be subject to. The 
commission finds TSTCI's concern that disclosure of the results of prior 
negotiated contracts would confer an advantage to the new CTU to be groundless. 
Public disclosure of negotiated rates, terms, and conditions provides the CTU 
with information necessary to negotiate non-discriminatory interconnection 
arrangements. Absent such disclosure, the ILEC could impact the success of a 
competitor in the local exchange market. However, to reduce the administrative 
burden, the commission modifies subsection (h)(4), renumbered as subsection (h) 
(2), to require that contracts between and/or among DCTUs be disclosed only upon 
request and only to the extent that they relate to interconnection arrangements 
between or among CTUs for similar traffic. The commission also requires that 
disclosure be made pursuant to a protective order. Furthermore the commission 
finds that it is appropriate to require the disclosure of such interconnection 
rates, terms, and conditions to the requesting CTU and the commission staff 
within 15 days of a request. The language in proposed subsection (h)(4), 
renumbered as subsection (h)(2), is modified to clarify the intent of the 
commission. The commission notes that it is not clear whether the rates, terms, 
and conditions established in agreements between DCTUs for EAS and ELCS 
arrangements are required to be submitted to the commission for review and 
approval under the Federal Act. However, the commission finds that it is 
important for new CTUs negotiating interconnections arrangements with DCTUs to 
have access to the relevant agreements between DCTUs, subject to non-disclosure 
agreements. The commission therefore believes that the language in subsection 
(h)(4) (renumbered subsection (h)(2)) regarding the disclosure of these 
agreements subject to protective agreements is appropriate. 
 AT&T recommended that all initial and amended negotiated agreements be filed in 
the form of tariffs within certain time periods. This requirement would also 
apply to the rates, terms, and conditions resulting from commission proceedings. 
AT&T also suggested that recommendations from the dispute resolution panel be 
filed as tariffs, because this will facilitate negotiations between other 
carriers and will lessen the need for other parties to bring their disputes 
before the panel. SWBT objected to AT&T's proposal regarding the filing of 
rates, terms, and conditions in the form of tariffs and stated that once 
negotiated rates are approved by the commission, a tariff proceeding, if the 
tariff is challenged, would be duplicative and unnecessary. SWBT commented PURA 
95, sec.3.458 provides that tariffing interconnection rates is an option, not a 
requirement, and that the rule should not exceed any requirements in the 
statute. 
 The commission disagrees with AT&T that the negotiated agreements and the 
contracts between ILECs should be filed in the form of tariffs. Apart from the 
administrative burden imposed on the ILECs by such a requirement, the commission 
agrees that a tariff proceeding, if the tariff is challenged, would be 
unnecessary and duplicative. Such rates, terms, and conditions would have 
already been approved by the commission whether they resulted from negotiations 
or were determined through a commission proceeding. With respect to AT&T's 
suggestion regarding the need to tariff the recommendations rendered by the 
dispute resolution panel, the commission notes that proposed subsection (g) 
relating to the creation of the dispute resolution panel is eliminated. The 
commission therefore does not adopt AT&T's suggestion. The commission believes 
that AT&T's need to review the rates, terms, and conditions will be adequately 
met by the language in subsection (h)(1)(A)-(B) which requires that rates, 
terms, and conditions resulting from negotiations, compulsory arbitration, and 
statement of generally available terms be made available for public inspection 
and copying. The commission does not agree with SWBT's interpretation of PURA 
95, sec.3.458, but believes that SWBT's primary concern is addressed given that 
the commission is not requiring negotiated contracts to be tariffed. 
 TEXALTEL urged the commission to preempt the need for unnecessary disputes 
regarding reasonable terms and conditions by explicitly providing guidelines 
that require costs be used as a basis for negotiating rates and for arbitrating 
disputes under proposed subsection (h)(1)(C). TEXALTEL suggested that proposed 
subsection (h)(3), relating to rates, terms, and conditions resulting from 
commission proceeding, should be amended to require that a DCTU's rates will be 
set at TSLRIC, pursuant to sec.23.91, unless otherwise requested by the 
negotiating CTU. SWBT opposed TEXALTEL's recommendation that interconnection 
rates be cost-based and stated that it would be premature and inappropriate to 
circumvent the pricing rule required by PURA 95. SWBT further commented that the 
only lawful criteria for such rates is that they be set above cost and that the 
commission find that the rates are not discriminatory. 
 The commission declines to adopt TEXALTEL's suggestion because the issue of 
whether rates should be cost-based will be determined in the compulsory 
arbitration process. However, the commission rejects SWBT's assertion that 
examining the reasonableness of rates prior to the completion of the pricing 
rule would amount to circumventing the pricing rule required by PURA 95. The 
commission notes that rates established prior to the completion of the pricing 
rule can be reexamined in the context of compliance with the pricing rule to the 
same extent as the rates of other services. 
 Proposed subsection (i) set forth customer safeguards to be implemented by 
CTUs. GTE opined that it would be preferable to address the provisions regarding 
customer safeguards at a later date by amending sec.23.61, relating to Telephone 
Utilities. MCI suggested that this section should not include customer 
safeguards and that the entire section should be deleted because the commission 
has limited jurisdiction over NCTUs. OPC opined that customer safeguards should 
be included in the interconnection rule, at least until it can be addressed 
elsewhere. GSC also supported the inclusion of customer safeguards in the rule. 
 To protect customers from deceptive marketing practices and to ensure high 
quality, efficient and timely services to end-user customers in the new 
competitive environment, the commission believes that it is imperative to set 
forth customer safeguards before CTUs begin to compete in the local exchange 
market. The commission agrees with OPC that it would be prudent to address 
customer safeguards in this rule. 
 Proposed subsection (i)(1) and (2) required a CTU to obtain written 
authorization from customers prior to a change in service from one provider to 
another. It also set forth the information that should be included in the 
authorization form sent to the customer. 
 Several commenters found the proposed anti-slamming requirements to be unduly 
burdensome and to be a disadvantage to new CTUs entering the local exchange 
market. MCI and Teleport opined that the commission lacked the requisite 
authority to impose on NCTUs the requirement that written authorization be 
obtained from a customer prior to a change in service from one provider to 
another. They argued that such a provision would not advance competition in the 
local exchange market and instead would increase the new CTU's costs. SWBT 
opined that the written authorization requirements would be burdensome to the 
end-user customer who is accustomed to giving verbal authorization for local 
exchange service. 
 AT&T, TEXALTEL, Teleport, TCTA, Time Warner, Consumers Union, and ORA suggested 
that the rule should mirror the anti-slamming rules promulgated by the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC) for the provision of interexchange long distance 
service. AT&T and TEXALTEL explained that in many cases new CTUs would be 
offering both local and long distance service, and the implementation of 
different verifications procedures for each service would impose undue 
administrative burdens and a competitive disadvantage on the new CTU. Sprint 
remarked that the rule should offer sufficient flexibility for the commission to 
adopt other authorization procedures which may be more efficient to administer. 
 The commission agrees that the anti-slamming rules promulgated by the FCC for 
the long distance market provide a useful framework because they balance the 
industry's need for flexibility in marketing services to customers with the need 
to protect customers from deceptive or confusing marketing practices. The 
commission modifies subsection (i)(1) to reflect the FCC's rules to the extent 
appropriate. Revised subsection (i)(1) deviates from the FCC rules to address 
circumstances, such as information regarding local calling scopes, that are 
unique to the local exchange market. In addition, the commission modifies 
subsection (i)(2) to delete the reference to written authorization and 
incorporates it as part of subsection (i)(1). The commission notes that the 
authorization required under subsection (i)(1)(A) is for purposes of 
verification of orders for local exchange service generated by telemarketing. 
 MCI recommended deleting the requirement in proposed subsection (i)(1)(C) (iii) 
that a CTU's authorization form reflect an acknowledgment by the customer that 
the local calling scope obtained from the new CTU may differ from the calling 
scope offered by the former CTU. MCI stated that the commission lacks the 
jurisdiction to regulate the marketing practices of new CTUs. MCI and TEXALTEL 
commented that if the requirement is retained, then it should be amended so that 
the statement is required only if the customer will have a more limited calling 
scope. 
 The provision requiring notice to customers that a new CTU's calling scope may 
differ from that currently provided to the customer was included to ensure that 
customers are able to make informed decisions when authorizing a change in CTUs. 
Given that a prospective CTU would have a strong incentive to inform the 
customer if its local calling scope is larger than the local calling scope of 
the customer's current CTU, the commission agrees with MCI and TEXALTEL that 
notification to customers about differing local calling scopes is necessary only 
in the event the local calling scope of the prospective CTU is more limited than 
that of the customer's current CTU. The language in subsection (i)(1)(C)(iii) is 
modified to reflect this change. 
 Sprint stated that the requirements in proposed subsection (i)(1)(D), regarding 
commission approval of an authorization form provided by CTU to residential 
customers, should be revised to include business customers. TEXALTEL commented 
that this provision is unnecessary if the rules clearly delineate the contents 
of the authorization form. 
 The commission agrees with TEXALTEL that if the rules clearly delineate the 
contents of the authorization form, there is no need for commission approval of 
the authorization forms. Since proposed subsection (i)(1) has been modified to 
