Background .gov

?ALJ/MOD-POD-ZK1/gp2Date of Issuance: 10/2/2020Decision 20-09-029 September 24, 2020BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAPacific Bell Telephone Co. d/b/a AT&T California (U1001C), Complainant, vs.VAYA Telecom, Inc. (U7122C), Defendant.Case 17-09-023DECISION REGARDING PHASE II ISSUES TABLE OF CONTENTSTitlePage TOC \o "1-6" \h \z \u DECISION REGARDING PHASE II ISSUES PAGEREF _Toc49255120 \h 1Summary PAGEREF _Toc49255121 \h 21.Background PAGEREF _Toc49255122 \h 22.Jurisdiction PAGEREF _Toc49255123 \h 53.Issues Before the Commission PAGEREF _Toc49255124 \h 64.Scope of Communications Services Subject to Reparations PAGEREF _Toc49255125 \h 64.1.IntraLATA Switched Access Treatment of No-CPN Calls PAGEREF _Toc49255126 \h 74.2.Use of Actual over Projected Data PAGEREF _Toc49255127 \h 94.3.Number of Trunks in Service Based on Prior Call Volume PAGEREF _Toc49255128 \h 94.4.Vaya Owes Feature Group D Facilities Charges for both 1) One-Time Installation of Service Charges for Direct Trunk Transport and 2) Monthly Tandem Trunk Port Charges PAGEREF _Toc49255129 \h 104.5.Time Period for Reparations Extends from May 1, 2015 through the Commission’s Disconnection Order in D.19-08-028. PAGEREF _Toc49255130 \h 135.Reparations for Switched Access Charges Owed by Vaya to AT&T California PAGEREF _Toc49255131 \h 155.1.One-Time Installation of Service Charges for Direct Trunk Transport PAGEREF _Toc49255132 \h 155.2.Monthly Recurring Charges for Tandem Trunk Ports PAGEREF _Toc49255133 \h 175.3Total Reparations Owed by Vaya to AT&T California PAGEREF _Toc49255134 \h 186.Imposition of a Fine on Vaya Pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 2107 PAGEREF _Toc49255135 \h 197.No Disconnnection of Vaya’s Local Interconnection Trunks or Termination of ICA PAGEREF _Toc49255136 \h 258.Admittance of Testimony and Exhibits into Record PAGEREF _Toc49255137 \h 269.Motions to Seal and Other Procedural Matters PAGEREF _Toc49255138 \h 2810.Vaya’s Appeal and of Presiding Officer’s Decision and Related Motion PAGEREF _Toc49255139 \h 2811.Assignment of Proceeding PAGEREF _Toc49255140 \h 29Findings of Fact PAGEREF _Toc49255141 \h 30Conclusions of Law PAGEREF _Toc49255142 \h 34ORDER PAGEREF _Toc49255143 \h 36Attachment A – Executive Director’s Letter Granting Vaya’s Request for Extension of Time to Comply with D.19-08-028, dated January 23, 2020.DECISION REGARDING PHASE II ISSUESSummaryThis decision finds Vaya Telecom, Incorporated (Vaya) owes $3,364,692 in reparations to Pacific Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T California (AT&T California) for switched access charges avoided from April 2015 to August 2019, plus any additional switched access charges Vaya avoided during its compliance with Decision (D.) 19-08-028 Ordering Paragraph (OP) 3, up to a maximum amount of $406,323. AT&T California shall credit Vaya for any duplicative rollover charges incurred for migrating its Meet Point Trunks to Feature Group D trunks pursuant to D.19-08-028 OP 3. Vaya shall also pay a penalty of $40,000 for violating Decision 14-01-006.This decision does not authorize disconnection of Vaya’s Local Interconnection Trunks or terminate Vaya’s interconnection agreement with AT&T California. This proceeding is closed. BackgroundIn Decision (D.) 14-01-006, the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) found Vaya Telecom, Incorporated (Vaya) violated its interconnection agreement (ICA) with Pacific Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T California (AT&T California) for sending inter Local Access and Transport Area (interLATA) traffic over Local Interconnection Trunks and ordered Vaya to immediately cease sending interLATA traffic over Local Interconnection Trunks. This decision also opened a second phase of the proceeding to consider switched access charges owed for Vaya’s misrouting of interLATA traffic. Subsequently, the Commission granted the parties’ joint motion to dismiss consolidated Cases (C.) 10-12-001 and C.11-02-015, after the parties reached a settlement agreement.On September 9, 2017, AT&T California filed the instant case, requesting the Commission enforce D.14-01-006 and order Vaya to pay AT&T California for switched access charges improperly avoided by continuing to misroute interLATA traffic over Local Interconnection Trunks. In the first phase of this proceeding, the Commission found Vaya violated the terms of its ICA with AT&T California by continuing to send interLATA traffic over both Local Interconnection Trunks and Meet Point Trunks.The Commission also authorized AT&T California to disconnect Vaya’s Meet Point Trunks according to a mutually agreed-upon schedule or, absent agreement, a default schedule whereby AT&T California could disconnect up to 25 percent of Vaya’s Meet Point Trunks every 90 days. The Commission’s decision resolving the first phase of the proceeding was affirmed in D.20-04-037. The parties submitted a joint case management statement per D.19-08-028 OP 2 on September 23, 2019, indicating they met and conferred but required an additional 30 days to continue discussions regarding a schedule for disconnecting Vaya’s Meet Point Trunks per D.19-08-028 OP 3. The assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted AT&T California and Vaya’s joint request to file a second joint case management statement by ruling dated October 2, 2019. The parties filed a joint case management statement on November 1, 2019, informing the Commission that the parties could not reach agreement on a schedule for disconnecting Vaya’s Meet Point Trunks and would use the default schedule provided in D.19-08-028 OP 3.The procedural schedule for the second phase of this proceeding was set by ruling dated September 23, 2019. Parties served opening testimony on October 4, 2019. Subsequently, the parties requested a 45-day continuance of the procedural schedule, which the assigned ALJ granted by email-ruling dated October 17, 2019.Vaya filed an expedited motion to strike AT&T California’s testimony on November 26, 2019 (Motion to Strike). The assigned ALJ denied expedited treatment of the motion by email ruling dated December 2, 2019. AT&T California filed reply testimony to the Motion to Strike on December 11, 2019. The Motion to Strike was denied by Ruling on January 28, 2020.Vaya filed an expedited motion to stay the second phase of this proceeding pending resolution of the Commission’s jurisdiction on December 5, 2019. The parties served reply testimony on December 6, 2019. Evidentiary hearing was held on December 16, 2019. The assigned ALJ denied Vaya’s motion to stay the proceeding at the evidentiary hearing. The assigned ALJ also directed the parties to file a motion to admit a glossary of acronyms, which they filed on December 30, 2019. In addition, the assigned ALJ directed AT&T California to serve errata to its opening testimony and directed Vaya to serve supplemental opening testimony, both of which the parties served on January 13, 2020.The assigned ALJ granted Vaya’s motion to file surreply testimony and amend the procedural schedule by ruling, dated January 21, 2020. The assigned ALJ granted AT&T California’s motion, dated December 31, 2019, to admit exhibits into testimony by ruling, dated January 31, 2020. Vaya served surreply testimony on February 3, 2020 and served errata to the testimony on