20001005Decision Memo.doc

DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
JEAN JEWELL
RON LAW
LOU ANN WESTERFIELD
TONYA CLARK
JOE CUSICK
DAVE SCHUNKE
RANDY LOBB
LYNN ANDERSON
WELDON STUTZMAN
JOHN HAMMOND
LISA NORDSTROM
BRENDA SORRELL
WORKING FILE
FROM:
DATE:
OCTOBER 5, 2000 RE: STAFF RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES TO REVIEW/APPROVE INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS AND AMENDMENTS TO INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS, CASE NOS. USWT-97-8; GTE-T-00-5; USWT005 (STIPULATION); USW-T-99-28; AND USWT-00-5 (THIRD AMENDMENT).

In these five cases, the Commission is asked to approve amendments or changes to five existing interconnection agreements—four with Qwest and one with Verizon. The Commission previously approved all five underlying Interconnection Agreements.
BACKGROUND
To date, the Commission has approved more than 100 interconnection agreements and amendments to interconnection agreements. In each of these interconnection cases, the Commission issued a combined Notice of Application and Notice of Modified Procedure soliciting comments from interested persons. The combined Notice (and the subsequent final Order) is sent to approximately 80 ILECs and CLECs. The only party submitting comments in these cases has been the Commission Staff. The Staff has subsequently prepared a decision memorandum and placed it on the Commission’s consent agenda.
Under the provisions of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, interconnection agreements must be submitted to the Commission for approval. 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(1). The Commission may reject an agreement adopted by negotiations only if it finds that the agreement: (1) discriminates against telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (2) implementation of the agreement is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(2)(A). As the Commission recently noted in Order No. 28427, companies voluntarily entering into interconnection agreements “may negotiate terms, prices and conditions that do not comply with either the FCC rules or with the provisions with Section 251(b) or (c).” Order No. 28427 at 11 (emphasis original). This comports with the FCC’s statement that “a state commission shall have authority to approve an interconnection agreement adopted by negotiation even if the terms of the agreement do not comply with the requirements of [Part 51].” 47 C.F.R. § 51.3.
STAFF PROPROSAL
Given the lack of public participation and the fact that parties may negotiate non-discriminatory interconnection terms that do not comply with Section 251(b) and (c), Staff is recommending that the Commission adopt new procedures to review interconnection agreements and their amendments. Rather than issue a Notice that the interconnection agreement has been filed, Staff recommends that the Commission process interconnection agreements and amendments as a “ministerial” review similar to that of reviewing tariff advices under Procedural Rule 134.03.
More specifically, Staff proposes that interconnection agreements and their amendment be reviewed by the Commission Staff to ensure that the agreement: (1) is not discriminatory to another carrier; or (2) not inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Rather than issuing a combined Notice of Application and Modified Procedure, the Staff would complete its analysis and prepare a decision memorandum. If the Commission finds that the interconnection agreements or amendments are not discriminatory or inconsistent with the public interest, then the Commission could issue a final Order which would then be distributed to the ILECs and CLECs. Parties aggrieved by the Commission’s Order could seek reconsideration.
The Staff also proposes that all interconnection agreements and amendments received during a two-week period be held and processed together. Rather than doing individual decision memorandums, the Staff’s decision memorandum would consolidate and address all the agreements in a single memorandum. Staff anticipates that the Commission would issue a single multi-captioned Order rather than an individual Order on each company. This process would save considerable time, Commission Staff resources, and postage.
THE CURRENT APPLICATIONS
As previously mentioned, the Commission has been asked to approve amendments to five existing interconnection agreements. The amendments to the existing interconnection agreements are discussed in greater detail below.
Verizon and Avista Communications of Idaho (Case No. GTE-T-00-5). In this case, the parties request that the Commission approve additional terms to an interconnection agreement adopted by the parties and approved by the Commission on April 18, 2000. The parties have included additional terms, conditions and appendices that address the provision of collocation services, and the provision of unbundled network elements (UNEs).
Qwest and Integra Telecom of Idaho (Case No. USW-T-00-5). In this Application, the parties request that the Commission approve a stipulation adding terms, conditions and rates for collocation. Integra Telecom adopts the terms and conditions of the stipulation for collocation intervals previously entered into between Qwest and Rhythms Links dated April 9, 2000. The original interconnection agreement between Integra and (at the time) U S WEST Communications was approved in Order No. 28360 issued April 26, 2000.
Qwest and Integra Telecom of Idaho (Case No. USW-T-00-5). In this Application, the parties request that the Commission approve amendment No. 3 to their interconnection agreement. As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the Commission approved the underlying interconnection agreement in Order No. 28360 issued April 28, 2000. In this third amendment, the parties have included new terms and conditions for physical collocation, access to unbundled loop qualification data basis, unbundled loop order provisioning, customer care standards, and interim shared loop prices.
Qwest and United States Cellular (Case No. USW-T-97-8). In this Application, the parties request the Commission approve their second amendment to an interconnection agreement originally approved in Order No. 26921 issued on May 19, 1997. The second amendment adds terms and conditions for interlocal calling area, or commonly referred to as “interLCA Facilities.” This amendment is also being offered in the states of Iowa, Oregon, and Washington.
5. Qwest and McLeodUSA Telecommunication Services (Case No. USW-T-99-28). In this Application, the parties request the Commission approve a second amendment to the parties’ interconnection agreement approved by the Commission in Order No. 28255 issued January 19, 2000. The second amendment incorporates changes to the reciprocal traffic exchange terms found in Part C, Section 2 of the original Interconnection Agreement.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The Staff has reviewed all five Applications and did not find that any terms and conditions are discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff believes that the amendments are consistent with the pro-competitive policies of this Commission, the Idaho Legislature, and the federal Telecommunications Act. Accordingly, Staff believes that the amendments merit the Commission’s approval.
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission find that the amendments and changes to the five interconnection agreements set out above are non-discriminatory and consistent with the public interest?
Does the Commission wish to implement the Staff’s recommended procedures for reviewing future interconnection agreements and amendments to such interconnection agreements? In particular, does the Commission desire the Staff to review the interconnection agreements and amendments on an ex parte basis and report its findings to the Commission?
Does the Commission believe that it is appropriate to issue a multi-captioned Order following the Commission’s review of interconnection agreements or changes?
Finally, does the Commission find it appropriate to consolidate for its review those interconnection agreements and amendments filed in a two-week period?
Does the Commission desire to make any other changes to its review of interconnection agreements or amendments?

vld/M:interconnectioncases_dh

The Commission’s Procedural Rule 134.03 provides that “[o]rdinarily, the Commission acts upon tariff advices with the assistance of an ex parte recommendation of the Commission Staff.” IDAPA 31.01.01.134.03.

DECISION MEMORANDUM 4