clearly state the contents of the authorization form, the provision regarding 
commission approval of the authorization form is deleted. The commission finds 
that it is unnecessary to modify the subsection as requested by Sprint because 
the provision is deleted. 
 SWBT and Sprint contended that the proposed language appears to prevent an end-
user customer from electing to receive service from multiple CTUs at the same 
time. SWBT, TEXALTEL, Time Warner, MFS, Consumers Union, ORA, and Sprint 
suggested that the rule should allow an end-user customer to purchase local 
exchange service from more than one CTU at a time. 
 The commission did not intend to prohibit customers from purchasing local 
exchange service from more than one CTU at a time. Language is added to 
subsection (i)(1) to allow a customer to purchase local exchange service from 
more than one CTU at a time. 
 Teleport suggested that subsection (i)(1)(C) should be amended because it sets 
forth the rules for the letter of agency that are more complicated and 
burdensome than the FCC rules. 
 The commission notes that subsection (i)(1)(C) reflects the FCC rules to the 
extent appropriate for local exchange competition and modifies the rule to 
address circumstances that are unique to local exchange competition. The 
commission therefore declines to adopt Teleport's suggestion. 
 AT&T suggested that subsection (i)(1)(E) relating to refunds for unauthorized 
carrier changes should be amended and made consistent with the Federal Act, 
sec.258(b). 
 The commission agrees with AT&T and modifies the language in subsection (i) 
(1)(E) to make it consistent with the relevant language in the Federal Act. 
 Under proposed subsection (i)(3) (renumbered subsection (i)(2)), if a CTU 
ceases its operations, it would be responsible for notifying the commission and 
all of the CTU's customers about termination of service at least 61 working days 
prior to such termination of service. The notification would have to include a 
listing of all alternative service providers available to customers in the 
exchange and would have to specify the date on which service would be 
terminated. 
 GTE remarked that proposed subsection (i)(3) should be eliminated because the 
market will take care of notification when a CTU goes out of business. Consumers 
Union strongly disagreed with GTE's position on this subject, and stated that 
the commission has a significant public policy interest in monitoring new CTUs 
so that the commission can evaluate market performance. Furthermore, according 
to Consumers Union, public knowledge that a CTU is going out of business would 
not give a competitive advantage to any single CTU, nor would it encourage 
deceptive business practices by CTUs trying to get customers to change CTUs. 
 The commission agrees with Consumers Union that it is important for the 
commission to receive timely notification of business failures to help determine 
the success of the interconnection procedures governing competition in the local 
exchange market as well as the viability of local exchange competition over 
time. GTE's recommendation regarding elimination of this provision is rejected. 
 TEXALTEL requested that the language be revised to clarify that CTUs may go out 
of business on their own initiative rather than only in a must cease situation. 
 In order to recognize that a CTU may elect to cease operations rather than be 
forced out of business by bankruptcy or for other reasons, the commission 
believes that it is appropriate to replace the words must cease with the word 
ceases in the first sentence of the renumbered subsection (i)(2). 
 Under proposed subsection (i)(4) (renumbered as subsection (i)(3)), DCTUs that 
interconnect with NCTUs would be responsible for meeting the installation of 
service requirements under  sec.23.61(e)(2), relating to Telephone Utilities, in 
providing service to the NCTU. NCTUs would make a good-faith effort to meet the 
requirements for installation in sec.23.61(e)(2), and could negotiate with the 
DCTU to establish a procedure to meet this goal. However, for NCTUs that provide 
dial tone, 95% of the NCTU's service orders would be completed in no more than 
ten working days from request for service, unless a later date is specifically 
requested by the customer. For NCTUs that do not provide dial tone and resell 
the telephone services of a DCTU, 95% of the NCTU's service orders would be 
completed in no more than seven working days after a request for service, unless 
a later date is specifically requested by the customer. For facilities other 
than the DCTU's resale facilities obtained through PURA 95, sec.3.453, the NCTU 
would complete service orders within 30 working days from request of service, 
unless a later date is specifically requested by the customer. Additionally, the 
DCTU could not discriminate between its customers and NCTUs if the DCTU is able 
to install service in less than the time permitted under sec.23.61(e)(2) of this 
title. 
 MCI stated that the language in this subsection should allow the 10-day 
installation period, at the discretion of the customer. MCI further commented 
that the DCTU should be given the option of asking the customer to agree to a 
different installation schedule. MCI also urged the commission to defer the 
issue of default installation deadlines until the commission has determined how 
many days a DCTU will have to provide unbundled loops to NCTUs. 
 The commission agrees with MCI that in a competitive environment where 
customers can choose among local exchange carriers, CTUs should be allowed to 
negotiate installation intervals with a customer to arrive at an installation 
date that best meets the customer's needs. Therefore, the provision is modified 
to allow a later installation date if it has been agreed to by the customer and 
renumbered as subsection (i)(3)(A)-(C). 
 TEXALTEL stated that this subsection is unnecessary because market forces will 
ensure that CTUs meet customer needs with respect to installation of service. 
AT&T suggested that, at a minimum, the ILEC should be required to meet its 
current performance for providing service with respect to service ordering, 
installation, repair, and maintenance. 
 The commission believes that the quality of service offered to customers should 
not suffer with the advent of competition and therefore disagrees with TEXALTEL 
that the provision is unnecessary. The commission declines to adopt AT&T's 
recommendation because CTUs are required to meet the service quality standards 
for maintenance under subsection (d)(2)(E), and for installation of service 
under subsection (i)(3). With respect to service ordering and repair, the 
commission finds that it is the responsibility of the CTU providing the service, 
not the ILEC, to process service orders and to repair its own facilities. 
 TCTA stated that this subsection, as proposed, is in conflict with the 
statutory provisions of PURA relating to COA build-out requirements. PURA 95, 
sec.3.2531(c) states that the commission may set time limits on installation 
time, but that the COA must be able to serve a customer within the build-out 
area in 30 days or less. TCTA opined that this subsection improperly extends the 
30-day limitation to areas outside of the build-out area. 
 The commission agrees with TCTA that the language as proposed appears to 
conflict with the statutory build-out requirement for holders of COAs. The 
language in subsection (i)(3)(C) is modified to address TCTA's concern and 
renumbered as subsection (i)(3). The commission also makes minor clarifications 
to subsection (i). 
 Teleport and Time Warner contended that the commission should be guided by the 
principles of public interest, economic viability, administrative efficiency, 
and non-discriminatory arrangements in approving a permanent compensation 
scheme. Time Warner and Teleport urged the commission to implement mandatory 
bill and keep arrangements as a permanent compensation mechanism, citing other 
states including California, Michigan, Connecticut, and Washington that have 
adopted the bill and keep method for compensation purposes. SWBT and TTA 
responded that the statute contemplates bill and keep compensation only as an 
interim provision. GTE contended that bill and keep compensation is only an 
interim measure in the states mentioned by Teleport and Time Warner, and that 
other states such as New York, Maryland, and Pennsylvania have adopted an access 
charge system. GTE characterized Teleport's and Time Warner's recommendation as 
premature because the issue of compensation will be considered by the commission 
in the nine-month proceeding contemplated under PURA 95, sec.3.458(d). At the 
public hearing, TCTA commented that PURA 95, sec.3.458 does not preclude or 
foreclose the adoption of a bill and keep arrangement on a permanent basis. 
 The commission notes that the interconnection rule does not prescribe the 
appropriate interconnection rates or type of interconnection rates structure. 
The issue of whether a bill and keep mechanism should be a permanent 
compensation mechanism will be addressed during negotiations or in the 
compulsory arbitration process. 
 Subsections (d)(2)(C) and (e)(2)(C) require that interconnecting CTUs provide 
access to common channel signaling (CCS), where technically available. 
Similarly, subsection (e)(2)(I) requires interconnecting CTUs to provide non-
discriminatory access to Advanced Intelligent Network (AIN), where technically 
available. 
 AT&T believes that terms where technically available be replaced by where 
technically feasible, consistent with the requirement in the Federal Act. 
 The commission believes that adopting AT&T's recommendation would require a CTU 
to deploy common channel signaling and AIN to meet another CTU's request where 
it is not available for its own purposes but only in order meet another CTU's 
request for such facilities. Adopting AT&T's recommendation would also ignore 
the commitments for network upgrades under PURA 95 in the case of SWBT and GTE. 
The commission finds that, consistent with PURA 95 and the Federal Act, under 
the rule, a CTU will be provided non-discriminatory access to another CTU's CCS 
system and AIN if such facilities have been deployed by a CTU for its own use. 
The commission therefore declines to adopt AT&T's recommendation. 
 In adopting this section, the commission makes other minor modifications for 
the purposes of clarifying its intent. All comments, including any not 
specifically referenced herein, were fully considered by the commission. 
 The section is adopted under the Texas Civil Statutes, Article 1446c-0, 
sec.1.101, which provides the commission with the authority to make and enforce 
rules reasonably required in the exercise of its powers and jurisdiction; sec.3. 
051 which authorizes the commission to adopt rules, policies, and procedures to 
protect the public interest and to provide equal opportunity to all 
telecommunications utilities in a competitive marketplace; and sec.3.458, which 
allows the commission to adopt rules for interconnection. 
 Cross Index to Statutes: Texas Civil Statutes, Article 1446c-0. 
 
