I. INTRODUCTION

We opened Rulemaking (R.) 05-04-005, the Uniform Regulatory Framework ("URF") proceeding, to "assess and revise the rate regulation of large and mid-sized [Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers ("ILECs")] in California." (Opinion ("Phase I Decision") [Decision (D.) 06-08-030] (2006) __ CPUC.3d ___, p. 13 (slip op.).) The Phase I Decision concluded Phase I of the rulemaking and granted carriers broad pricing freedoms concerning many telecommunications services, new telecommunications products, bundles of services, promotion, and contracts. The Phase I Decision permitted all URF tariffs to be effective on one-day filing. The Phase I Decision left certain matters, including implementation issues, to be decided in Phase II.

Pursuant to an Assigned Commissioner's Ruling and Revised Scoping Memo issued in R.05-04-005, dated December 21, 2006, opening comments on Phase II issues other than detariffing were due March 2, 2007. Reply comments on Phase II issues other than detariffing were due March 30, 2007.

On January 29, 2007, we mailed the Fourth Interim Opinion Adopting Remaining General Rules and Industry Rules for Energy and Water as Revisions to General Order 96-A [D.07-01-024] (2007) __ CPUC.3d ___ in R.98-07-038, the General Order ("GO") 96-B proceeding. Ordering Paragraph ("OP") 6 of D.07-01-024 specified that:

Within 30 days of the mailing of this decision, telecommunications utilities and other interested persons may file comments in Rulemaking 05-04-005 identifying what subjects they believe should be listed under each of the three tiers anticipated for the proposed Telecommunications Industry Rules. Reply comments may be filed within 15 days thereafter.

Pursuant to Rule 16.6 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, an Executive Director's Order was issued in R.98-07-038, dated February 26, 2007, that granted parties an extension of time to file comments as required by OP 6 of

D.07-01-024. (Executive Director's Order Granting Extension of Time to File Comments as Required by Decision 07-01-024 [D.07-02-038] (2007) __ CPUC.3d ___.) The Executive Director's Order permitted parties to file comments required by OP 6 of

D.07-01-024 in R.05-04-005 on or before March 2, 2007 and to file reply comments on or before March 30, 2007. The Executive Director's Order permitted these comments to be combined in the same pleading with comments required by the Revised Scoping Memo in R.05-04-005.

On September 12, 2007, we issued D.07-09-018, which addressed Phase II issues. Among other issues, this decision: clarified the notice and protest requirements for one-day-effective advice letters under GO 96(a), the Public Utilities Code, and prior Commission decisions; determined which subjects should fall under various tiers of the GO 96 draft 2001 Telecommunications Industry Rules; and consolidated the URF proceeding with the GO 96-B proceeding (R.98-07-038) in order to coordinate overlapping issues. (D.07-09-018, at pp. 2-3.)

On September 12, 2007, we also issued D.07-09-019 as a companion decision to D.07-09-018. This decision established the Telecommunications Industry Rules as part of GO 96-B based on the consolidated URF record. D.07-09-019 also incorporated the new advice letter and detariffing requirements adopted in D.07-09-018.

Cox California Telcom, LLC, dba Cox Communications ("Cox") timely filed an Application for Rehearing of D.07-09-018.¹ Cox alleges the following legal error: (1) there is no factual or legal support for requiring Competitive Local Exchange Carriers ("CLECs") to file more restrictive changes to terms and conditions for basic service via Tier 3 advice letters and (2) the Commission did not properly provide notice prior to modifying an existing rule adopted in Phase I of URF. Cox requests that D.07-09-018 be modified to delete text that would subject the CLECs to the Tier 3 advice letter requirement, rather than its Tier 1 proposal.

Cox also timely filed an Application for Rehearing of D.07-09-019 alleging the same legal error as in its Application for Rehearing of D.07-09-018. Cox requests that D.07-09-019 be modified to delete text that would subject the CLECs to the Tier 3 advice letter requirement, rather than its Tier 1 proposal.

SureWest Telephone ("SureWest") filed a response supporting Cox's rehearing application of D.07-09-018. Verizon, California Inc. ("Verizon") filed a response conditionally supporting Cox's rehearing application of D.07-09-018.

We have reviewed each and every argument raised in Cox's rehearing applications and are of the opinion that modifications, as described herein, are warranted to: (1) delete language in D.07-09-018 and D.07-09-019 that requires URF Carriers to file advice letters with more restrictive terms and conditions for basic service under Tier 3; (2) clarify language in D.07-09-018 and D.07-09-019 that is inconsistent with the Commission's determination that URF advice letters formerly qualifying for one-day effective filing under the Phase I Decision may now be filed under Tier 1 as set forth in GO 96-B, General Rule 7.3.3; and (3) clarify inconsistencies and correct clerical errors in D.07-09-019, as set forth below. Rehearings of D.07-09-018 and D.07-09-019, as modified, are denied.

¹ The Utility Reform Network ("TURN") also timely filed an Application for Rehearing of D.07-09-018. We considered the disposition of this rehearing application at the April 24, 2008 Commission meeting, and issued D.08-04-063, which denied TURN's application for rehearing.