*Pages 1--21 from  Microsoft Word - 17275*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  99-  1971  ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 Before  the  FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of  )  ) 
 Bell  Atlantic-  Delaware,  et  al.,  )  ) 
 Complainants,  )  )  File  No.  E-  98-  48 
 v.  )  ) 
 Frontier  Communications  Services,  Inc.,  )  et  al.,  ) 
 )  Defendants,  ) 
 )  and  ) 
 )  ) 
 Bell  Atlantic-  Delaware,  et  al.,  )  File  No.  E-  98-  49  ) 
 Complainants,  )  ) 
 v.  )  ) 
 MCI  Telecommunications  Corporation,  )  ) 
 Defendant.  ) 
 MEMORANDUM  OPINION  AND  ORDER 
 Adopted:  September  23,  1999;  Released:  September  24,  1999 
 By  the  Chief,  Common  Carrier  Bureau: 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  99-  1971  ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 2 
 I.  INTRODUCTION 
 1.1  In  this  order,  we  resolve  two  formal  complaints  filed  by  Bell  Atlantic-  Delaware,  et  al.  (Bell  Atlantic  or  Complainant),  1  one  against  Frontier  Communications  Services,  Inc.,  et  al. 
 (Frontier)  2  and  one  against  MCI  Telecommunications  Corporation  (MCI)  3  (collectively  Defendants),  4  pursuant  to  section  208  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended  (Act).  5 
 Bell  Atlantic  contends  that  Defendants  violated  section  276  of  the  Act  and  section  64.1300  of  the  Commission's  rules  by  refusing  to  pay  payphone  compensation  for  compensable  calls  that 
 originated  on  Bell  Atlantic  payphones.  Under  section  276  of  the  Act,  and  the  Commission's  implementing  rules  and  orders,  interexchange  carriers  (IXCs)  are  required  to  compensate 
 payphone  service  providers,  including  local  exchange  carrier  (LEC)  payphone  service  providers,  for  certain  completed  intrastate  and  interstate  calls  originated  from  the  payphone  service 
 providers'  payphones.  6  Bell  Atlantic  seeks  an  order  requiring  Defendants  to  pay  payphone 
 1  Bell  Atlantic-  Delaware,  Inc.,  Bell  Atlantic-  Maryland,  Inc.,  Bell  Atlantic-  New  Jersey,  Inc.,  Bell  Atlantic-Pennsylvania, 
 Inc.,  Bell  Atlantic-  Virginia,  Inc.,  Bell  Atlantic-  Washington,  D.  C.,  Inc.,  Bell  Atlantic-  West  Virginia,  Inc.,  New  York  Telephone  Company  and  New  England  Telephone  and  Telegraph  Company  (collectively  Bell 


 Atlantic). 
 2  Frontier  Communications  Services  Inc.,  Frontier  Communications  International  Inc.,  Frontier 
 Communications  of  the  West  Inc.,  Frontier  Communications-  North  Central  Region  Inc.,  Frontier  Communications  of  New  England  Inc.,  and  Frontier  Communications  of  the  Mid  Atlantic  Inc.  (collectively  Frontier). 


 3  Subsequent  to  the  filing  of  this  complaint,  Defendant  MCI  merged  with  WorldCom.  This  order  is  binding 
 on  all  named  parties  and  their  successors-  in-  interest. 
 4  Bell  Atlantic  v.  Frontier,  File  No.  E-  98-  48  (filed  July  15,  1998)  (Complaint  (Frontier)).  Bell  Atlantic  v. 
 MCI,  File  No.  E-  98-  49  (filed  July  15,  1998)  (Complaint  (MCI)).  The  allegations  and  legal  analysis  are  virtually  identical  in  the  two  Bell  Atlantic  complaints.  Bell  Atlantic  initially  filed  its  complaint  against  Frontier  Corporation, 


 which  is  a  holding  company  that  owns  common  carriers  subject  to  the  Commission's  rules.  The  parties  agreed  that  Bell  Atlantic  could  amend  its  complaint  to  substitute  the  Frontier  Long  Distance  Companies  for  Frontier 
 Corporation  as  the  defendants.  See  Bell  Atlantic/  Frontier  Joint  Statement  at  2.  Accordingly,  Bell  Atlantic  filed  a  revised  complaint  substituting  the  Frontier  Long  Distance  Companies  as  the  defendants  on  September  4,  1998. 


