IV. Technical and Managerial Qualifications
To be granted a CPCN for authority to provide local exchange service, an applicant must make a reasonable showing of technical expertise in telecommunications or a related business. Applicant supplied biographical information on its management that demonstrates that it has sufficient expertise and training to operate as a telecommunications provider.
The Commission may deny a CPCN application in order to protect the public interest if the applicant fails to demonstrate that its management is qualified to operate a telecommunications provider in a manner that complies with applicable laws and adequately serves the public.6
Applicant represents that no one associated with or employed by Applicant as an affiliate, officer, director, partner, or owner of more than 10% of Applicant has been found civilly or criminally liable by a court of appropriate jurisdiction for a violation of Section 17000 et seq. of the California Business and Professions Code, or for any actions which involve misrepresentations to customers, and to the best of Applicant's knowledge, is not currently under investigation for similar violations.
Applicant discloses in the application that in D.02-10-021, the Commission fined Applicant, then operating as Pacific Fiber Link, LLC, in the amount of $25,000 for failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In D.02-10-021, we found that Applicant had begun trenching and installing a fiber optic project in 1998 before receiving formal Commission approval under CEQA. However, as mitigating factors, Applicant had identified itself in its application as a facilities-based carrier, which indicates its intent to perform construction, and had contacted Commission staff numerous times regarding environmental review of the project. At that time, the Commission had no procedure for environmental review of the project, and Applicant did not receive clear guidance from staff regarding the need for CEQA review before commencing construction. Staff also did not advise Applicant not to start construction when Applicant proposed to begin construction unless the Commission gave instructions to the contrary. In addition, Applicant retained its own experts to advise on environmental issues related to the project. Under these circumstances, we determined that although Applicant knew or should have known of the requirement for completion of CEQA review by the Commission before construction could begin,7 it was appropriate to impose the minimum allowable fine of $25,000.
In view of the mitigating factors cited in Applicant's favor in D.02-08-063, as well as the fact that we have not found Applicant to have engaged in additional violations of CEQA and Applicant is not planning to perform construction pursuant to the limited-facilities based and resold CPCN sought in this application, we do not believe that our finding that Applicant had previously violated CEQA and our imposition of the $25,000 fine in D.02-08-063 is grounds for denial of this application.
6 See D.04-05-033.
7 According to D.02-08-063, the testimony of Applicant's own environmental experts, as well as the activities of Applicant's attorneys in seeking Commission action on the environmental issues, showed that Applicant knew of the requirement for CEQA review of the project by the Commission.