 
  sec.23.97. Interconnection. 
 
  (a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to ensure that all providers of 
telecommunications services which are certificated to provide local exchange 
service, basic local telecommunications service, or switched access service 
within the state interconnect and maintain interoperable networks such that the 
benefits of local exchange competition are realized as envisioned under the 
provisions of the Public Utility Regulatory Act of 1995. The commission finds 
that interconnection is necessary to achieve competition in the local exchange 
market and is, therefore, in the public interest. 
   
  (b) Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in this section, 
shall have the following meaning, unless the context clearly indicates 
otherwise. 
 
  (1)  Certificated telecommunications utility (CTU) -A telecommunications 
utility as defined in sec.23.3 of this title (relating to Definitions). 
   
  (2) Commission proceeding-A proceeding as defined in subchapter A of the 
Commission's procedural rules. 
   
  (3) Customer-An end-user customer. 
   
  (4) Dominant certificated telecommunications utility (DCTU) -A CTU that is 
also a dominant carrier with respect to local exchange service. 
   
  (5) Exchange area-The geographic territory delineated as an exchange area by 
official commission boundary maps. An exchange area usually embraces a city or 
town and its environs. There is usually a uniform set of charges for 
telecommunications service within the exchange area. An exchange area may be 
served by more than one central office and/or one CTU. An exchange area may also 
be referred to as an exchange. 
   
  (6) Extended Area Service (EAS)-That definition given in sec.23.3 of this 
title. 
   
  (7)  Extended Local Calling Service (ELCS)-Service provided pursuant to 
sec.23. 49 of this title (relating to Telephone Extended Area Service (EAS) and 
Expanded Toll-free Local Calling Areas). 
   
  (8) Identity-The name, address, telephone number, and/or facsimile number of a 
person, whether natural, partnership, municipal corporation, cooperative 
corporation, corporation, association, governmental subdivision, or state agency 
and the relationship of the person to the entity being represented. 
   
  (9)  Incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC)-That definition given in sec.23.3 
of this title. 
   
  (10) Interconnection-The termination of local traffic (including basic 
telecommunications service as delineated in sec.24.32 of this title (Relating to 
Universal Service) or ISDN as defined in sec.23.69 of this title (Relating to 
Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN)) and/or EAS/ELCS traffic of a CTU 
using the local access lines of another CTU, as described in subsection 
(d)(4)(A)(i) of this section. Interconnection shall include non-discriminatory 
access to signaling systems, databases, facilities and information as required 
to ensure interoperability of networks and efficient, timely provision of 
services to customers without permitting access to network proprietary 
information or customer proprietary network information, as defined in  
sec.23.57 of this title (relating to Telecommunications Privacy), unless 
otherwise permitted in this section. 
   
  (11) Local calling area-That definition given in sec.23.3 of this title. 
   
  (12)  Negotiating party-A CTU or other entity with which a requesting CTU 
seeks to interconnect in order to complete all telephone calls made by or placed 
to a customer of the requesting CTU. 
   
  (13)  Non-discriminatory-Type of treatment that is not less favorable than 
that an interconnecting CTU provides to itself or its affiliates or other CTUs. 
   
  (14) Non-dominant Certificated Telecommunications Utility (NCTU)-A CTU that is 
not a DCTU and has been granted a certificate of convenience and necessity (CCN) 
(after September 1, 1995, in an area already certificated to a DCTU), a 
certificate of operating authority (COA), or a service provider certificate of 
operating authority (SPCOA) to provide local exchange service. 
   
  (15) Small CTU-A CTU with fewer than 2.0% of the Nation's subscriber lines 
installed in the aggregate nationwide. 
   
  (16) Small Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (Small ILEC) -An ILEC serving 
fewer than 31,000 access lines. 
     
  (c) Application and Exceptions. 
 
  (1) Application. This section applies to all CTUs providing local exchange 
service. 
   
  (2)  Exceptions. Except as herein provided, all CTUs providing local exchange 
service must comply with the requirements of this section. 
 
  (A)  Holders of an SPCOA. 
 
  (i) The holder of an SPCOA that does not provide dial tone and only resells 
the telephone services of another CTU shall be subject only to the requirements 
of subparagraphs (B)(ii) and (D)(i)-(vii) of subsection (e)(1) of this section 
and subsection (i)(1)-(3) of this section. 
   
  (ii) The underlying CTU providing service to the holder of an SPCOA referenced 
in subparagraph (A)(i) of this paragraph shall comply with the requirements of 
this section with respect to the customers of the SPCOA holder. 
     
  (B) Small ILECs. 
 
  (i) Except as provided in this subparagraph, small ILECs are exempt from this 
section until September 1, 1998, on which date all provisions of this section 
shall apply and other CTUs providing local exchange service may request 
interconnection in the small ILEC's exchanges. After September 1, 1998, this 
section shall apply to small ILECs to the extent required by 47 United States 
Code, sec.251(f) (1996). 
   
  (ii) Not withstanding the requirement in clause (i) of this subparagraph, 
small ILECs shall terminate traffic of a CTU which originates and terminates 
within the small ILEC's ELCS or EAS calling scope, where the small ILEC has an 
ELCS or EAS arrangement with another DCTU. The termination of this traffic shall 
be at rates, terms, and conditions as described in subsection (d)(4)(A)(i) of 
this section. Prior to September 1, 1998, this clause shall apply only to 
traffic, described in subsection (d)(4)(A)(i) of this section, originated by a 
CTU in territory other than territory served by a small ILEC. 
     
  (C) Rural Telephone Companies. 
 
  (i) This section shall also apply to rural telephone companies as defined in 
47 United States Code, sec.153 (1996) to the extent required by 47 United States 
Code, sec.251(f) (1996). 
   
  (ii) Rural telephone companies shall terminate traffic of a CTU which 
originates and terminates within the rural telephone company's ELCS or EAS 
calling scope, where the rural telephone company has an ELCS or EAS arrangement 
with another DCTU. The termination of this traffic shall be at rates, terms, and 
conditions as described in subsection (d)(4)(A) (i) of this section. 
     
  (D) Small CTUs. 
 
  (i) A small CTU may petition for a suspension or modification of the 
application of this section pursuant to 47 United States Code, sec.251(f)(2) 
(1996). 
   
  (ii)  Small CTUs shall terminate traffic of a CTU which originates and 
terminates within the small CTU's ELCS or EAS calling scope, where the small CTU 
has an ELCS or EAS arrangement with another DCTU. The termination of this 
traffic shall be at rates, terms, and conditions as described in subsection (d) 
(4)(A)(i) of this section. 
         
  (d) Principles of Interconnection. 
 
  (1) General Principles. 
 
  (A) Interconnection between CTUs shall be established in a manner that is 
seamless, interoperable, technically and economically efficient, and transparent 
to the customer. 
   
  (B)  Interconnection between CTUs shall utilize nationally accepted 
telecommunications industry standards and/or mutually acceptable standards for 
construction, operation, testing and maintenance of networks, such that the 
integrity of the networks is not impaired. 
   
  (C) A CTU may not unreasonably: 
 
  (i) discriminate against another CTU by refusing access to the local exchange; 
   
  (ii) refuse or delay interconnections to another CTU; 
   
  (iii) degrade the quality of access provided to another CTU; 
   
  (iv) impair the speed, quality, or efficiency of lines used by another CTU; 
   
  (v) fail to fully disclose in a timely manner, on request, all available 
information necessary for the design of equipment that will meet the 
specifications of the local exchange network; or 
   
  (vi) refuse or delay access by any person to another CTU. 
     
  (D) Interconnecting CTUs shall negotiate rates, terms, and conditions for 
facilities, services, or any other interconnection arrangements required 
pursuant to this section. 
   
  (E) This section should not be construed to allow an interconnecting CTU 
access to another CTU's network proprietary information or customer proprietary 
network information, as defined in sec.23.57 of this title, unless otherwise 
permitted in this section. 
     
  (2) Technical Interconnection Principles. Interconnecting CTUs shall make a 
good-faith effort to accommodate each other's technical requests, provided that 
the technical requests are consistent with national industry standards and are 
in compliance with sec.23. 61 of this title (relating to Telephone Utilities) 
and implementation of the requests would not cause unreasonable inefficiencies, 
unreasonable costs, or other detriment to the network of the CTU receiving the 
requests. 
 
  (A)  Interconnecting CTUs shall ensure that customers of CTUs shall not have 
to dial additional digits or incur dialing delays that exceed industry standards 
in order to complete local calls as a result of interconnection. 
   
  (B)  Interconnecting CTUs shall provide each other non-discriminatory access 
to signaling systems, databases, facilities, and information as required to 
ensure interoperability of networks and efficient, timely provision of services 
to customers. 
   
  (C) Interconnecting CTUs shall provide each other Common Channel Signaling 
System Seven (SS7) connectivity where technically available. 
   
  (D) Interconnecting CTUs shall be permitted a minimum of one point of 
interconnection in each exchange area or group of contiguous exchange areas 
within a single LATA, as requested by the interconnecting CTU, and may negotiate 
with the other CTU for additional interconnection points. Interconnecting CTUs 
shall agree to construct and/ or lease and maintain the facilities necessary to 
connect their networks, either by having one CTU provide the entire facility or 
by sharing the construction and maintenance of the facilities necessary to 
connect their networks. The financial responsibility for construction and 
maintenance of such facilities shall be borne by the party who constructs and 
maintains the facility, unless the parties involved agree to other financial 
arrangements. Each interconnecting CTU shall be responsible for delivering its 
originating traffic to the mutually-agreed-upon point of interconnection or 
points of interconnection. Nothing herein precludes a CTU from recovering the 
costs of construction and maintenance of facilities if such facilities are used 
by other CTUs. 
   