 5  47  U.  S.  C.    208.  Section  208  gives  a  party  the  right  to  file  a  complaint  with  the  Commission  if  it  believes 
 that  a  common  carrier  acted  or  failed  to  act  in  contravention  of  the  Act  or  a  Commission  rule  or  order. 
 6  See  47  U.  S.  C.    276;  47  C.  F.  R.    64.1300;  see  also  Implementation  of  the  Pay  Telephone  Reclassification 
 and  Compensation  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  20,541  (1997)  (Report  and  Order);  Order  on  Reconsideration,  11  FCC  Rcd  21,233  (1997)  (Order  on  Reconsideration) 


 (collectively  the  Payphone  Orders).  The  Payphone  Orders  were  affirmed  in  part  and  vacated  in  part.  See  Illinois  Public  Telecomm.  v.  FCC,  117  F.  3d  555  (D.  C.  Cir.  1997).  The  Commission  addressed  the  issues  remanded  by 
 Illinois  Public  Telecomm.  in  the  Second  Report  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  1778  (1997)  (Second  Report  and  Order).  The  Second  Report  and  Order  was  also  appealed.  On  appeal,  the  Court  remanded  certain  issues  to  the  Commission. 
 See  MCI  Telecomm.  Corp.  v.  FCC,  143  F.  3d  606  (D.  C.  Cir.  1998).  The  Commission  addressed  those  issues  in  the 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  99-  1971  ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 3 
 compensation  to  Bell  Atlantic  for  all  calls  originated  on  its  payphones  and  carried  by  Defendants,  during  the  fourth  quarter  of  1997  and  the  first  quarter  of  1998.  Bell  Atlantic  also 
 seeks  an  order  directing  Defendants  to  make  future  payments  for  such  calls. 
 1.2  Defendants  each  filed  an  answer  arguing  that  Bell  Atlantic  is  not  entitled  to  payphone  compensation  for  the  calls  at  issue  because  Bell  Atlantic  did  not  adequately  certify  that 
 it  had  complied  with  the  compensation  eligibility  prerequisites  set  forth  in  the  Payphone  Orders.  7  In  Defendants'  view,  certification  requires  that  Bell  Atlantic  prove  to  Defendants' 
 satisfaction  that  Bell  Atlantic  has  met  all  of  the  compensation  eligibility  prerequisites,  including  the  removal  of  intrastate  subsidies  from  Bell  Atlantic's  rates.  8 


 1.3  We  find  Defendants'  arguments  without  merit.  The  term  certification,  as  set  forth  in  the  Order  on  Reconsideration,  does  not  mandate  that  a  LEC  payphone  service  provider  prove 
 to  the  IXC  payor  that  it  has  satisfied  each  compensation  eligibility  prerequisite.  Under  the  Commission's  rules  and  orders,  for  purposes  of  triggering  the  IXCs'  payment  obligation,  a  LEC 
 payphone  service  provider  sufficiently  "certifies"  its  compliance  with  the  prerequisites  by  attesting  authoritatively  to  an  IXC  payor  that  such  LEC  payphone  service  provider  has  satisfied 
 each  prerequisite  to  the  receipt  of  payphone  compensation.  Moreover,  we  find  this  approach  to  be  consistent  with  the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  term  "to  certify."  We  therefore  conclude  that  Bell 
 Atlantic  adequately  certified  to  Defendants  that  it  satisfied  the  compensation  eligibility  prerequisites.  Accordingly,  we  order  Defendants  to  pay  payphone  compensation  to  Bell  Atlantic 
 for  all  compensable  calls  routed  to  them  that  originated  from  Bell  Atlantic  payphones  during  the  fourth  quarter  of  1997,  the  first  quarter  of  1998,  and  all  subsequent  calls,  as  required  by  the  Act 
 and  the  Commission's  rules. 