February?6,?2020. The parties filed opening briefs on February 24, 2020 and reply briefs on March 9, 2020. This matter was submitted on March 9, 2020. The assigned ALJ granted Vaya’s motion to late-file its opening brief by e-mail ruling on March?26,?2020. The statutory deadline for this proceeding was extended to September?29,?2020 by D.19-09-052 on September 26, 2019. JurisdictionThe Commission asserted jurisdiction to resolve AT&T California and Vaya’s ICA dispute in consolidated complaint cases C.10-12-001 and C.11-02-015 over a four-year period. Subsequently, the Commission asserted jurisdiction over this complaint case in C.17-09-023, resolving issues in the first phase of this proceeding in D.19-08-028. Despite the Commission’s assertion of jurisdiction to hear Vaya and AT&T California’s ICA disputes over a ten-year period, Vaya again challenges the Commission’s jurisdiction to hear this complaint in the second phase of this proceeding. The assigned ALJ addressed the Commission’s jurisdiction by ruling and reasserts it herein.The Commission has jurisdiction to hear this case because both Vaya and AT&T& California are certificated public utilities in California. Public Utilities (Pub. Util.) Code § 701 allows the Commission to “supervise and regulate every public utility in the State and do all things . . . which are necessary and convenient in the exercise of such power and jurisdiction.” The Commission is also statutory authorized to hear complaints pursuant to Pub. Util. Code §§ 1702 and 1707. Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Commission has jurisdiction to arbitrate, interpret, and enforce interconnection disputes, including the contractual charges arising out of ICAs. The Commission has jurisdiction over the instant proceeding, wherein AT&T California requests the Commission enforce the terms of its ICA with Vaya.Issues Before the CommissionThe second phase of this proceeding resolves the remaining issues in this proceeding, which are the following: Any switched access charges owed by Vaya to AT&T California for misrouting traffic over Local Interconnection Trunks or Meet Point Trunks,Any penalties for Vaya’s violation of Decision 14-01-006, and Whether the Commission should grant AT&T California Authority to disconnect Vaya’s Local Interconnection Trunks or to terminate AT&T California’s ICA with Vaya. No safety issues were identified in this proceeding. Scope of Communications Services Subject to ReparationsIn order to determine whether any reparations are owed for Vaya’s misrouting traffic over Local Interconnection Trunks and Meet Point Trunks, we must resolve several points of contention parties raised as follows: 1) we resolve acceptable routing of calls without Calling Party Numbers (no-CPN calls) per the parties’ ICA in Section 4.1, 2) we determine whether the Commission will allow reparations for days when AT&T California has no call data and calculates reparation using projected data in Section 4.2, 3) we decide the number of Trunks in Service to use for calculating reparations in Section 4.3, 4)?we settle the parties’ dispute regarding Vaya’s need for direct trunked transport for Feature Group D facilities in Section 4.4 and 5) we determine the time period for recovery in Section 4.5. Through the course of this proceeding, the parties agreed that Vaya connects to AT&T California’s serving wire centers at the same location as AT&T California’s tandem switches, therefore no mileage charges apply for Direct Trunk Transport. Additionally, the parties agree that AT&T California should reduce the recovery amount for switched access facilities charges by the transit toll fees Vaya previously paid for the same traffic sent through local trunks.IntraLATA Switched Access Treatment of No-CPN CallsIn order to determine the proper reparations, it is necessary to determine the correct interpretation of the ICA’s treatment of calls without CPN. The provision at issue is Section 5.4 of the ICA, which states: Where SS7 connections exist, if the percentage of calls passed with CPN is greater than ninety percent (90%), all calls exchanged without CPN information will be billed as either Local Traffic or intraLATA Toll Traffic in direct proportion to the minutes of use (MOU) of calls exchanged with CPN information. If the percentage of calls passed with CPN is less than ninety percent (90%), all calls passed without CPN will be billed as intraLATA switched access.AT&T California argues that “intraLATA switched access charges (both per-minute and facilities charges) typically mirror or are higher than interLATA switched access charges.” Therefore, AT&T California asserts that applying interLATA facilities charges to no-CPN traffic, when less than 90 percent of the calls contain CPN, is a conservative approach to calculating reparations.According to Vaya, Section 5.4 of the ICA allows Vaya to route no-CPN calls over local trunks, assessing only a per-minute-of-charge rate to the calls. In reply, AT&T California argues it should treat Vaya’ no-CPN traffic as tariffed switched access traffic and pay facilities charges when less than 90% of Vaya’s calls contain CPN. Otherwise, Vaya might send as much no-CPN traffic as it wants over local trunks and avoid significant switched access facilities charges.We use the plain meaning of Section 5.4 of the parties’ ICA to determine that Vaya’s traffic should be billed as intraLATA switched access traffic when less than 90 percent of the calls contain CPN data. AT&T California provided sufficient evidence to show that less than 90 percent of Vaya’s traffic contained CPN during the Record Period. This is consistent with Vaya’s assertion that it sends Voice over Internet Protocol traffic, which does not require a CPN. Therefore, Vaya’s no-CPN traffic should be billed at intraLATA switched access rates during the Record Period. This reasonably includes both per-minute-of-use charges and facilities charges. We also find AT&T California’s methodology for assessing interLATA switched access facilities charges to no-CPN traffic during the Record Period reasonable because interLATA facilities charges are similar or less than facilities charges Vaya would have incurred if AT&T California billed Vaya intraLATA switched access facilities charges.Use of Actual over Projected DataAT&T California calculated its reparations using both its actual data and projected data. AT&T California calculates that Vaya owes it a total of $3,364,692 when using actual data and a total of $3,623,233 when using projected data, which uses data from a similar time frame to fill in any data gaps. In the Phase I decision, the Commission indicated that “AT&T California will [] be expected to submit sufficient evidentiary material to meet its burden of proof to recover any switched access charges owed by Vaya in the second phase of this proceeding.” We rely on AT&T California’s actual data to assess reparations owed to AT&T California by Vaya. Therefore, we shall consider $3,364,692 to be the maximum reparations recoverable for the Record Period.Number of Trunks in Service Based on Prior Call VolumeAT&T California used the total number of local trunks ordered during the Record Period to calculate reparations owed for Vaya’s misrouting of interLATA and no-CPN calls. AT&T California states that the total number of trunks Vaya