  (E) Interconnecting CTUs shall establish joint procedures for troubleshooting 
the portions of their networks that are jointly used. Each CTU shall be 
responsible for maintaining and monitoring its own network such that the overall 
integrity of the interconnected network is maintained with service quality that 
is consistent with industry standards and is in compliance with sec.23.61 of 
this title. 
   
  (F) If a CTU has sufficient facilities in place, it shall provide intermediate 
transport arrangements between other interconnecting CTUs, upon request. A CTU 
providing intermediate transport shall not negotiate termination on behalf of 
another CTU, unless the terminating CTU agrees to such an arrangement. Upon 
request, DCTUs within major metropolitan areas will contact other CTUs and 
arrange meetings, within 15 days of such request, in an effort to facilitate 
negotiations and provide a forum for discussion of network efficiencies and 
inter-company billing arrangements. 
   
  (G) Each interconnecting CTU shall be responsible for ensuring that traffic is 
properly routed to the connected CTU and jurisdictionally identified by percent 
usage factors or in a manner agreed upon by the interconnecting CTUs. 
   
  (H) Interconnecting CTUs shall allow each other non-discriminatory access to 
all facility rights-of-way, conduits, pole attachments, building entrance 
facilities, and other pathways, provided that the requesting CTU has obtained 
all required authorizations from the property owner and/or appropriate 
governmental authority. 
   
  (I)  Interconnecting CTUs shall provide each other physical interconnection in 
a non-discriminatory manner. Physical collocation for the transmission of local 
exchange traffic shall be provided to a CTU upon request, unless the CTU from 
whom collocation is sought demonstrates that technical or space limitations make 
physical collocation impractical. Virtual collocation for the transmission of 
local exchange traffic shall be implemented at the option of the CTU requesting 
the interconnection. 
   
  (J) Each interconnecting CTU shall be responsible for contacting the North 
American Numbering Plan (NANP) administrator for its own NXX codes and for 
initiating NXX assignment requests. 
     
  (3) Principles regarding billing arrangements. 
 
  (A)  Interconnecting CTUs shall cooperatively provide each other with both 
answer and disconnect supervision as well as accurate and timely exchange of 
information on billing records to facilitate billing to customers, to determine 
intercompany settlements for local and non-local traffic, and to validate the 
jurisdictional nature of traffic, as necessary. Such billing records shall be 
provided in accordance with national industry standards. For billing 
interexchange carriers for jointly provided switched access services, such 
billing records shall include meet point billing records, interexchange carrier 
billing name, interexchange carrier billing address, and Carrier Identification 
Codes (CICs). If exchange of CIC codes is not technically feasible, 
interconnecting CTUs shall negotiate a mutually acceptable settlement process 
for billing interexchange carriers for jointly provided switched access 
services. 
   
  (B) CTUs shall enter into mutual billing and collection arrangements that are 
comparable to those existing between and/or among DCTUs, to ensure acceptance of 
each other's non-proprietary calling cards and operator-assisted calls. 
   
  (C) Upon a customer's selection of a CTU for his or her local exchange 
service, that CTU shall provide notification to the primary interexchange 
carrier (IXC) through the Customer Account Record Exchange (CARE) database, or 
comparable means if CARE is unavailable, of all information necessary for 
billing that customer. At a minimum, this information should include the name 
and contact person for the new CTU and the customer's name, telephone number, 
and billing number. In the event a customer's local exchange service is 
disconnected at the option of the customer or the CTU, the disconnecting CTU 
shall provide notification to the primary IXC of such disconnection. 
   
  (D) All CTUs shall cooperate with interexchange carriers to ensure that 
customers are properly billed for interexchange carrier services. 
     
  (4) Principles regarding interconnection rates, terms, and conditions. 
 
  (A) Criteria for setting interconnection rates, terms, and conditions. 
Interconnection rates, terms, and conditions shall not be unreasonably 
preferential, discriminatory, or prejudicial. Interconnection rates, terms, and 
conditions shall be non-discriminatory. 
 
  (i) As of the effective date of this section, the following criteria shall be 
used to establish interconnection rates, terms, and conditions. 
 
  (I) Local traffic of a CTU which originates and terminates within the 
mandatory single or multiexchange local calling area available under the basic 
local exchange rate of a single DCTU shall be terminated by the CTU at local 
interconnection rates. The local interconnection rates under this subclause also 
apply with respect to mandatory EAS traffic originated and terminated within the 
local calling area of a DCTU if such traffic is between exchanges served by that 
single DCTU. 
   
  (II) With respect to traffic governed by a DCTU's ELCS arrangement if an NCTU 
offers, on a mandatory basis, the same minimum ELCS calling scope that a DCTU 
offers under its ELCS arrangement, an NCTU shall receive, for such traffic, 
arrangements that are not less favorable than those DCTUs provide each other for 
terminating mandatory ELCS traffic. 
   
  (III) With respect to local traffic originated and terminated within the local 
calling area of a DCTU but between exchanges of two or more DCTUs governed by 
mandatory EAS arrangements, DCTUs shall terminate local traffic of NCTUs at 
rates, terms, and conditions that are not less favorable than those between 
DCTUs for similar mandatory EAS traffic for the affected area. An NCTU and a 
DCTU may agree to terms and conditions that are different from those that exist 
between DCTUs for similar mandatory EAS traffic. The rates applicable to the 
NCTU for such traffic shall reflect the difference in costs to the DCTU caused 
by the different terms and conditions. 
   
  (IV) With respect to traffic that originates and terminates within an optional 
flat rate calling area, whether between exchanges of one DCTU or between 
exchanges of two or more DCTUs, DCTUs shall terminate such traffic of NCTUs at 
rates, terms, and conditions that are not less favorable than those between 
DCTUs for similar traffic. An NCTU and a DCTU may agree to terms and conditions 
that are different from those that exist between DCTUs for similar optional EAS 
traffic. The rates applicable to the NCTU for such traffic shall reflect the 
difference in costs to the DCTU caused by the different terms and conditions. 
   
  (V) A DCTU with more than one million access lines and an NCTU shall negotiate 
new EAS arrangements in accordance with the following requirements. 
 
  (-a-) For traffic between an exchange and a contiguous metropolitan exchange 
local calling area, as defined in sec.23.3 of this title, the DCTU shall 
negotiate with an NCTU for termination of such traffic if the NCTU includes such 
traffic as part of its customers' local calling area. These interconnection 
arrangements shall be not less favorable than the arrangements between DCTUs for 
similar EAS traffic. 
   
  (-b-) For traffic that does not originate or terminate within a metropolitan 
exchange local calling area, the DCTU shall negotiate with an NCTU for the 
termination of traffic between the contiguous service areas of the DCTU and the 
NCTU if the NCTU includes such traffic as part of its customers' local calling 
area and such traffic originated in an exchange served by the DCTU. These 
interconnection arrangements shall be not less favorable than the arrangements 
between DCTUs for similar EAS traffic. 
   
  (-c-) An NCTU shall have the same obligation to negotiate similar EAS 
interconnection arrangements with respect to traffic between its service area 
and a contiguous exchange of the DCTU if the DCTU includes such traffic as part 
of its customers' local calling area. 
     
  (VI) NCTUs are not precluded from establishing their own local calling areas 
or prices for purposes of retail telephone service offerings. 
     
  (ii) The commission shall specifically review the policies of this section to 
determine whether the local interconnection rates established pursuant to 
subclause (I) of subsection (d)(4)(A)(i) of this section should apply to traffic 
in addition to traffic described in that subclause. The commission shall 
complete an initial review no later than two years from the effective date of 
this section. 
     
  (B) Establishment of rates, terms, and conditions. 
 
  (i)  CTUs involved in interconnection negotiations shall ensure that all 
reasonable negotiation opportunities are completed prior to the termination of 
the first commercial call. The date upon which the first commercial call between 
CTUs is terminated signifies the beginning of a nine-month period in which each 
CTU shall reciprocally terminate the other CTU's traffic at no charge, in the 
absence of mutually negotiated interconnection rates. Reciprocal interconnection 
rates, terms, and conditions shall be established pursuant to the compulsory 
arbitration process in subsection (g) of this section. In establishing these 
initial rates and within the time period of three years from termination of the 
first commercial call, no cost studies shall be required from a new CTU. 
   
  (ii) An ILEC may adopt the tariffed interconnection rates approved for a 
larger ILEC or interconnection rates of a larger ILEC resulting from 
negotiations without providing the commission any additional cost justification 
for the adopted rates. If an ILEC adopts the tariffed interconnection rates 
approved for a larger ILEC, it shall file tariffs referencing the appropriate 
larger ILEC's rates. If an ILEC adopts the interconnection rates of a larger 
ILEC, the new CTU may adopt those rates as its own rates by filing tariffs 
referencing the appropriate larger ILEC's rates. If an ILEC chooses to file its 
own interconnection tariff, the new CTU must also file its own interconnection 
tariff. 
     