 Third  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  2545  (1999).  The  portions  of  the  Payphone  Orders  addressed  in  this  order  were  neither  vacated  nor  remanded  by  the  Court. 
 7  See  Order  on  Reconsideration,  11  FCC  Rcd  21,233  (1997). 
 8  See  Frontier  Answer  at  para.  40;  MCI  Answer  at  para.  12. 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  99-  1971  ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 4 
 II.  BACKGROUND 
 A.  Statutory  Authority 
 1.4  In  the  Payphone  Orders,  9  the  Commission  adopted  new  rules  and  policies  governing  the  payphone  industry  to  implement  section  276  of  the  Act.  Those  rules  and  policies: 
 (1)  establish  a  plan  to  ensure  fair  compensation  for  "each  and  every  completed  intrastate  and  interstate  call  using  [a]  payphone[;]"  (2)  establish  a  plan  to  discontinue  intrastate  and  interstate 
 carrier  access  charge  service  elements  and  payments  in  effect  on  such  date  of  enactment,  and  all  intrastate  and  interstate  payphone  subsidies  from  basic  exchange  services;  (3)  prescribe 
 nonstructural  safeguards  for  Bell  Operating  Company  (BOC)  payphones;  (4)  permit  the  BOCs  to  negotiate  with  location  providers  regarding  the  interLATA  carrier  presubscribed  to  their 
 payphones;  (5)  permit  all  [payphone  service  providers]  to  negotiate  with  location  providers  about  the  intraLATA  carriers  that  are  presubscribed  to  their  payphones;  and  (6)  adopt  guidelines  for 
 use  by  the  states  in  establishing  public  interest  payphones  to  be  located  "where  there  would  otherwise  not  be  a  payphone[.]"  10 


 1.5  In  the  Payphone  Orders,  consistent  with  section  276  of  the  Act,  the  Commission  concluded  that  all  payphone  service  providers,  including  LEC  payphone  service  providers,  must 
 be  compensated  for  "each  and  every  completed  intrastate  and  interstate  call"  originated  from  their  payphones.  11  Prior  to  the  Payphone  Orders,  payphone  service  providers  received  no 
 revenue  for  originating  certain  calls  (e.  g.,  subscriber  800  and  other  toll-  free  number  calls)  and  were  prohibited  from  blocking  callers  from  making  some  of  those  calls  (e.  g.,  access  code 
 calls).  12  The  Commission  concluded  in  the  Payphone  Orders  that  payphone  service  providers 
 9  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  20,541;  Order  on  Reconsideration,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21,233.  There  have 
 been  many  orders  in  CC  Docket  No.  96-  128,  including  the  Payphone  Orders,  which  address  a  variety  of  payphone-related  issues.  We  will  refer  to  this  docket  as  the  payphone  proceeding. 


 10  47  U.  S.  C.    276(  b).  Section  276(  b)(  1)(  B)  directed  the  Commission  to  discontinue  the  above-  mentioned 
 carrier  access  charge  service  elements  and  payments  in  effect  on  such  date  of  enactment  and  intrastate  and  interstate  payphone  subsidies  in  favor  of  a  compensation  plan  that  would  ensure  fair  compensation  for  each  and  every 


 completed  call  as  set  forth  in  section  276(  b)(  1)(  A).  Only  certain  types  of  payphone  owners  were  entitled  to  subsidies. 


 11  47  U.  S.  C.    276(  b)(  1)(  A)  (directing  the  Commission  to  establish  a  plan  "to  ensure  that  all  payphone  service 
 providers  are  fairly  compensated  for  each  and  every  completed  intrastate  and  interstate  call  using  their  payphone");  47  C.  F.  R.    64.1300(  a)  (requiring  "every  carrier  to  whom  a  completed  call  from  a  payphone  is  routed  [to] 


 compensate  the  payphone  service  provider  for  the  call  .  .  .  .").  See  also  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  20,566,  para.  48. 


