PUBLIC NOTICE ![](media/image1.png){width="0.9708333333333333in"
height="0.9805555555555555in"}

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

445 12th STREET S.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554

**DA 99-2509**

News media information 202/418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202/418-2830 TTY
202/418-2555 Internet: http:/www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov

#  Released: November 12, 1999 

**Michigan Pay Telephone Association Files Petition for Declaratory
Ruling**

**CCB/CPD No. 99-35**

**[Pleading Cycle Established]{.underline}**

**COMMENTS DUE DATE: December 17, 1999**

**REPLY COMMENTS DUE DATE: January 5, 2000**

On November 10, 1999, the Michigan Pay Telephone Association (MPTA)
filed a petition seeking a declaratory ruling that the Michigan Public
Service Commission (PSC) erred in applying the new services test to pay
telephone service rates charged by Ameritech Michigan (Ameritech) and
GTE North, Inc. (GTE). MPTA asks that the Commission review the Michigan
PSC order of March 8, 1999 that denied in part the complaint filed by
MPTA that challenged the rates Ameritech and GTE filed in May of 1997 at
the Michigan PSC. The MPTA complaint alleged that Ameritech and GTE
rates for network services made available to payphone providers were not
cost-based and did not comply with the new services test as mandated for
the pricing of intrastate payphone access services in the Commission\'s
orders in CC Docket No.

96-128.[^1] In denying MPTA's complaint, the Michigan PSC found that the
"FCC has not specified any particular methodology for determining costs
or reasonable overheads for purposes of compliance with the \[new
services\] test."[^2]

MPTA solicits a finding that the Michigan PSC erred in the following
respects when applying the new services test to the network services
made available to payphone providers by Ameritech and GTE:

a.  declare that the appropriate cost standard to be used in calculating
    the direct cost of the services in question is a forward looking
    economic cost methodology that is consistent with state law;

b.  declare that the appropriate cost standard to be applied in
    calculating a "reasonable amount" for overhead is a forward looking
    economic cost methodology that is consistent with state law;

c.  declare that the prices for network services made available to
    payphone providers be set to not produce revenue that subsidizes
    either the direct costs or the overhead costs associated with other
    non-payphone services;

d.  declare that the end user common line (EUCL) revenue and other rate
    elements paid by the payphone providers for non-traffic sensitive
    costs be attributed to offset the costs associated with the access
    lines, such that, the rate plus the EUCL would recover the economic
    cost of the non-traffic sensitive costs of the service; and,

e.  declare that the Michigan PSC not rely upon non-cost-based business
    service rates when setting the rates for payphone services under the
    new services test.

MPTA further requests that the Commission direct Ameritech and GTE to
file at the Michigan PSC tariffs for network services made available to
payphone providers that comply with the new services test. In addition,
MPTA asks the Commission to issue guidelines and standards for the
Michigan PSC to use in deciding whether the rates for payphone services
are cost-based and comply with the new services test.

The MPTA petition for declaratory ruling will be available for public
inspection in the Commission\'s Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th
Street S.W., Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0270. Copies can be
purchased from International Transcription Services (ITS), the
Commission\'s duplicating contractor, at its office at 1231 20th Street
N.W., Washington, DC 20036, or by calling (202) 857-3800.

Interested parties may file comments no later than December 17, 1999.
Reply comments may be filed no later than January 5, 1999. When filing
comments, reference file number CCB/CPD No. 99-35.

An original and four copies of all comments and reply comments must be
filed with the Commission\'s Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of
the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 - 12th Street
S.W., TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. In addition, one copy of each
comment and reply comment must be filed with International Transcription
Services (ITS), the Commission\'s duplicating contractor, at its office
at 1231 20th Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036. One copy must also be
filed with the Chief, Competitive Pricing Division, Common Carrier
Bureau, 445 - 12th Street S.W., Room 5-A225, Washington, DC 20554.

This proceeding is a \"permit-but-disclose\" proceeding in accordance
with the Commission\'s *ex parte* rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200,
1.1206. Persons making oral *ex parte* presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the
substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects
discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and
arguments presented is generally required. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b).
Other rules pertaining to oral and written *ex parte* presentations in
permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b).

For further information, contact Lynne Milne or Jon Stover, Competitive
Pricing Division, Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 418-1520, TTY (202)
418-0484.

**- FCC -**

[^1]: ^        ?^ *See* *Implementation of the Pay Telephone
    Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecomm. Act of
    1996*, CC Docket No. 96-128, *First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd
    20541 (1996); *Order on Reconsideration*, 11 FCC Rcd 21233 (1996),
    *aff\'d in part and remanded in part sub nom. Ill. Public Telecomm.
    Ass\'n v. FCC*, 117 F.3d 555 (D.C. Cir. 1997); *Second Report and
    Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 1778 (1997), *aff\'d in part and remanded in part
    sub nom. MCI v. FCC*, 143 F.3d 606 (D. C. Cir. 1998); *Third Report
    and Order and Order on Reconsideration of the Second Report and
    Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 2545 (1999), *appeal pending* *sub nom. American
    Public Communications Council v. FCC*, Case No. 99-1114 (D. C. Cir.
    filed Mar. 22, 1999); *see also Amendment of Part 69 of the
    Commission\'s Rules Relating to the Creation of Access Charge
    Subelements for Open Network Architecture*, CC Docket No. 89-79,
    *Report and Order & Order on Further Reconsideration & Supplemental
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 6 FCC Rcd 4524 (1991).

[^2]: ^        ?^ *Michigan Pay Telephone Ass'n v. Michigan Bell
    Telephone Co.*, Order, MPSC Case No. U-11756, p. 8 (rel. Mar. 8,
    1999).