  (C) Public disclosure of interconnection rates, terms, and conditions. 
Interconnection rates, terms, and/or conditions shall be made publicly available 
as provided in subsection (h) of this section. 
       
  (e) Minimum Interconnection Arrangements. 
 
  (1) Pursuant to mutual agreements, interconnecting CTUs shall provide each 
other non-discriminatory access to ancillary services such as repair services, 
E-911, operator services, white pages telephone directory listing, publication 
and distribution, and directory assistance. The following minimum terms and 
conditions shall apply: 
 
  (A) Repair Services. For purposes of this section, a CTU shall be required to 
provide repair services for its own facilities regardless of whether such 
facilities are used by the CTU for retail purposes, or provided by the CTU for 
resale purposes, or whether the facilities are ordered by another CTU for 
purposes of collocation. 
   
  (B) E-911 services. E-911 services include Automatic Number Identification 
(ANI), ANI and Automatic Location Identification (ALI), ANI and/or ALI and 
selective routing, and/or any other combination of enhanced 9-1-1 features 
required by the Regional Planning Commission or the 9-1-1 emergency 
communication district responsible for the geographic area involved. This 
requirement is in accordance with Health and Safety Code, Chapter 771, and the 
applicable regional plan approved by the Advisory Commission on State Emergency 
Communications or by the emergency communication district, defined in Health and 
Safety Code, Chapter 771,  sec.771.001(2), responsible for the geographic area 
involved or other local authority responsible for the geographic area involved. 
 
  (i) As a prerequisite to providing local exchange telephone service to any 
customer and thereafter, a CTU must meet the following requirements. 
 
  (I) The CTU is responsible for ordering or provisioning the trunk groups 
necessary to provide E-911 services. 
   
  (II) The CTU is responsible for enabling all its customers to dial the three 
digits 9, 1, 1, and only these numbers, to access 9-1-1 service. 
   
  (III) The CTU is responsible for providing the telephone number of the 9-1-1 
calling customer to the appropriate CTU's E-911 tandems or appropriate 9-1-1 
Public Safety Answering Point, as applicable. This number must include both the 
numbering plan area (NPA) code, or numbering plan digit (NPD), as appropriate 
and necessary, and the local telephone number of the 9-1-1 calling customer, 
that can be used to successfully complete a return call to the customer. ANI 
represents this capability. 
   
  (IV) The CTU is responsible for selectively routing a 9-1-1 customer call, as 
well as interconnecting traffic on its network, to the appropriate CTU's E-911 
tandems or appropriate 9-1-1 Public Safety Answering Point, as applicable, based 
on the ANI and/or location of the calling party. The appropriate CTU and/or 
appropriate 9-1-1 entity, as applicable, shall provide routing information to 
the CTU for routing purposes. 
   
  (V) The CTU is responsible for providing appropriate information describing 
the location from which a CTU customer is placing a 9-1-1 call. This information 
shall consist of the calling customer name, physical location, appropriate 
emergency service providers, and other similar data. For purposes of this 
subclause, appropriate or other similar data shall be determined by the Regional 
Planning Commission responsible for the geographic area involved, in accordance 
with Health and Safety Code, Chapter 771, and the applicable regional plan 
approved by the Advisory Commission on State Emergency Communications or by the 
emergency communication district, defined in Health and Safety Code, Chapter 
771, sec.771.001(2), responsible for the geographic area involved or other local 
authority responsible for the geographic area involved. 
     
  (ii) Each interconnecting CTU is responsible for providing to the local 
authority and the appropriate CTU, accurate and timely current information for 
all published, nonpublished, and nonlisted information associated with its 
customers for the purposes of emergency or E-911 services. 
 
  (I) For purposes of this clause, the appropriate CTU refers to the CTU 
designated by the local authority for purposes of maintaining the 9-1-1 
database. 
   
  (II) For purposes of this clause, the information is considered timely if 
within 24 hours of receipt of the information, it is delivered by the CTU to the 
appropriate CTU and the local authority, and/or placed into the database by the 
appropriate CTU. 
   
  (III) For purposes of this clause, the information sent by a CTU to the 
appropriate CTU or the information used by the appropriate CTU shall be 
maintained in a fashion to ensure that it is accurate at a percentage as close 
to 100% as possible. Accurate means a record that correctly routes a 9-1-1 call, 
and/or provides correct location information relating to the origination of such 
call. Percentage means the total number of accurate records in that database 
divided by the total number of records in that database. In determining the 
accuracy of records, a CTU shall not be held responsible for erroneous 
information provided to it by a customer or another CTU. 
   
  (IV) Interconnecting CTUs shall execute confidentiality agreements with each 
other, as necessary, to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of non-
published/non-listed numbers. Interconnecting CTU shall be allowed access to the 
ALI database by the appropriate CTU for verification purposes. The local 9-1-1 
entity shall provide non-discriminatory access to the Master Street Address 
Guide. 
     
  (iii) Each CTU is responsible for developing a 9-1-1 disaster recovery, 
service restoration plan with input from the applicable Regional Planning 
Commission or emergency communication district and the Advisory Commission on 
State Emergency Communications. This plan shall identify the actions to be taken 
in the event of a network based 9-1-1 service failure. The goal of such actions 
shall be the efficient and timely restoration of the 9-1-1 service. CTUs shall 
notify the applicable Regional Planning Commission or emergency communications 
district of any changes in CTU network based services and other services that 
may require changes to the plan. 
   
  (iv) Interconnecting CTUs shall provide each other and the appropriate 9-1-1 
entity notification of scheduled outages for 9-1-1 trunks at least 48 hours 
prior to such outages. In the event of unscheduled outages for 9-1-1 trunks, 
interconnecting CTUs shall provide each other and the appropriate 9-1-1 entity 
immediate notification of such outages. 
   
  (v) Each NCTU's rates for 9-1-1 service to a Public Safety Answering Point 
shall be presumed to be reasonable if they do not exceed the rates charged by 
the ILEC for similar service. 
     
  (C)  Operator Services. Interconnecting CTUs shall negotiate to ensure the 
interoperability of operator services between networks, including but not 
limited to the ability of operators on each network to perform such operator 
functions as reverse billing, line verification, call screening, and call 
interrupt. 
   
  (D) White Pages Telephone Directory and Directory Assistance. Interconnecting 
CTUs shall negotiate to ensure provision of white pages telephone directory and 
directory assistance services. 
 
  (i)  The telephone numbers and other appropriate information of the customers 
of NCTUs shall be included on a non-discriminatory basis in the DCTU's white 
pages directory associated with the geographic area covered by the white pages 
telephone directory published by the DCTUs. Similarly, any white pages telephone 
directory provided by an NCTU to its customers shall have corresponding DCTU 
listings available on a non-discriminatory basis. The entries of NCTU customers 
in the DCTU white pages telephone directory shall be interspersed alphabetically 
among the entries of the DCTU customers and shall be no different in style, 
size, or format than the entries of the DCTU customers, unless requested 
otherwise by the NCTU. The CTU or its affiliate publishing a white pages 
telephone directory on behalf of the CTU shall not directly charge the customer 
of another CTU located in the geographic areas covered by the white pages 
telephone directory for white pages listings or directory. 
   
  (ii) Listings of all customers located within the local calling area of an 
NCTU, but not located within the local calling area of the DCTU publishing the 
white pages telephone directory, shall be included in a separate section of the 
DCTU's white pages telephone directory at the option of the NCTU. 
   
  (iii) CTUs shall provide directory listings and related updates to the CTU or 
its affiliate publishing a white pages telephone directory on behalf of the CTU 
or to any CTU providing directory assistance, in a timely manner to ensure 
inclusion in the annual white page listings and provision of directory 
assistance service that complies with sec.23.61 of this title. The CTU or its 
affiliate publishing a white pages telephone directory on behalf of the CTU 
shall be responsible for providing all other CTUs with timely information 
regarding deadlines associated with its published white pages telephone 
directory. 
   
  (iv) CTUs shall, upon request, provide accurate and current subscriber 
listings (name, address, telephone number) and updates in a readily usable 
format and in a timely manner, on a non-discriminatory basis, to publishers of 
yellow pages telephone directory. Listings of subscribers desiring non-listed 
status shall not be provided by CTUs for publication purposes. 
   
  (v) White pages telephone directory shall be distributed to all customers 
located within the geographic area covered by the white pages telephone 
directory on non-discriminatory terms and conditions by the CTU or its affiliate 
publishing the white pages telephone directory. 
   
  (vi) A CTU or its affiliate that publishes a white pages telephone directory 
on behalf of the CTU shall provide other CTUs non-discriminatory access to a 
single page per CTU, in alphabetical order, in the information section of the 
white pages telephone directory to permit critical customer contact information 
regarding emergency services, billing and service information, repair services 
and other pertinent information. Additional access to the information section of 
the white pages telephone directory shall be subject to negotiations. 
   
  (vii) CTUs must provide information that identifies customers desiring non-
listed and/or non-published telephone numbers and/or non-published addresses to 
the CTU or its affiliate publishing a white pages telephone directory on behalf 
of the CTU and to the CTU maintaining the directory assistance database. The CTU 
or its affiliate publishing a white pages telephone directory on behalf of the 
CTU shall not divulge such non-listed and/or non-published telephone numbers or 
addresses and the CTU maintaining the directory assistance database shall not 
divulge such non-published telephone numbers or addresses. 
   