ordered during the Record Period represents a call volume capacity far in excess of the volume of calls AT&T California billed Vaya on a per-minute-of-use basis for the same period. AT&T California explains that high trunk capacity and low minute-of-use is characteristic of robocalling, which sends a large number of calls in a short period of time with the expectation that few people will pick up the call.Vaya argues that AT&T California’s number of Trunks in Service is overstated, since AT&T California has not distinguished between intraLATA and interLATA traffic for no-CPN traffic. According to Vaya, AT&T California’s Trunks in Service should reflect the trunking needed to send interLATA traffic only, not no-CPN traffic.We determined that including no-CPN calls is appropriate for the purpose of determining Vaya’s misrouting calls, as discussed above. Therefore, the Commission finds the number of Trunks in Service should account for the call volume reasonable to carry Vaya’s interLATA and no-CPN traffic.In order to determine the Trunks in Service necessary to create Vaya’s interLATA and no-CPN call volume, we find it reasonable to accept AT&T California’s claim that Vaya had an increased volume of calls due to robocalling. Therefore, this decision adopts AT&T California’s methodology of determining Feature Group D Trunks in Service based on actual trunks ordered during the Record Period. Vaya Owes Feature Group D Facilities Charges for both 1) One-Time Installation of Service Charges for Direct Trunk Transport and 2) Monthly Tandem Trunk Port ChargesAT&T California seeks recovery for facilities charges owed by Vaya for Direct Trunk Transport required to connect Vaya’s third-party interexchange carrier (IXC) facilities to the Tandem Trunk Ports on AT&T’s California’s tandem switch, as shown below.Figure 1. Vaya’s InterLATA Trunking Arrangement According to AT&T CaliforniaVaya Third-Party Transport Facility Carrying Vaya’s interLATA TrafficCross Connect ServingWire CenterDS1 Direct Trunk Transport($132.44 one-time installation charge + any mileage charges)AT&T California’sTandem Switch containing Tandem Trunk Ports ($3.70/monthly recurring charge)Vaya objects to these charges, arguing it owes AT&T California $0 for one-time installation charges for installing Feature Group D trunking because it uses thirdparty providers to deliver interLATA traffic to AT&T California’s tandem switches, which are located in the same building, and are therefore separated by zero miles. According to Vaya, only a cross-connect is needed to connect the thirdparty provider’s transport network to AT&T California’s tandem switch when the mileage is zero, as illustrated in the figure below. Vaya’s provides exhibits to “show[] that Vaya is using a third party transport to reach the service wire center where [AT&T California’s] tandem switches are located.” Figure 2. Vaya’s InterLATA Trunking Arrangement According to Vaya Third-Party Transport Facility Carrying Vaya’s interLATA TrafficCross Connect identified as Feature Group DAT&T California’sTandem Switch – No Tandem Trunk Ports Used Vaya and AT&T California’s proposed trunking arrangements are based on their interpretation of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Tariff No. 1, Section 6.7.1(D)(9), which states:An Entrance Facility, or [Expansion Interconnection Service Cross Connect (EISCC)], or Direct Trunked Transport is required for all Switched Access Service except when the customer directs its Switched Access Service over another customer’s facility as set forth in 6.1.3.(A) preceding.The customer must order Direct Trunked Transport from the customer’s serving wire center to an end office or to an access tandem with Tandem Switched Transport from the access tandem to the end office(s). Transport options may be selected on a tandem, if tandem routed, and feature group basis.For the purpose of determining reparations, we find AT&T California’s tariff supports recovery of one-time trunk installation charges and monthly recurring port charges, as stated in Section 6.7.1(D)(9) of FCC Tariff No. 1. While Vaya uses third-party facilities to reach the serving wire center, Vaya is responsible for charges associated with direct trunked transport from the serving wire center to AT&T California’s tandem switch.Accordingly, we find Vaya is responsible for direct trunked transport charges for interLATA facilities. This includes both Installation of Service charges and monthly recurring Tandem Trunk Port charges, as discussed in Section 5 below. We also find support for Vaya’s payment of switched access charges in Sections 1.5.3.1 and 1.5.3.2 the ICA, which states: Section 1.5.3.1.When available, a Party requesting interconnection may lease facilities offered by the other Party under tariff. Such leased facilities shall be provided at the rates, terms, and conditions set forth in the providing Party’s applicable tariff, except that in the event of any conflict between this Agreement and the tariff, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail.Section 1.5.3.2.The Party requesting interconnection may utilize facilities provided by a third party. The Party utilizing this option shall comply with industry standards to maintain network integrity and shall be solely responsible for any charges or fees assessed by the third party for use of its facilities.The parties’ ICA and other record evidence shows that Vaya is responsible for switched access charges from the serving wire center to AT&T California’s tandem switch rather than third-party providers. Though we find no conflict between FCC Tariff No. 1 and the ICA, Section 1.5.3.1 indicates that the tariff language does not supersede Vaya’s obligations under the ICA to pay for charges or fees for use of AT&T California’s facilities. Time Period for Reparations Extends from May 1, 2015 through the Commission’s Disconnection Order in D.19-08-028.In Phase I of this proceeding, we determined that AT&T California’s recovery is limited by the Commission’s three-year statute of limitations as well as the period already covered by the parties’ prior settlement agreement, which ended on April 26, 2015. In this Phase of the proceeding, AT&T California adjusted its calculation of reparations to account for the settlement agreement by adjusting its recovery request to include the period between May 1, 2015 and August 31, 2019 (Record Period). In addition, AT&T California requests a daily reparation amount of $1,484 after the Record Period based on its calculation of switched access charges Vaya owed for its continuing violation of the ICA during Vaya’s migration of traffic from its Meet Point Trunks. However, the Commission ordered Vaya to disconnect their Meet Point Trunks according to a default schedule, whereby Vaya would disconnect 25 percent of its trunks every 90 days and move the traffic to a mutually agreed-upon trunking. In their joint case management statement, Vaya and AT&T California stated their intent to use the default schedule and migrate the traffic to Feature Group D trunks. Therefore, we can calculate the remaining monthly Tandem Trunk Port charges Vaya avoids during this time period as follows: 1- 90 days = $3.70 x 3 x ((# Trunks in Service) x 100%)91- 180 days = $3.70 x 3 x ((# Trunks in Service) x 75%)181- 270 days = $3.70 x 3 x ((# Trunks in Service) x 