47 C.F.R. § 1.1413

Complaints by incumbent local exchange carriers

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A complaint by an incumbent local exchange carrier (as defined in 47 U.S.C. 251(h)) or an association of incumbent local exchange carriers alleging that it has been denied access to a pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned or controlled by a local exchange carrier or that a utility's rate, term, or condition for a pole attachment is not just and reasonable shall follow the same complaint procedures specified for other pole attachment complaints in this part.

(b) In complaint proceedings challenging utility pole attachment rates, terms, and conditions for pole attachment contracts entered into or renewed after the effective date of this section, there is a presumption that an incumbent local exchange carrier (or an association of incumbent local exchange carriers) is similarly situated to an attacher that is a telecommunications carrier (as defined in 47 U.S.C. 251(a)(5)) or a cable television system providing telecommunications services for purposes of obtaining comparable rates, terms, or conditions. In such complaint proceedings challenging pole attachment rates, there is a presumption that incumbent local exchange carriers (or an association of incumbent local exchange carriers) may be charged no higher than the rate determined in accordance with § 1.1406(d)(2). A utility can rebut either or both of the two presumptions in this paragraph (b) with clear and convincing evidence that the incumbent local exchange carrier receives benefits under its pole attachment agreement with a utility that materially advantages the incumbent local exchange carrier over other telecommunications carriers or cable television systems providing telecommunications services on the same poles.

[83 FR 46840, Sept. 14, 2018, as amended at 85 FR 64061, Oct. 9, 2020]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2023–2026 · leading case: FirstEnergy v. PUC; Cross Apl of: Verizon PA (Pa. 2026).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

FirstEnergy v. PUC; Cross Apl of: Verizon PA (Pa. 2026). · cites it 6× “It summarizes the process as follows: Step 1, Verizon must prove that the JUAs were entered into or renewed after the effective date of 47 C.F.R. § 1.1413 . 12 If so, Step 2 requires FirstEnergy to prove by clear and 12 47 C.”

FirstEnergy PA Elec. Co., Aplt. v. PUC (Pa. 2026). · cites it 6× “It summarizes the process as follows: Step 1, Verizon must prove that the JUAs were entered into or renewed after the effective date of 47 C.F.R. § 1.1413 . 12 If so, Step 2 requires FirstEnergy to prove by clear and 12 47 C.”

Verizon PA LLC & Verizon North LLC v. PA PUC (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023). · cites it 5× “Pursuant to the adopted regulation, the PUC was required to first determine if the challenged JUAs were entered into or renewed after the effective date of 47 C.F.R. §1.1413 (b) – March 11, 2019. 52 Pa.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.