  (viii)  CTUs shall provide each other non-discriminatory access to directory 
assistance databases. 
       
  (2) At a minimum, interconnecting CTUs shall negotiate to ensure the 
following: 
 
  (A) Non-discriminatory access to databases such as 800 and Line Information 
Data Base (LIDB) where technically feasible, to ensure interoperability between 
networks and the efficient, timely provision of service to customers; 
   
  (B) non-discriminatory access to Telecommunications Relay Service; 
   
  (C) Common Channel Signaling interconnection including transmission of privacy 
indicator where technically available; 
   
  (D) non-discriminatory access to all signaling protocols and all elements of 
signaling protocols used in routing local and interexchange traffic, including 
signaling protocols used to query call processing databases, where technically 
feasible; 
   
  (E) number portability and the inclusion of the NCTU's NXX code(s) in the 
Local Exchange Routing Guide and related systems; 
   
  (F) non-discriminatory handling, including billing, of mass 
announcement/audiotext calls including, but not limited to, 900 and 976 calls; 
   
  (G) provision of intercept services for a specific telephone number in the 
event a customer discontinues service with one CTU, initiates service with 
another CTU, and the customer's telephone number changes; 
   
  (H) cooperative engineering, operations, maintenance and billing practices and 
procedures; and 
   
  (I) non-discriminatory access to Advanced Intelligent Network (AIN), where 
technically available. 
       
  (f) Negotiations. 
 
  (1) CTUs and other negotiating parties shall engage in good-faith negotiations 
and cooperative planning as necessary to achieve mutually agreeable 
interconnection arrangements. 
   
  (2)  Before terminating its first commercial telephone call, each CTU 
requesting interconnection shall negotiate with each CTU or other negotiating 
party that is necessary to complete all telephone calls, including local service 
calls and EAS or ELCS calls, made by or placed to the customers of the 
requesting CTU. Upon request, DCTUs within major metropolitan calling areas will 
contact other CTUs and arrange meetings, within 15 days of such request, in an 
effort to facilitate negotiations and provide a forum for discussions of network 
efficiencies and inter-company billing arrangements. 
   
  (3)  Unless the negotiating parties establish a mutually agreeable date, 
negotiations are deemed to begin on the date when the CTU or other negotiating 
party from which interconnection is being requested receives the request for 
interconnection from the CTU seeking interconnection. The request shall: 
 
  (A) be in writing and hand-delivered; sent by certified mail or by facsimile; 
   
  (B) identify the initial specific issues to be resolved, the specific 
underlying facts, and the requesting CTU's proposed resolution of each issue; 
   
  (C) provide any other material necessary to support the request, included as 
appendices; and 
   
  (D) provide the identity of the person authorized to negotiate for the 
requesting CTU. 
     
  (4) The requesting CTU may identify additional issues for negotiation without 
causing an alteration of the date on which negotiations are deemed to begin. 
   
  (5)  The CTU or negotiating party from which interconnection is sought shall 
respond to the interconnection request no later than 14 working days from the 
date the request is received. The response shall: 
 
  (A) be in writing and hand-delivered; sent by certified mail or by facsimile; 
   
  (B)  respond specifically to the requesting party's proposed resolution of 
each initial issue identified by the requesting party, identify the specific 
underlying facts upon which the response is based and, if the response is not in 
agreement with the requesting party's proposed resolution of each issue, the 
responding party's proposed resolution of each issue; 
   
  (C) provide any other material necessary to support the response, included as 
appendices; and 
   
  (D) provide the identity of the person authorized to negotiate for the 
responding party. 
     
  (6) At any point during the negotiations required under this subsection, any 
CTU or negotiating party may request the commission designee(s) to participate 
in the negotiations and to mediate any differences arising in the course of the 
negotiation. 
   
  (7)  Interconnecting CTUs may, by written agreement, accelerate the 
requirements of this subsection with respect to a particular interconnection 
agreement except that the requirements of subsection (g)(1)(A) of this 
subsection shall not be accelerated. 
   
  (8) The requirements of this subsection shall apply upon the effective date of 
this section. A CTU that received a request for interconnection before the 
effective date of this section but did not respond to it may respond no later 
than 14 working days after the effective date of this section. 
   
  (9) If a requesting CTU initiated negotiations for interconnection before the 
effective date of this section, negotiations shall be deemed to have begun on 
the first date for which there is written evidence supporting a CTU's request 
for interconnection. 
     
  (g) Compulsory arbitration process. 
 
  (1) A negotiating CTU that is unable to reach mutually agreeable terms, rates, 
and/or conditions for interconnection with any CTU or negotiating party may 
petition the commission to arbitrate any unresolved issues. In order to initiate 
the arbitration procedure, a negotiating CTU: 
 
  (A) shall file its petition with the commission during the period from the 
135th to the 160th day (inclusive) after the date on which its request for 
negotiation under subsection (f) of this section was received by the other CTU 
involved in the negotiation; 
   
  (B)  shall provide the identity of each CTU and/or negotiating party with 
which agreement cannot be reached but whose cooperation is necessary to complete 
all telephone calls made by or placed to the customers of the requesting CTU; 
   
  (C) shall provide all relevant documentation concerning the unresolved issues; 
   
  (D) shall provide all relevant documentation concerning the position of each 
of the negotiating parties with respect to those issues; 
   
  (E) shall provide all relevant documentation concerning any other issue 
discussed and resolved by the negotiating parties; and 
   
  (F)  shall send a copy of the petition and any documentation to the CTU or 
negotiating party with which agreement cannot be reached, not later than the day 
on which the commission receives the petition. 
     
  (2) A non-petitioning party to a negotiation under subsection (f) of this 
section may respond to the other party's petition and provide such additional 
information as it wishes within 25 days after the commission receives the 
petition. 
   
  (3) If a requesting CTU initiated negotiations for interconnection before the 
effective date of this section, provides written evidence supporting its request 
for interconnection as required under subsection (f)(9) of this section and 
demonstrates that negotiations have taken place for at least 135 days, the date 
on which a CTU involved in such negotiations petitions the commission for 
arbitration shall be deemed to be the 135th day from the start of negotiations. 
   
  (4) The compulsory arbitration process shall be completed not later than nine 
months after the date on which a CTU receives a request for interconnection 
under subsection (f) of this section. 
     
  (h) Filing of rates, terms, and conditions. 
 
  (1) Rates, terms and conditions resulting from negotiations, compulsory 
arbitration process, and statements of generally available terms. 
 
  (A) A CTU from which interconnection is requested shall file any agreement, 
adopted by negotiation or by compulsory arbitration, with the secretary of the 
commission. The commission shall make such agreement available for public 
inspection and copying within ten days after the agreement is approved by the 
commission pursuant to subparagraphs (C) and (D) of this paragraph. 
   
  (B) An ILEC serving greater than five million access lines may prepare and 
file with the secretary of the commission, a statement of terms and conditions 
that it generally offers within the state pursuant to 47 United States Code, 
sec.252(f) (1996). The commission shall make such statement available for public 
inspection and copying within ten days after the statement is approved by the 
commission pursuant to subparagraph (E) of this paragraph. 
   
  (C) The commission shall reject an agreement (or any portion thereof) adopted 
by negotiation if it finds that 
 
  (i) the agreement (or any portion thereof) discriminates against a 
telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or 
   
  (ii)  the implementation of such agreement or portion is not consistent with 
the public interest, convenience, and necessity. 
     
  (D) The commission shall reject an agreement (or any portion thereof) adopted 
by compulsory arbitration, under subsection (g) of this section, pursuant to 
guidelines found in 47 United States Code, sec.252(e)(2)(B)(1996). 
   
  (E) The commission shall review the statement of generally available terms 
filed under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, pursuant to guidelines found in 
47 United States Code, sec.252(f) (1996). The submission or approval of a 
statement under this paragraph shall not relieve an ILEC serving greater than 
five million access lines of its duty to negotiate the terms and conditions of 
an agreement pursuant to sec.47 United States Code, sec.251 (1996). 
     
  (2) Rates, terms and/or conditions among DCTUs. Within 15 days of a request 
from a CTU negotiating interconnection arrangements with a DCTU, a non-redacted 
version of any agreement reflecting the rates, terms, and conditions between 
and/or among DCTUs which relate to interconnection arrangements for similar 
traffic shall be disclosed to the CTU, subject to commission-approved non-
disclosure or protective agreement. A non-redacted version of the same agreement 
shall be disclosed to commission staff at the same time if requested, subject to 
commission-approved non-disclosure or protective agreement. 
     
  (i)  Customer safeguards. 
 
  (1) Requirements for provision of service to customers. Nothing in this 
section or in the CTU's tariffs shall be interpreted as precluding a customer of 
any CTU from purchasing local exchange service from more than one CTU at a time. 
No CTU shall connect, disconnect, or move any wiring or circuits on the 
customer's side of the demarcation point without the customer's express 
authorization as specified in this paragraph. A CTU shall provide local exchange 
service to a customer who is receiving local exchange service from another CTU 
only under the following conditions: 
 
  (A) Carrier-initiated carrier change orders. Before a CTU order generated from 
outbound telemarketing is processed, the CTU initiating the change must obtain 
authorization, as specified in 47 Code of Federal Regulations Part 64, Subpart 
K, sec.64.1100. The authorization shall be produced if the local exchange 
service customer challenges the change. An authorization form will be accepted 
as valid if it meets any one of the following forms. 
 