50%)271 - 360 days = $3.70 x 3 x ((# Trunks in Service) x 25%)We can also account for any deviations to the default trunk mitigation schedule as allowed under the Executive Director’s letter granting Vaya an extension of time to disconnect 25 percent of its trunks in the 91-180 day phase of the schedule, see Attachment A. We leave it for parties to determine the switched access charges owed based on the actual disconnection schedule and set the maximum reparations for the 360-day disconnection period per the formula above, as discussed further in Section 5.2. Reparations for Switched Access Charges Owed by Vaya to AT&T CaliforniaThe Commission has jurisdiction to award reparations. Reparatory relief is limited to a refund or adjustment of part or all of the utility charges for a service or group of related services. Reparatory relief is distinguished from consequential damages, which is defined as “an amount of money sufficient to compensate an injured party for all the injury proximately caused by a tortious act, or to replace the value of performance of a breached obligation.”AT&T California requests that the Commission order Vaya to compensate AT&T California up to $3,623,233 for both one-time Installation of Services charges and monthly Tandem Trunk Port charges Vaya avoided by ordering local trunks rather than Feature Group D trunks.Reparations for one-time Installation of Service charges are discussed in Section 5.1. Monthly Tandem Trunk Port charges are considered in Section?5.2.One-Time Installation of Service Charges for Direct Trunk TransportAT&T California seeks reparations for one-time Installation of Service charges for Feature Group D trunking Vaya avoided by misrouting traffic over local trunks. According to AT&T California, Vaya owes onetime Installation of Service charges of $132.44 for Direct Trunked Transport from an IXC provider to AT&T California’s tandem switches, even when the IXC provider’s equipment terminates in the same building (i.e., the serving wire center and the tandem switch are collocated) and the total miles of Direct Trunked Transport is zero. AT&T California asserts that the one-time Installation of Service charge pays for “connecting the trunks riding the Direct Trunked Transport within the access tandem office to the Tandem Trunk Ports on the tandem switch; establishing the necessary trunk translations so traffic can flow to the trunks and tandem switch; establishing a Feature Group D billing account for the trunk; and covering the costs of future disconnection.” AT&T California calculates the total Installation of Service charge amount by taking the total number of new Local Interconnection Trunks and Meet Point Trunks Vaya added each year during the Record Period, prorating the total number of trunks by the volume of no-CPN and interLATA traffic on the trunks, and multiplying this total number of trunks by the trunk installation charge of $132.44. Vaya avoided the Installation of Service charge when it misrouted traffic over local trunks, as there is no charge for setting up Local Interconnection Trunks or Meet Point Trunks. Therefore, Vaya shall pay AT&T California for one-time Installation of Service charges avoided during the Record Period.As AT&T California and Vaya are currently working to disconnect Vaya’s Meet Point Trunks and set up alternative trunking arrangements for Vaya’s interLATA traffic according to the default schedule, Vaya is currently incurring one-time setup fees for any new Feature Group D trunking arrangements. In order to prevent double-recovery for Installation of Service charges from Feature Group D trunks Vaya sets up pursuant to D.19-08-028, Vaya may deduct any Feature group D installation charges from the total amount awarded in reparations to AT&T California for the same herein.Monthly Recurring Charges for Tandem Trunk PortsAT&T California requests that the Commission order Vaya to compensate it $3.70 for monthly Tandem Trunk Port charges Vaya avoided by sending interLATA and no-CPN traffic over local trunks. AT&T California calculated the amount owed by multiplying the total number of Trunks in Service by $3.70/month during the Record Period. AT&T California also adjusted the difference between the per-minute-of-use charges Vaya paid for transit rates and the per-minute-of-use switched access rates under the switched access tariff. AT&T California did not include any charges for collocation, multiplexing or cross-connects. AT&T California also deducted the difference between the transit rates Vaya paid for traffic routed over local trunks from the per-minute-of use switched access rates it would have paid under the switched access tariff.We find AT&T California should recover monthly Tandem Trunk Port charges avoided during the Record Period as well charges incurred as part of Meet Point Trunk disconnection according to the default schedule adopted by parties in accordance with D.19-08-028, up to a maximum amount of $406,323 per the formula in Section 4.5 of this decision.Total Reparations Owed by Vaya to AT&T CaliforniaWe find Vaya owes a total of $3,364,692 for one-time Installation of Service charges and monthly Tandem Trunk Port charges during the Record Period. Vaya shall make a payment of $3,364,692 to AT&T California within 30 days of the issuance date of this decision. Vaya is also responsible for switched access charges avoided during 360-day transition period the Commission granted Vaya to disconnect its Meet Point Trunks per D.19-08-028, up to a maximum amount of $406,323. Vaya shall make a payment for monthly switched access charges avoided during the 360-day disconnection period, up to a maximum amount of $406,323, by no later than 450?days after the issuance date of D.19-08-028. AT&T California shall credit Vaya for Feature Group D rollover charges Vaya incurred as a result of rerouting interLATA and no CPN traffic from Meet Point Trunks to Feature Group D trunks under the default schedule in D.19-08-028 OP 3, as modified by the Executive Director’s letter in Attachment A, from the total reparations awarded to AT&T California within 450 days of the issuance date of Decision 19-08-028. Parties are directed to file a motion in this proceeding within 12 months of the issuance date of this decision if either party disputes either 1) the total switched access charges owed to AT&T California for monthly Tandem Trunk Port charges avoided by Vaya during the phased disconnection of its Meet Point Trunks as ordered by D.19-08-028 OP 3, and modified by the Executive Director’s letter included in Attachment A or 2) credits due to Vaya for rollover charges incurred during the phased disconnection of its Meet Point Trunks which are duplicative of the reparations for installation of Feature Group D trunks ordered herein. Imposition of a Fine on Vaya Pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 2107Pub. Util. Code § 2107 provides that any public utility that violates or fails to comply with any provision of the Constitution of this state or of this part, or that fails or neglects to comply with any part or provision of any order, decision, decree, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the Commission, in a case in which a penalty has not otherwise been provided, is subject to a penalty of not less than five-hundred dollars ($500), nor more than