 12  See  Telephone  Operator  Consumer  Services  Improvement  Act  (TOCSIA),  Pub.  L.  No.  101-  435,  104  Stat. 
 986  (1990)  (codified  at  47  U.  S.  C.    226)  (prohibiting  payphone  service  providers  from  blocking  certain  calls);  see 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  99-  1971  ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 5 
 must  be  compensated  for  access  code,  subscriber  800,  and  other  toll-  free  number  calls,  whether  they  are  jurisdictionally  intrastate  or  interstate.  13  The  Commission  further  concluded  that  IXCs, 
 the  primary  economic  beneficiary  of  such  calls,  would  be  responsible  for  compensating  the  payphone  service  providers.  14 


 1.6  The  Commission  concluded  that  LEC  payphone  service  providers  would  be  eligible  to  receive  compensation  for  completed  calls  originated  from  their  payphones  once  they 
 had  satisfied  certain  requirements.  Specifically,  to  receive  compensation,  the  Commission  required  that  each  LEC  "must  be  able  to  certify"  that  it  had  complied  with  those  prerequisites.  15 
 In  the  Payphone  Orders,  the  Commission  did  not  set  forth  any  requirements  for  the  form  of  such  a  certification.  The  Commission  subsequently  stated  in  the  Second  Report  and  Order,  however, 
 that  LEC  payphone  service  providers  are  not  required  to  file  such  a  certification  with  any  state  or  federal  regulatory  agency  or  to  obtain  a  formal  certification  of  compliance  from  either  the 
 Commission  or  the  states  to  be  eligible  to  receive  per-  call  compensation  pursuant  to  the  Payphone  Orders.  16  Addressing  certification  in  the  Bureau  Intrastate  Tariffing  Waiver  Order, 


 also  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  20,568,  para.  52.  An  "access  code  call"  is  a  call  made  using  a  sequence  of  numbers  that,  when  dialed,  connect  the  caller  to  the  operator  service  provider  (OSP)  associated  with  that  sequence, 
 rather  than  the  OSP  presubscribed  to  the  originating  line.  Access  code  calls  include  toll-  free  calls  (e.  g.,  1-  800-  CALL-  ATT),  101XXXX  calls  in  equal  access  areas,  and  "950"  Feature  Group  B  dialing  (950-  0XXX  or  950-  1XXX) 
 anywhere,  where  the  three-  digit  XXX  denotes  a  particular  interexchange  carrier.  See  Policies  and  Rules  Concerning  Operator  Service  Access  and  Pay  Telephone  Compensation,  7  FCC  Rcd  3251,  3251  n.  1  (1992). 
 "Subscriber  800  calls"  consist  of  calls  to  an  800  number  assigned  to  a  particular  subscriber.  See  Implementation  of  the  Pay  Telephone  Reclassification  and  Compensation  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  Notice  of 
 Proposed  Rulemaking,  11  FCC  Rcd  6716  (1996).  In  this  order,  the  term  subscriber  800  call  encompasses  toll-  free  subscriber  calls,  including  888  and  877  numbers.  See  Toll  Free  Service  Access  Codes,  11  FCC  Rcd  2496  (1996); 
 see  also  Third  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  2568  n.  88. 
 13  See  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  20,568,  para.  52. 


 14  For  purposes  of  paying  compensation  for  compensable  calls  and  other  associated  obligations,  such  as 
 tracking  calls,  the  term  "IXC"  includes  a  LEC  when  it  provides  interstate,  intraLATA  toll  service.  See  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  20,584,  para.  83  n.  293;  Order  on  Reconsideration,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21,270,  paras.  74-  75  & 


 21,278,  para.  92.  Under  the  Third  Report  and  Order,  the  default  per-  call  compensation  amount  is  $0.24  absent  negotiation  to  receive  a  different  amount.  See  Third  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  at  2552,  paras.  14,  196  (setting 
 forth  the  history  of  Commission  payphone  compensation  plans  and  establishing  the  compensation  amount  retroactive  to  October  7,  1997). 