  (i) It is a written authorization from the customer in a form that meets the 
requirements of subparagraph (C) of this paragraph; or 
   
  (ii) it is an electronic authorization placed from the telephone number(s) 
which is (are) the subject of the change order(s); or 
   
  (iii) it is an oral authorization obtained by an appropriately qualified and 
independent third party operating in a location physically separate from the 
telemarketing representative; or 
   
  (iv) it is verified by the following procedure. 
 
  (I) Within three business days of the customer's request for a CTU change, the 
soliciting local carrier sent the new customer an information package via first 
class mail containing at least the information concerning the requested change 
as specified in 47 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 64, Subpart K, 
sec.64.1100(d); and 
   
  (II)  Within 14 days after mailing said package, the customer has not canceled 
the change order. 
       
  (B) Customer-initiated carrier change orders. The CTU receiving the customer-
initiated request for change of carrier shall keep an internal memorandum or 
other record generated at or near the time of the request. Such internal record 
is to be maintained by the carrier, at a minimum, for 12 months to serve as 
verification of the customer's authorization to change carriers, which will be 
made available to the customer and/or to the commission upon request. 
   
  (C) Letters of Agency (LOA). If a CTU obtains written authorization from a 
customer for a change of carrier as specified in paragraph (1)(A) of this 
subsection, it shall use a letter of agency (LOA) as specified in this 
subparagraph. 
 
  (i) The LOA shall be a separate document whose sole purpose is to authorize 
the CTU to initiate a carrier change. The LOA must be signed and dated by the 
customer of the telephone line(s) requesting the carrier change. 
   
  (ii) The LOA shall not be combined with inducements of any kind on the same 
document. 
   
  (iii) Notwithstanding clauses (i) and (ii) of this subparagraph, the LOA may 
be combined with checks that contain only the required LOA language prescribed 
in clause (iv) of this subparagraph and the necessary information to make the 
check a negotiable instrument. The LOA shall not contain any promotional 
language or material but shall contain, on the front of the check and on the 
back of the check near the signature line, a clearly legible notice that the 
customer is authorizing a carrier change by signing the check. 
   
  (iv) At a minimum, the LOA must be printed in a clearly legible form and must 
contain clear and unambiguous language that confirms: 
 
  (I) the customer's billing name and address and each telephone number to be 
covered by the carrier change order; and 
   
  (II)  that the customer designates the prospective CTU to act as the 
customer's agent for the carrier change; and 
   
  (III) the decision to change the local exchange carrier from the current CTU 
to the prospective CTU; and 
   
  (IV) the customer may incur a reconnection charge with the current CTU, if the 
customer wishes to return to receiving local exchange service from the current 
CTU; and 
   
  (V) that the customer understands that the local calling scope obtained from 
the prospective CTU may differ from the local calling scope offered by the 
current CTU, resulting in differing rates and charges, including toll charges, 
if the local calling scope offered by the prospective CTU is more limited than 
the local calling scope offered by the current CTU; and 
   
  (VI) the customer may incur a charge for changing carriers. 
     
  (v) The LOA shall not suggest or require that customer take some action in 
order to retain the customer's current CTU. 
   
  (vi)  If any portion of a LOA is translated into another language, then all 
portions of the LOA must be translated into that language. 
     
  (D)  Commission audits. The commission is authorized to conduct periodic 
audits of the CTU's records reflecting the authorization received from its 
customers. 
   
  (E) Liability for charges. Any prospective CTU that violates the verification 
procedures described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph and that collects 
charges for local exchange telephone service shall be liable to the current CTU 
in an amount equal to all charges paid by such customer after such violation, in 
accordance with such procedures as the Federal Communications Commission may 
prescribe. 
     
  (2) Requirements for CTUs ceasing operations. In the event that a CTU ceases 
its operations, it is the responsibility of the CTU to notify the commission and 
all of the CTU's customers at least 61 working days in advance that their 
service will be terminated. The notification shall include a listing of all 
alternative service providers available to customers in the exchange and shall 
specify the date on which service will be terminated. 
   
  (3) Requirements for service installations. DCTUs that interconnect with NCTUs 
shall be responsible for meeting the installation of service requirements under 
sec.23.61(e)(2) of this title in providing service to the NCTU. NCTUs shall make 
a good-faith effort to meet the requirements for installation in sec.23.61(e)(2) 
of this title, and may negotiate with the DCTU to establish a procedure to meet 
this goal. 
 
  (A) For those customers for whom the NCTU provides dial tone but not the local 
loop, 95% of the NCTU's service orders shall be completed in no more than ten 
working days from request for service, unless a later date is agreed to by the 
customer. 
   
  (B) For those customers for whom the NCTU does not provide dial tone and 
resells the telephone services of a DCTU, 95% of the NCTU's service orders shall 
be completed in no more than seven working days from request for service, unless 
a later date is agreed to by the customer. 
   
  (C) For those customers where the NCTU uses facilities other than a DCTU's 
resale facilities obtained through PURA 95, sec.3.453(a)-(c) , the NCTU shall 
complete service orders within 30 calendar days from request of service, unless 
a later date is agreed to by the customer or the customer is located outside of 
the NCTU's applicable build-out area as defined in PURA,  sec.3.2531. 
   
  (D) Additionally, the DCTU shall not discriminate between its customers and 
NCTUs if the DCTU is able to install service in less than the time permitted 
under sec.23.61(e)(2) of this title. 
 
  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. 
 Issued in Austin, Texas on April 12, 1996. 
 TRD-9605114 
  Paula Mueller 
 Secretary of the Commission 
 Public Utility Commission of Texas 
    Effective date: May 3, 1996 
 Proposal publication date: October 24, 1995 
 For further information, please call: (512) 458-0100 
         
                       
  TITLE 22. EXAMINING BOARDS 
 Part XXIII. Texas Real Estate Commission 
  Chapter 535. Provisions of the Real Estate License Act 
  
  Nonresidents 
 
  22 TAC sec.535.51 
 
  The Texas Real Estate Commission adopts an amendment to  sec.535.51, 
concerning general requirements for licensure, without changes to the proposed 
text as published in the March 1, 1996, issue of the Texas Register (21 TexReg 
1646). 
 The amendment adopts by reference application forms used by persons applying 
for a real estate salesman or broker license or by prior licensees seeking 
another license. The forms have been revised to remove language relating to 
payment of examination fees to the commission and to clarify the conditions upon 
which prior licenses may obtain waivers of licensing requirements. These 
revisions have been made in connection with the commission's adoption of waivers 
of education, experience or examinations for prior licensees. The commission has 
also contracted with a vendor, National Assessment Institute, to administer 
licensing examinations; under the contract, National Assessment Institute will 
collect examination fees directly from applicants. Adoption of the amendment is 
necessary to clarify which forms should be used by applicants qualifying for 
waivers and how examination fees are paid. 
 No comments were received regarding adoption of the amendment. 
 The amendment is adopted under Texas Civil Statutes, Article 6573a, sec.5(h), 
which authorize the Texas Real Estate Commission to make and enforce all rules 
and regulations necessary for the performance of its duties. 
 
  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. 
 Issued in Austin, Texas, on April 11, 1996. 
 TRD-9605330 
  Mark A. Moseley 
 General Counsel 
 Texas Real Estate Commission 
    Effective date: May 2, 1996 
 Proposal publication date: March 1, 1996 
 For further information, please call: (512) 465-3900 
         
         
  Suspension and Revocation of Licensure 
 
  22 TAC sec.535.148 
 
  The Texas Real Estate Commission adopts an amendment to  sec.535.148, 
concerning termination dates of listing agreements, without changes to the 
proposed text as published in the March 1, 1996, issue of the Texas Register (21 
TexReg 1647). 
 Adoption of the amendment is necessary to conform the section with Texas Civil 
Statutes, Article 6573a, sec.16(a)(6)(G), as amended by the 74th Legislature, 
Regular Session (1995). Under the amended law, listing agreements and other 
agreements calling for real estate licensees to perform services for which a 
real estate license is required must have a definite termination date which is 
not subject to prior notice. The amendment broadens the scope of the section and 
removes inconsistent language. 
 No comments were received regarding adoption of the amendment, although a 
number of licensees appeared at a meeting of the commission on April 1, 1996, to 
urge the commission to modify the section to provide an exception for property 
management agreements. Upon the advice of legal counsel, the commission 
determined that it lacked the authority to provide an exception and did not make 
the requested change. 
 The amendment is adopted under Texas Civil Statutes, Article 6573a, sec.5(h), 
which authorize the Texas Real Estate Commission to make and enforce all rules 
and regulations necessary for the performance of its duties. 
 