one-hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for each offense. The purpose of a fine is to go beyond reparation to the victim and to effectively deter further violations by the perpetrators or others.In D.19-08-028, the Commission determined Vaya violated to D.14-01-006, which ordered “Vaya [to] immediately cease delivering to AT&T California interLATA traffic over Local Interconnection Trunks.” As Vaya argued it sent a de minimis amount of interLATA traffic over Local Interconnection Trunks during periods of high call volume, D.19-08-028 found “Vaya knowingly and systematically violated D.14-01-006 by sending interLATA traffic over Local Interconnection Trunks.” Therefore, it is appropriate to assess a fine on Vaya.In assessing a penalty, we look to the criteria in D.98-12-075, including 1)?the severity of the offense, 2) the conduct of the utility, 3) totality of the circumstances, 4) financial resources of the utility and 5) the role of precedent. First, we consider the severity of offense. The size of the fine should be proportionate to the severity of the offense, based on the level of physical harm, economic harm, harm to the regulatory process, and the number and scope of violations. It is also appropriate to consider the size of the utility and experience before the Commission.Vaya’s violation did not result in physical harm. Vaya caused economic harm to AT&T California when it avoided a total of $3,364,692 in both one-time Installation of Service charges and monthly Tandem Trunk Port charges by misrouting traffic during the Record Period. However, when assessing a penalty for Vaya’s violation of D.14-01-006, we must consider the more limited economic impact of Vaya’s routing of interLATA traffic over Local Interconnection Trunks only, as D.14-01-006 did not consider the appropriateness of sending interLATA traffic over Meet Point Trunks or routing of no-CPN traffic. AT&T California computed the total number of days Vaya sent interLATA traffic over Local Interconnection Trunks from January 21, 2014 through October 14, 2018 and found Vaya sent interLATA traffic over Local Interconnection Trunks on most days for which AT&T California had traffic data. AT&T California also provided a traffic study from November 1, 2017 to December 13, 2017, which showed a significant percentage of Vaya’s traffic on its Local Interconnection Trunks was interLATA. Vaya admits to sending interLATA calls over Local Interconnection Trunks during the Record Period. However, Vaya states that the amount of interLATA traffic over Local Interconnection Trunks which AT&T California calculated in its November 1, 2017 to December 13, 2017 traffic study is not significant, since this amount represents only 1.5 percent of all of Vaya’s total traffic.Upon review, we find the percentage of interLATA calls on AT&T California’s Local Interconnection Trunks significant even if it represents a small percentage of Vaya’s total call volume. Vaya’s violation of D.14-01-006 was serious but not egregious, and likely not a majority of the economic harm caused by Vaya during the Record Period. We also find that there is harm to the regulatory process from Vaya’s failure to comply with Decision 14-01-006 by continuing to send interLATA calls over Local Interconnection Trunks during the Record Period. Compliance is absolutely necessary for the proper functioning of the regulatory process. The Commission imposes a fine here to express disapproval of Vaya’s continued routing of interLATA traffic over Local Interconnection Trunks. Second, we consider the utility’s conduct to prevent, detect, disclose, and rectify the violation. Vaya initially did not comply with D.14-01-006, and AT&T California filed a motion to enforce the Commission’s order. Subsequently, Vaya took significant steps to stop routing interLATA traffic over Local Interconnection Trunks. In response to D.1401006, Vaya asserts that it “immediately updated its routing tables to route interLATA traffic over [Meet Point] Trunks as a default” and took steps to monitor its track usage to ensure it augmented its Meet Point Trunks as necessary.According to Vaya, AT&T California limits the number of trunks Vaya can augment with each order, which extended the migration period of Vaya’s interLATA traffic. At the time D.14-01-006 issued, Vaya had 3,768 Meet Point Trunks on AT&T California’s system, which it subsequently increased to 14,520 through Access Service Requests submitted on February 27, 2017, June 7, 2017, June 20, 2017, November 6, 2017, November 27, 2017 and January 31, 2018. Vaya states that it added Meet Point Trunks in response to AT&T California’s 2017 study though Access Service Requests dated November 2017 and January 2018. Vaya subsequently ordered 144 additional Meet Point Trunks on January?31, 2018.Outside of its traffic study, AT&T California showed no evidence that it communicated with Vaya about properly routing its interLATA traffic over Feature Group D trunks prior to initiating this complaint. AT&T California asserts that CLECs requesting Meet Points Trunks from AT&T California are not required to specify the traffic they will send over the trunks. Based on the record evidence, we find Vaya’s conduct to prevent, detect, disclose, and rectify the violation decreases the penalty in this case.Third, we consider the utility’s financial resources. Based on the size of the payments avoided by Vaya, the $40,000 penalty is significant but it would not impact Vaya’s ability to continue providing service to its customer base. Fourth, we consider the public interest in assessing a penalty. It is federal policy to ensure that the cost of terminating on the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) is shared equitably among all those sending calls to the PSTN. Vaya argues that the Commission approved an ICA in 2010 allowing O1 Communications, Incorporated (O1)., Vaya’s affiliate, to route interLATA calls over Local Interconnection Trunks. Therefore, therefore Vaya argues that it, and not AT&T California, is competitively harmed by AT&T California’s prohibition on routing interLATA traffic over Local Interconnection Trunks.The tradeoffs justifying differing ICA terms for Vaya and O1 are not at issue in this proceeding, so we make no conclusions about the differing ICA terms other than noting that Vaya and O1 both entered ICAs with AT&T California. We find that Vaya’s avoidance of switched access charges under the provisions of its ICA put it at a competitive advantage over other carriers bound by ICAs with similar provisions. Therefore, the public interest weighs in favor of assessing a penalty for Vaya’s noncompliance. Fifth, we consider the totality of the circumstances. In D.98-12-075, the Commission held that a fine should be tailored to the unique facts of the case. In assessing the unique facts of each case, the Commission stated that it would consider both the degree of wrongdoing and the public interest. The facts in this case indicate that the degree of wrongdoing, though serious, was not egregious. Vaya sought to correct its misrouting of interLATA traffic from Local Interconnection Trunks to Meet Point Trunks, even if that was also prohibited under the ICA. Finally, we consider Commission precedent. The Commission routinely assesses penalties when a utility fails to comply with any part