 15  See  Order  on  Reconsideration,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21,293-  94,  paras.  131-  32;  see  infra  para.  12  (listing  specific 
 requirements). 
 16  See  Second  Report  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  1780,  para.  1  n.  9;  see  also  Implementation  of  the  Pay 
 Telephone  Reclassification  and  Compensation  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  4998,  5001-  02,  para.  4  (1998)  (Bureau  Coding  Digit  Waiver  Order)  (emphasizing 


 that  there  are  no  state  or  federal  certification  requirements). 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  99-  1971  ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 6 
 the  Common  Carrier  Bureau  (Bureau)  stated  that,  although  the  Commission  does  not  require  a  LEC  payphone  service  provider  to  file  a  certification  with  it,  nothing  in  the  Payphone  Orders 
 prohibits  an  IXC  payor  from  requesting  such  a  certification  from  the  LECs.  17  In  the  Bureau  Coding  Digit  Waiver  Order,  the  Bureau  further  stated  that  "LECs  that  have  certified  to  the  IXC 
 that  they  comply  with  the  requirements  of  the  Payphone  Orders  must  receive  per-  call  compensation."  18 


 B.  The  Bell  Atlantic  Complaints. 
 1.7  Bell  Atlantic  provides  local  exchange  and  payphone  services  in  the  northeast  and  mid-  Atlantic  states.  19  Defendants  Frontier  and  MCI  are  IXCs  that  provide  both  interstate  and 
 intrastate  telephone  toll  service.  20  Since  October  7,  1997,  the  beginning  of  per-  call  compensation,  Bell  Atlantic  has  delivered  calls  from  its  payphones  to  Defendants.  21 


 1.8  To  obtain  compensation  for  calls  that  originated  from  its  payphones,  beginning  in  June  1997,  Complainant  Bell  Atlantic  including  then-  NYNEX  22  sent  letters  to  Frontier  and 
 MCI  stating  that  the  letters  "certified"  that  each  of  its  companies  had  satisfied  the  compensation  eligibility  prerequisites,  as  set  forth  in  the  Payphone  Orders.  23  Therefore,  Complainant  stated, 


 17  See  Bureau  Intrastate  Tariffing  Waiver  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  21,380,  para.  22. 
 18  Bureau  Coding  Digit  Waiver  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  5001-  02,  para.  4  (emphasis  added);  see  also  infra  para. 
 30  (discussing  the  rights  of  a  payor  to  challenge  a  certification). 
 19  See  Complaint  (Frontier)  at  para.  2;  Complaint  (MCI)  at  para.  2. 


 20  See  Bell  Atlantic/  Frontier  Joint  Statement  at  2;  MCI  Answer  at  para.  3. 
 21  See  Bell  Atlantic/  Frontier  Joint  Statement  at  2;  Complaint  (MCI)  at  para.  6. 
 22  Bell  Atlantic  and  NYNEX  merged  prior  to  filing  the  instant  complaints.  We  note,  however,  that  in  June 
 1997  when  Bell  Atlantic  initially  sought  compensation  from  the  IXCs  Bell  Atlantic  and  NYNEX  had  not  yet  merged.  Therefore,  each  company  initially  attempted  to  obtain  compensation  independently  of  the  other.  For  the 


 purpose  of  this  complaint,  references  to  the  Complainant  Bell  Atlantic  refer  to  the  merged  entity,  which  includes  former  NYNEX  territory,  unless  otherwise  noted. 