  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. 
 Issued in Austin, Texas, on April 11, 1996. 
 TRD-9605093 
  Mark A. Moseley 
 General Counsel 
 Texas Real Estate Commission 
    Effective date: May 2, 1996 
 Proposal publication date: March 1, 1996 
 For further information, please call: (512) 465-3900 
         
         
  Licensed Real Estate Inspectors 
 
  22 TAC sec.535.208 
 
  The Texas Real Estate Commission adopts an amendment to  sec.535.208, 
concerning application for an inspector license, without changes to the proposed 
text as published in the March 1, 1996, issue of the Texas Register  (21 TexReg 
1648). 
 The amendment adopts by reference two application forms used by persons 
obtaining a license as a real estate inspector or as a professional inspector. 
The application forms have been revised to delete references to the payment of 
examination fees to the commission. The commission has contracted with National 
Assessment Institute (NAI) to administer the licensing examinations for 
inspectors, and NAI will collect the examination fees directly from applicants. 
Adoption of the amendment is necessary to clarify how examination fees are paid. 
 No comments were received regarding adoption of the amendment. 
 The amendment is adopted under Texas Civil Statutes, Article 6573a, sec.5(h), 
which authorize the Texas Real Estate Commission to make and enforce all rules 
and regulations necessary for the performance of its duties. 
 
  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. 
 Issued in Austin, Texas, on April 11, 1996. 
 TRD-9605094 
  Mark A. Moseley 
 General Counsel 
 Texas Real Estate Commission 
    Effective date: May 2, 1996 
 Proposal publication date: March 1, 1996 
 For further information, please call: (512) 465-3900 
         
             Part XXX. Texas State Board of Examiners of Professional Counselors 
  Chapter 681. Professional Counselors 
  
  The Texas State Board of Examiners of Professional Counselors (board) adopts 
amendments to sec.sec.681.81, 681.113, and 681.123 concerning temporary 
licenses, the surrender of a license, and license renewal are adopted without 
changes to the proposed text as published in the March 1, 1996, issue of the 
Texas Register (21 TexReg 1648). 
 Specifically, the amendments clarify that examination candidates no longer 
submit examination fees to the board; clarify the procedures followed by the 
board upon the surrender of a license once disciplinary action has been 
proposed; and allow licensees to submit renewal forms only if changes are needed 
to his or her record. 
 The sections insure the regulation of professional counselors continues to 
identify competent practitioners and implements the legislation passed by the 
74th Legislature, 1995. The amendments will also expedite the processing time 
for examination applications; will establish procedures for the board to follow 
upon the surrender of a license during a complaint investigation or after 
disciplinary action has been proposed; sets out that a person who surrenders his 
or her license during a complaint investigation or after disciplinary action has 
been proposed may reapply for a license after one year; and expedites the 
license renewal request. 
 No comments were received regarding adoption of the amendments. 
   
  Subchapter F. Experience Requirements for Examination and Licensure 
 
  22 TAC sec.681.81 
 
  The amendment is adopted under the Licensed Professional Counselor Act, Texas 
Civil Statutes, Article 4512g, sec.6, which provides the Texas State Board of 
Examiners of Professional Counselors with the authority to adopt and revise 
rules that are necessary to administer the Licensed Professional Counselor Act; 
sec.14(p) relating to rules concerning temporary licenses; and sec.19(b) 
relating to rules on fees. 
 
  The 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. 
 Issued in Austin, Texas, on April 12, 1996. 
 TRD-9605166 
  James O. Mathis, Ed.D. 
 Chair 
 Texas State Board of Examiners of Professional Counselors 
    Effective date: May 3, 1996 
 Proposal publication date: March 1, 1996 
 For further information, please call: (512) 458-7236 
         
         
  Subchapter H. Licensing 
 
  22 TAC sec.681.113 
 
  The amendment is adopted under the Licensed Professional Counselor Act, Texas 
Civil Statutes, Article 4512g, sec.6, which provides the Texas State Board of 
Examiners of Professional Counselors with the authority to adopt and revise 
rules that are necessary to administer the Licensed Professional Counselor Act; 
sec.14(p) relating to rules concerning temporary licenses; and sec.19(b) 
relating to rules on fees. 
 
  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. 
 Issued in Austin, Texas, on April 12, 1996. 
 TRD-9605168 
  James O. Mathis, Ed.D. 
 Chair 
 Texas State Board of Examiners of Professional Counselors 
    Effective date: May 3, 1996 
 Proposal publication date: March 1, 1996 
 For further information, please call: (512) 458-7236 
         
         
  Subchapter I. Regular License Renewal and Inactive and Retirement Status 
 
  22 TAC sec.681.123 
 
  The amendment is adopted under the Licensed Professional Counselor Act, Texas 
Civil Statutes, Article 4512g, sec.6, which provides the Texas State Board of 
Examiners of Professional Counselors with the authority to adopt and revise 
rules that are necessary to administer the Licensed Professional Counselor Act; 
sec.14(p) relating to rules concerning temporary licenses; and sec.19(b) 
relating to rules on fees. 
 
  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 to 
adopt. 
 Issued in Austin, Texas, on April 12, 1996. 
 TRD-9605167 
  James O. Mathis, Ed.D. 
 Chair 
 Texas State Board of Examiners of Professional Counselors 
    Effective date: May 3, 1996 
 Proposal publication date: March 1, 1996 
 For further information, please call: (512) 458-7236 
         
               
  Title 34. PUBLIC FINANCE 
 Part I. Comptroller of Public Accounts 
  Chapter 3. Tax Administration 
  
  Subchapter O. State Sales and Use Tax 
 
  34 TAC sec.3.314 
 
  The Comptroller of Public Accounts adopts an amendment to sec.3.314, 
concerning wrapping, packing, packaging supplies, containers, labels, tags, and 
export packers, without changes to the proposed text as published in the October 
31, 1995, issue of the Texas Register (20 TexReg 8990). 
 The section is being amended because of the passage of House Bill 1611, 74th 
Legislature, 1995, which exempts materials and supplies used by persons 
providing stevedoring services. The passage of Senate Bill 640, 74th 
Legislature, 1995, also affects this section by deleting the exclusion for 
internal and external wrapping and packaging materials from the exemptions 
provided under the Tax Code, sec.151.319(e). 
 No comments were received regarding adoption of the amendment. 
 This amendment is adopted under the Tax Code, sec.111.002, which provides the 
comptroller with the authority to prescribe, adopt, and enforce rules relating 
to the administration and enforcement of the provisions of the Tax Code, Title 
2. 
 The amendment implements the Tax Code, sec.151.329 and  sec.151.319(e). 
 
  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. 
 Issued in Austin, Texas, on April 12, 1996. 
 TRD-9605103 
  Martin E. Cherry 
 Chief, General Law 
 Comptroller of Public Accounts 
    Effective date: May 3, 1996 
 Proposal publication date: October 31, 1995 
 For further information, please call: (512) 463-4028 
         
               
  TITLE 37. PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS 
 Part I. Texas Department of Public Safety 
  Chapter 29. Practice and Procedure 
  
  37 TAC sec.sec.29.101-29.157 
 
  The Texas Department of Public Safety adopts new sec. sec.29.101-29.157 
concerning contested case procedure, without changes to the proposed text as 
published in the February 27, 1996, issue of the Texas Register  (21 TexReg 
1486). 
 The justification for the new sections will be to keep unsafe vehicles and 
motor carriers from operating on the Texas highways. 
 The new sections are necessary to implement the provisions of Article 6675d as 
adopted by Senate Bill 3 of the 74th Legislative Session, and establish 
procedures of contested case practice before the State Office of Administrative 
Hearings (SOAH). 
 On March 18, 1996, the department held a public hearing in Austin. No comments 
were provided at the hearing nor were comments received during the open comment 
period regarding adoption of the new sections. 
 The new sections are adopted under the authority of Texas Civil Statutes, 
Article 6675d, sec.3 and sec.12, which provide that the director shall, after 
notice and a public hearing, adopt rules regulating the safe transportation of 
hazardous materials and the safe operation of commercial motor vehicles, that 
the department may adopt rules to administer the article, and Texas Government 
Code, Chapter 2001, the Administrative Procedures Act, which provides a minimum 
standard of uniform practice and procedure for state agencies. 
 
  This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by 
legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. 
 Issued in Austin, Texas on April 8, 1996. 
 TRD-9605086 
  James R. Wilson 
 Director 
 Texas Department of Public Safety 
    Effective date: May 2, 1996 
 Proposal publication date: February 27, 1996 
 For further information, please call: (512) 424-2890 
         
           Part IX. Commission on Jail Standards 
  Chapter 269. Records and Procedures 
  
  Juvenile Justice Reports 
 
  37 TAC sec.sec.269.40-269.43 
 
  The Commission on Jail Standards adopts new sec.sec.269.40-269.43, concerning 
Records and Procedures, without changes to the proposed text as published in the 
February 16, 1996, issue of the  Texas Register (21 TexReg 1255). 
 Adoption of these rules will make administrative rules consistent with statute. 
 The rules function to require all county and municipal jail facilities to 
submit juvenile justice reports annually to the commission. 
 No comments were received regarding adoption of the new sections. 
 The new sections are adopted under Government Code, Chapter 511, which provides 
the Texas Commission on Jail Standards with the authority to adopt reasonable 
rules and procedures establishing minimum standards for the construction, 
equipment, maintenance, and operation of county jails. 
 
  This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal 
counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's authority. 
 Issued in Austin, Texas, on April 12, 1996. 
 TRD-9605125 
  Jack E. Crump 
 Executive Director 
 Commission on Jail Standards 
    Effective date: May 3, 1996 
 Proposal publication date: February 16, 1996 
 For further information, please call: (512) 463-5505