or provision of any order, decision, decree, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the Commission. The Commission has considered several complaints filed against Vaya in which parties claimed Vaya failed to pay switched access charges owed. However, the parties have all requested dismissal of these prior complaints.The Commission rarely addresses parties’ failure to comply with the Commission’s prior orders resolving past ICA disputes. However, in D.0706044, the Commission suspended the operating authority of Global NAPs for failure to pay $985,439.38 plus interest in reparations ordered in D.07-01-004 for breach of the parties’ ICA. In this decision, the Commission found that a penalty would be ineffectual as Global NAPs showed it had no money to pay for the reparations owed. Unlike, Global NAPs, we have no indication that Vaya cannot afford to pay the switched access charges owed or the penalty proposed in this decision.Considering the five factors in D.98-12-075, we find the penalty amount of $40,000 reasonable. We calculate this penalty using the number of months for which Vaya was out of compliance with D.14-01-006 as a benchmark. The record establishes that Vaya was out of compliance with D.14-01-006 from the date of issuance of that decision until September 2017, which is when AT&T California filed the instant complaint, which amounts to 43 months. The $40,000 penalty corresponds to a penalty of approximately $1,000 for each month of noncompliance. Vaya shall pay a penalty of $40,000 for violating D.14-01-006. Vaya shall remit the penalty within 30 days of the issuance date of this decision to the Commission’s Fiscal Office, for deposit to the General Fund. No Disconnnection of Vaya’s Local Interconnection Trunks or Termination of ICAAT&T California seeks a Commission order disconnecting Vaya’s Local Interconnection Trunks and terminating the parties’ ICA. AT&T California argues that Vaya’s avoidance of switched access charges over a six-year period merits this action. If Vaya’s ICA were terminated, AT&T California argues that Vaya could still send traffic by either 1) interconnecting with other carriers that connect to AT&T California or 2) interconnect with AT&T California through AT&T California’s access tariffs. Vaya opposes disconnection of it Local Interconnection Trunks and Termination of its ICA with AT&T California. We address AT&T California’s requests in turn.We decline to order Vaya to disconnect its Local Interconnection Trunks. AT&T California’s traffic studies show that a significant portion of Vaya’s calls are neither interLATA nor unknown calls. Thereby, Vaya appears to have a legitimate purpose for using Local Interconnection Trunks to carry intraLATA traffic.We also decline to terminate Vaya’s ICA with AT&T California. Vaya is in the process of complying with the Commission’s Phase I decision order to disconnect its Meet Point Trunks and move its traffic to trunks which conform to the ICA. In the parties’ joint case management statement, the parties indicated agreement to move Vaya’s interLATA traffic to Feature Group D trunks according to the default schedule set in D.19-08-028. Terminating the ICA would be counterproductive to the parties’ current efforts. Either party may pursue termination of the ICA under the material breach provision without a Commission order. In the event Vaya fails to complete its disconnection of Meet Point Trunks and/or fails to pay the reparations or penalties ordered in this decision, the Commission may consider additional penalties, including termination of the ICA or revocation of Vaya’s Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.Admittance of Testimony and Exhibits into RecordIn order to fairly assess the record, it is necessary to include all testimony and attachments by the parties. ALJ Kline admitted AT&T California’s testimony and exhibits AT&T 2-1P, AT&T 2-1C, AT&T 2-2P, AT&T 2-2C, AT&T 2-2P-ERRATA and AT&T 2-2C-ERRATA into the evidentiary record by ruling, dated January 31, 2020.In motions, dated February 6, 2020 and February 24, 2020, Vaya requested, pursuant to Rule 13.8 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, that the Commission receive the public and confidential version of its testimony into the record of C.17-09-023. In the February 24, 2020 joint motion, AT&T California also asked that the Commission to receive the public and confidential version of additional testimony into the record of C.17-09-023. Therefore, we identify the public and confidential version of Vaya and AT&T California’s testimony as Exhibits Vaya 2-1P, Vaya 2-1C, Vaya 2-2P, Vaya 2-2C, Vaya 2-3P and Vaya 2-3C, Vaya 2-4P, Vaya 2-5P, AT&T 2-3P and AT&T 2-3C. Given the necessity of Vaya and AT&T California’s testimony to the resolution of this case, we admit into evidence the public and confidential versions of Vaya and AT&T California’s exhibits as mentioned above.Motions to Seal and Other Procedural MattersPursuant to Rule 11.5, portions of the record of a proceeding (such as served testimony) may be sealed. Vaya and AT&T California submitted public and confidential versions of their testimony. Pursuant to Rule 11.5 and General Order (GO) 66-D, Vaya and AT&T California filed motions requesting that the confidential supplemental information be filed under seal. The information referenced in the motion to file under seal and the information contained in the testimony filed under seal constitute commercially sensitive material. We grant confidential treatment of and seal (as detailed in the ordering paragraphs herein) Exhibits Vaya 2-1C, Vaya 2-2C and Vaya 2-3C and AT&T 2-3C. The documents placed under seal shall remain under seal for a period of three years pursuant General Order GO 66-D. All rulings by the assigned Commissioner and assigned ALJ are affirmed herein; and all motions not specifically addressed herein or previously addressed by the assigned Commissioner or ALJ, are denied.Vaya’s Appeal of Presiding Officer’s Decision and Related MotionThe presiding officer’s decision of ALJ Kline in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311 of the Public Utilities Code and an appeal was allowed under Rule 14.4 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Vaya filed an appeal of the presiding officer’s decision (Appeal) on July 30, 2020, and AT&T California filed a response to Vaya’s Appeal on August 14, 2020.Vaya’s appeals the presiding officer’s decision on assertions of legal and/or for the following: 1) finding the Commission has jurisdiction to resolve this complaint, 2) applying a three-year statute of limitations, 3) assessing damages, 4) awarding AT&T California consequential damages, 5) violating the plain terms of the parties’ interconnection agreement, 6) adopting the Record Period and 7) awarding a fine under Section 2107 against Vaya.In its response to Vaya’s Appeal, AT&T California supports the presiding officer’s decision’s finding, arguing that the Commission has jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim, to award reparations within the prescribed Record Period and to penalize Vaya for violating D.14-01-006. We have reviewed Vaya’s Appeal and AT&T California’s response to Vaya’s Appeal. The Commission has already considered and rejected Vaya’s appeal to the three-year statute of limitations in this proceeding. Upon