 23  See  Complaint  (Frontier)  at  paras.  12-  13  &  Exhibit  A.  Exhibit  A  to  the  complaint  against  Frontier  is  the 
 following:  Letter  to  FCNC-  Frontier  Comm.  No.  O.  R.,  "NYNEX  Certification  of  Compliance  with  Requirements  for  Payphone  Compensation  in  Payphone  Reclassification  Proceeding,  CC  Docket  96-  128,"  from  Diane  F.  Giacalone, 


 VP-  General  Manager,  NYNEX  Public  Communications  &  Peter  Shepherd,  Director,  NYNEX  Regulatory  Planning  (June  27,  1997)  [hereinafter  Complaint  (Frontier)  at  Exhibit  A].  See  also  Complaint  (MCI)  at  paras.  12-  13  & 
 Exhibit  A.  Exhibit  A  to  the  complaint  against  MCI  is  an  identical  letter  to  that  in  Exhibit  A  in  the  complaint  against  Frontier,  with  the  recipient  being  Denny  Reuss,  Cincinnati--  for  MCI.  Since  the  substance  of  the  letters  is  identical, 
 we  will  refer  to  these  two  letters  as  "Exhibit  A"  unless  it  is  necessary  to  distinguish  between  the  recipients  of  the 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  99-  1971  ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 7 
 each  of  its  companies  was  entitled  to  receive  payphone  compensation  as  set  forth  in  the  Commission's  rules  and  orders.  To  supplement  its  letters,  NYNEX  provided  several  compliance 
 matrices  listing  how  it  satisfied  certain  prerequisites  including:  intrastate  subsidy  removal;  intrastate  tariff  filings  for  payphone  services;  unbundled  functions  and  features;  and  state-specific 
 tariff  information.  24  Similarly,  Bell  Atlantic  provided  information  in  its  letters  indicating  how  it  satisfied  each  prerequisite;  for  example,  in  responding  to  each  requirement, 
 Bell  Atlantic  noted  the  effective  date  of  the  tariff,  approved  date  for  the  tariff  or  order,  and  tariff  number,  where  applicable.  25 


 1.9  Defendants  Frontier  and  MCI  responded  similarly  to  Complainant's  June  1997  letters,  26  each  stating  that  it  would  not  pay  compensation  until  Bell  Atlantic  proved  that  the 
 compensation  eligibility  prerequisites  had  been  satisfied.  Specifically,  Frontier  refused  to  pay  compensation  for  any  calls  originated  in  Bell  Atlantic's  territory  (including  former  NYNEX 
 territory)  until  it  was  provided  with  specific  materials  that  it  contended  would  demonstrate  Bell  Atlantic's  compliance  with  the  Commission's  payphone  compensation  prerequisites.  27  Similarly, 
 MCI  stated  that  it  was  not  required  to  pay  per-  call  compensation  to  Bell  Atlantic,  because  Bell  Atlantic  had  not  provided  evidence  to  substantiate  the  claim  that  payphone  subsidies  had  been 


 letter. 
 24  See  id.  at  Attachment  A  at  3-  14.  NYNEX  also  provided  compliance  matrices  for  state  and  federal  filing 
 requirements,  a  billing  and  collection  outline,  and  a  sample  invoice.  The  matrices  included  information  such  as  the  date  NYNEX  filed  a  tariff  to  satisfy  a  particular  requirement,  effective  date  of  tariff,  and  tariff  transmittal  number, 


 or  Commission  order  approving  certain  action. 
 25  See  Complaint  (Frontier)  at  Exhibit  B.  Exhibit  B  to  the  complaint  against  Frontier  is  the  following:  Letter 
 to  Michael  Nighan,  Manager-  Regulatory,  Allnet/  Frontier  from  Paul  V.  Francischetti,  Vice  President  -  Legislative  Planning  &  Re-  Engineering,  Bell  Atlantic  (June  30,  1997)  [hereinafter  Complaint  (Frontier)  at  Exhibit  B];  see  also 


