8. Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311(g)(2) of the Public Utilities Code and comments were allowed under Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. The ACR issued on April 24, 2012 asked parties to comment on whether they objected to a shortened comment period. Frontier objected to a shortened comment period; therefore, we issue this proposed decision for the usual 30-day comment and review period. AT&T, Verizon, Frontier, CALTEL, the Small LECs, and Comcast timely filed opening comments. Reply comments were filed by AT&T, Verizon, Cox, and CALTEL. We have considered the factual, technical, and legal concerns delineated in the comments and have made changes as appropriate in the decision. We have given little weight to comments that merely reiterate or re-argue positions.

As CALTEL suggests, we have clarified its position regarding use of the FCC TRP forms. We have clarified that LECs that provide switched access services must file the appropriate advice letters. CALTEL, Frontier, Verizon, and AT&T urge that we refer to the FCC clarification order issued on June 5, 2012, and we have done so. However, we remind carriers that it is likely that the FCC and its Staff will continue to issue technical clarification orders and that all carriers must comply with our requirement to modify terminating access charges and reciprocal compensation rates based on subsequent FCC modifications or clarifications. Our Staff follow the relevant FCC dockets closely and are well-apprised of relevant changes.

Frontier urges that we eliminate the expanded 45-day protest period. We decline to do so. Given the expected volume of filings, it is reasonable to grant an expanded protest period up-front and General Order 96-B provides the latitude to do so.³³

AT&T and Verizon recommend that we clarify the decision to ensure that carriers and interested parties so requesting may have access to confidential data that supports the documentation and calculations underlying the rate changes, subject to a mutually-agreeable non-disclosure agreement. Verizon continues to advocate that we adopt a uniform non-disclosure agreement. We considered these issues and rejected these approaches, because we concluded that such procedures were likely to be controversial and could well delay the filings. We decline to adopt these recommendations, particularly given the short timeline for carriers to file the relevant advice letters.

³³ General Order 96-B, § 1.3.