consideration of Vaya’s other assertions of legal and factual error, we have made no modifications to the decision.Concurrent with its Appeal, Vaya filed a motion to stay payment of the reparations and penalty in the presiding officer’s decision pending a decision on Vaya’s Application for Rehearing (Motion for Stay). Vaya’s Motion for Stay is denied as untimely. Assignment of ProceedingLiane M. Randolph is the assigned Commissioner and Zita Kline is the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the presiding officer in this proceeding.Findings of FactVaya (U7122C) and AT&T California (U1001C) are certificated as public utilities in California. Vaya violated the terms of its ICA by misrouting traffic over Local Interconnection Trunks and Meet Point Trunks.AT&T California’s serving wire centers, where Vaya’s third-party providers terminate interLATA calls, are in the same building as AT&T California’s tandem switches.Vaya owes AT&T California $0 in reparations for Direct Trunk Transport facilities mileage charges.Vaya sufficiently compensated AT&T California for per-minute-of-use charges owed for interLATA and no-CPN traffic sent during the Record Period.Section 5.4 of the parties’ ICA provides that if the percentage of calls passed with CPN is less than ninety percent (90%), all calls passed without CPN will be billed as intraLATA switched access.Vaya sent less than 90 percent of its calls with CPN during the Record Period.No-CPN calls treated as intraLATA switched access traffic incur both a per-minute-of-use charge and facilities charges.Both interLATA switched access traffic and intraLATA switched access traffic are subject to per-minute-of-use and facilities charges.IntraLATA switched access facilities charges are the same or higher than interLATA switched access facilities charges.AT&T California calculated reparations owed by Vaya for misrouting interLATA and no-CPN calls using both its actual and its projected data.The maximum reparations recoverable by AT&T California for the Record Period, based on AT&T California’s projected data, is $3,623,233.The maximum reparations recoverable by AT&T California for the Record Period, based on AT&T California’s actual data, is $3,364,692.Vaya’s call volume is in excess of the volume of calls Vaya billed on a per-minute-of-use basis for the same period. High trunk capacity to low minute-of-use is characteristic of robocalling, which sends a large number of calls in a short period of time with the expectation that few people will pick up the call.Direct Trunk Transport is required to connect an IXC’s facilities from the serving wire center to AT&T California’s tandem switch.Vaya’s third-party transport extends to the serving wire center, but not from the serving wire center to AT&T California’s tandem switch.The Record Period for AT&T California’s reparations request covers the period between May 1, 2015 and August 31, 2019. D.19-08-028 OP 3 allowed the parties to set a mutually agreed-upon schedule for disconnecting Vaya’s Meet Point Trunks, and also set a default schedule for disconnection in the event the parties could not agree on an alternative schedule.On September 23, 2019, the parties indicated by joint case management statement that they could not reach agreement on an alternative schedule for disconnecting Vaya’s Meet Point Trunks, and therefore planned to use the default schedule provided in D.19-08-028 OP 3.The Commission allowed Vaya a three-month extension of time to comply with the disconnection of it Meet Point Trunks in the 90 to 180-day default schedule for disconnection, by Executive Director letter dated January 23, 2020.AT&T California is owed reparations beyond the Record Period covering monthly Tandem Trunk Port charges avoided by Vaya during the 360-day period allowed under the default schedule for Vaya to disconnect its Meet Point Trunks.The Installation of Service charge for each additional interLATA trunk is a one-time charge of $132.44.AT&T California’s Installation of Service charge covers connecting the trunks riding the Direct Trunked Transport within the access tandem office to the Tandem Trunk Ports on the tandem switch; establishing the necessary trunk translations so traffic can flow to the trunks and tandem switch; establishing a Feature Group D billing account for the trunk; and covering the costs of future disconnection.Vaya may be incurring installation charges for Feature Group D trunking as part of its disconnection of Meet Point Trunks.The monthly recurring Tandem Trunk Port charge is $3.70.Vaya avoided a total of $3,364,692 in one-time Installation of Service charges and monthly Tandem Trunk Port charges during the Record Period.Vaya avoided a maximum of $406,323 in monthly Tandem Trunk Port charges under the default disconnection schedule in D.19-08-028 OP 3, as modified by the Executive Director’s letter dated January 23, 2020.The Commission found Vaya violated the terms of its ICA with AT&T California by continuing to send interLATA traffic over both Local Interconnection Trunks and Meet Point Trunks in D.19-08-028.Vaya’s misrouting of interLATA traffic over Local Interconnection Trunks after issuance of D.14-01-006 did not result in physical harm. Vaya’s misrouting of interLATA traffic over Local Interconnection Trunks after issuance of D.14-01-006 resulted in economic harm for AT&T California, consisting of one-time Installation of Service charges and monthly Tandem Trunk Port charges.Vaya’s misrouting of interLATA traffic over Local Interconnection Trunks after issuance of D.14-01-006 resulted in harm to the regulatory process, since Vaya did not comply with the Commission’s order in D.14-01-006.The severity of Vaya’s offense was serious but not egregious.Vaya’s offense caused economic harm to AT&T California, consisting of one-time Installation of Service charges and monthly Tandem Trunk Port charges avoided.Vaya took steps to comply with D.19-08-028 by migrating its traffic to Meet Point Trunks.AT&T California did not help Vaya properly route its interLATA traffic to Feature Group D trunks at the time Vaya migrated its interLATA traffic in accordance with D.14-01-006.The penalty is significant but will not impact Vaya’s ability to continue providing service to its customer base, and is still small compared to the value of the reparations owed to AT&T California for misrouting its interLATA and no-CPN calls.There is public interest in ensuring the cost of terminating PSTN is shared equitably amount all these sending calls to the mission precedent supports assessing a penalty on Vaya, as the Commission routinely assessed penalties when an entity violates a Commission order. Vaya sends a significant amount of intraLATA traffic over its Local Interconnection Trunks.Vaya is in the process of migrating its Meet Point Trunks to Feature Group D trunks in accordance with D.19-08-028.Either AT&T California or Vaya may pursue termination of the parties’ ICA under the material breach provision of the ICA without a Commission order. Conclusions of LawThe Commission has jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to Pub. Util. Code §§ 701, 1702 and 1707.The Commission has jurisdiction to hear complaints brought to enforce ICAs pursuant to Section 252 of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996.AT&T California and Vaya’s treatment of