F. Comments on Commissioner Lynch's Draft Decision
The draft decision of Commissioner Lynch in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(g)(1) and Rule 77.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on May 25, 2004 by CALTEL.
CALTEL sought three modifications to the original draft decision. The first modification sought to expand the use of advice letter fillings for all §§ 851 through 854 requests of NDIECs and CLECs. For reasons described above, this request is granted as part of this decision.
CALTEL also sought to eliminate the requirement that the sponsor of an advice letter filing identify any decided or pending legal complaints against the involved entities. CALTEL contends that this notification is overly broad because there is no limit as to subject matter or duration of time and that it is a new requirement not currently in the Commission's rules.
The issue of decided or pending legal complaints goes to the professional qualifications of those to whom we grant a CPCN and their ability to provide public utility service. In establishing a simplified registration process for nondominant telecommunications firms, nondominant telecommunications carriers are required to attest that "No affiliate, officer, director, general partner, or person owning more than 10% of applicant, or anyone acting in such a capacity whether or not formally appointed, held one of these positions with an IEC that filed for bankruptcy or has been found either criminally or civilly liable by a court of appropriate jurisdiction for a violation of § 17000 et seq. of the California Business and Professions Code or for any actions which involved misrepresentations to consumers, and to the best of applicant's knowledge, is not currently under investigation for similar violations. . . . neither applicant, any affiliate, officer, director, partner, nor owner of more than 10% of applicant, or any person acting in such capacity whether or not formally appointed, has been sanctioned by the Federal Communications Commission or any state regulatory agency for failure to comply with any regulatory statue, rule, or order."6
Requiring carriers to disclose complaints in the advice letter is warranted in light of the expedited review that advice letters can afford. Such a process would provide the Commission with less of an opportunity to perform its own research. Complaints, particularly about an entity that would acquire control, may be highly relevant to whether a change in control should be approved. This modification is rejected.
Finally, CALTEL sought to allow the sponsor of the advice letter to attest that the proposed transaction is not subject to CEQA or is otherwise categorically exempt from CEQA review. This modification is granted as noted above.