no-CPN calls is governed by Section 5.4 of their ICA.Vaya’s no-CPN calls should be subject to intraLATA switched access facilities charges as provided in Section 5.4 of the parties’ ICA.It is reasonable to assess interLATA switched access facilities charges to Vaya’s no-CPN traffic as a conservative estimate of intraLATA switched access facilities charges Vaya owes to AT&T California for no-CPN traffic because 1)?more than 10 percent of Vaya’s traffic contained no-CPN traffic and 2)?interLATA facilities charges cost the same or less than intraLATA switched access facilities charges.It is reasonable to use actual data when calculating the reparations owed by Vaya.It is reasonable to use the actual number of trunks in service Vaya ordered to carry its call volume even though that does not correlate strongly with the number of minutes billed to account for Vaya’s high call volume, which is characteristic of robocalling. Vaya’s payment for switched access charges is governed by Section 1.5.3.1 and 1.5.3.2 of the parties’ ICA and FCC Tariff No. 1.In the event of conflict between the ICA and the tariff, Section 1.5.3.1 of the ICA provides that the terms of the ICA shall prevail.It is reasonable to grant AT&T California reparations for switched access charges avoided during the Record Period.It is reasonable to grant AT&T California reparations for switched access charges avoided during the 360-day default schedule allowed for Vaya to disconnect its Meet Point Trunks pursuant to D.19-08-028.The Commission has jurisdiction to award reparations for access charges owed by Vaya to AT&T California under the parties’ ICA.Vaya should pay reparations of $3,364,692 for one-time installation of services charges and monthly Tandem Trunk Port charges avoided by misrouting interLATA and no-CPN calls during the Record Period.AT&T California should credit Vaya for Feature group D installation charges from the total amount awarded in reparations to AT&T California for the same herein.Vaya should pay reparations for monthly Tandem Trunk Port charges avoided during the 360-day default schedule period ordered in D.19-08-028, up to a maximum of $406,323.Vaya violated D.14-01-006 by continuing to misroute interLATA calls over Local Interconnection Trunks.Issuing a penalty of $40,000 for Vaya’s violation of D.14-01-006 is reasonable in light of the five factors the Commission uses to assess penalties pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 2107.The Commission should not order disconnection of Vaya’s Local Interconnection Trunks. The Commission should not order termination of Vaya’s ICA with AT&T California at this time. AT&T California and Vaya’s exhibits should be admitted into the evidentiary record in this proceeding.AT&T California and Vaya’s exhibits marked as confidential should be granted confidential treatment pursuant to General Order 66-D.All rulings of the assigned Commissioner and the assigned ALJ should be affirmed.This proceeding should be closed.ORDERIT IS ORDERED that:Within 30 days of the issuance date of this decision, Vaya Telecom, Incorporated shall make a payment of $3,364,692 in reparations to Pacific Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T California for switched access charges avoided from April 2015 to August 2019.Within 450?days of the issuance date of Decision 19-08-028, Vaya Telecom, Incorporated shall pay Pacific Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T California any additional switched access charges avoided during the phased disconnection of its Meet Point Trunks pursuant to Decision 19-08-028 Ordering Paragraph 3, as modified by the Executive Director letter in Attachment A, up to a maximum of $406,323. Within 450 days of the issuance date of Decision 19-08-028, Pacific Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T California (AT&T California) shall credit Vaya Telecom, Incorporated for Feature Group D rollover charges incurred from rerouting inter Local Access Transit Area and no Calling Party Number traffic from local trunks to Feature Group D trunks under the default schedule in D.19-08-028 Ordering Paragraph 3, as modified by the Executive Director’s letter in Attachment A, from the total reparations awarded to AT&T California in Ordering Paragraph 1.Pacific Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T California (AT&T California) or Vaya Telecom, Incorporated (Vaya) shall file a motion in this proceeding within 12 months of the issuance date of this decision if either party disputes 1) the total switched access charges owed to AT&T California for monthly Tandem Trunk Port charges avoided by Vaya during the phased disconnection of its Meet Point Trunks as ordered by D.19-08-028 Ordering Paragraph 3, and modified by the Executive Director’s letter in Attachment A or 2) credits due to Vaya for rollover charges incurred during the phased disconnection of its Meet Point Trunks which are duplicative of the reparations for installation of Feature Group D trunks ordered herein. Vaya Telecom, Incorporated shall pay a penalty of $40,000 to the California Public Utilities Commission for deposit to the General Fund, and shall remit said amount to the Commission’s Fiscal Office at 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 3000, San Francisco, CA 94102, within 30 days of the issuance date of this order. The number of this decision shall be included on the face of the check.Exhibits Vaya 2-1P, Vaya 2-2C, Vaya 2-2P, Vaya 2-2C, Vaya 2-3P, Vaya?23C, Vaya 2-4P, Vaya 2-5P, AT&T 2-3P and AT&T 2-3C are received into evidence.Vaya Telecom, Incorporated’s (Vaya) request to treat as confidential exhibits Vaya 2-1C, Vaya 2-2C and Vaya 2-3C, including pertinent testimony thereunder, is granted for a period of three years from the date of this order. During this three-year period, this information shall not be publicly disclosed except on further Commission order or Administrative Law Judge ruling. If Vaya believes that it is necessary for this information to remain under seal for longer than three years, it may file a new motion showing good cause for extending this order by no later than 30 days before the expiration of this order.Pacific Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T California (AT&T California) request to treat as confidential exhibit AT&T 2-3C, including pertinent testimony thereunder, is granted for a period of three years from the date of this order. During this three-year period, this information shall not be publicly disclosed except on further Commission order or Administrative Law Judge ruling. If AT&T California believes that it is necessary for this information to remain under seal for longer than three years, it may file a new motion showing good cause for extending this order by no later than 30 days before the expiration of this order.All rulings of the assigned Commissioner and the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) are affirmed herein; and all motions not specifically addressed herein or previously addressed by the assigned Commissioner or ALJ, are plaint 17-09-023 is closed.This order is effective today.Dated September 24, 2020, at San Francisco, California.MARYBEL BATJER PresidentLIANE M. RANDOLPHMARTHA GUZMAN ACEVESCLIFFORD RECHTSCHAFFENGENEVIEVE SHIROMA Commissioners ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download