 Complaint  (MCI)  at  Exhibit  B.  Exhibit  B  to  the  complaint  against  MCI  is  identical  to  that  in  the  complaint  against  Frontier  with  the  recipient  being  Laura  Pickeral,  MCI.  We  will  refer  to  these  two  letters  as  Exhibit  B  since  they  are 
 identical,  unless  it  is  necessary  to  distinguish  between  the  recipients.  Bell  Atlantic  certified  that  each  of  its  following  companies  complied  with  the  Commission's  requirements:  Bell  Atlantic-  Delaware,  Inc.,  Bell  Atlantic-Maryland, 
 Inc.,  Bell  Atlantic-  New  Jersey,  Inc.,  Bell  Atlantic-  Pennsylvania,  Inc.,  Bell  Atlantic-  Virginia,  Inc.,  Bell  Atlantic-  Washington,  D.  C.,  Inc.,  and  Bell  Atlantic-  West  Virginia,  Inc. 


 26  Unless  otherwise  specified,  the  entity  "Bell  Atlantic"  includes  former  NYNEX  territory.  Thus,  Defendants 
 responses  to  "Bell  Atlantic"  encompass  those  responses  to  NYNEX. 
 27  See  Frontier  Answer  at  Exhibit  A  (stating  that  Frontier  would  pay  only  those  LECs  that  followed  the 
 procedures  that  Frontier  itself  outlined);  see  also  Complaint  (Frontier)  at  Exhibit  C  (Letter  to  Paul  V.  Francischetti,  Vice  President  -  Bell  Atlantic  Network  Services,  Inc.  from  Michael  J.  Nighan,  Director  -  Regulatory  Affairs, 


 Frontier  (July  10,  1997));  Complaint  (Frontier)  at  Exhibit  D  (Letter  to  Diane  F.  Giacalone,  Vice  President,  NYNEX  from  Michael  J.  Nighan,  Director  -  Regulatory  Affairs,  Frontier  (July  11,  1997)). 
7
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  99-  1971  ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 8 
 removed  from  all  of  Bell  Atlantic's  intrastate  rates.  28  MCI,  however,  paid  compensation  in  some  Bell  Atlantic  states.  29  Subsequent  to  the  filing  of  this  complaint,  Frontier  also  paid  compensation 
 in  some  Bell  Atlantic  states.  30 
 1.10  Bell  Atlantic  issued  two  subsequent  letters  in  November/  December  1997  and  again  in  March  1998  each  to  Frontier  31  and  MCI,  32  again  seeking  compensation  for  calls 
 originated  from  Bell  Atlantic's  payphones  (including  those  in  the  former  NYNEX  territory),  and  reiterating  that  it  had  satisfied  all  of  the  Commission's  compensation  eligibility  prerequisites.  33 
 Additionally,  in  June  1998,  representatives  from  Bell  Atlantic  met  with  representatives  from  MCI  and  Frontier  (on  separate  occasions),  along  with  certain  Commission  staff  members,  to 
 discuss  Defendants'  obligations  to  pay  payphone  compensation.  34  During  these  meetings, 
 28  See  MCI  Answer  at  para.  12;  see  also  Complaint  (MCI)  at  Exhibit  C.  The  removal  of  payphone  subsidies 
 is  one  of  the  prerequisites  to  eligibility  to  obtain  payphone  compensation.  See  infra  para.  15. 
 29  Bell  Atlantic  seeks  compensation  from  MCI  for  the  fourth  quarter  1997  for  the  following  states:  Delaware, 
 Maryland,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  West  Virginia,  Maine,  Massachusetts  and  Rhode  Island,  and  for  the  District  of  Columbia.  Bell  Atlantic  seeks  compensation  from  MCI  for  the  first  quarter  1998  for  the  following  states: 


 Maryland,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  Maine,  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  for  all  states  on  a  going  forward  basis.  See  Complaint  (MCI)  at  paras.  16-  17. 


 30  See  Letter  to  Magalie  Roman  Salas,  Secretary,  FCC  from  Steven  A.  Augustino,  Counsel  to  Frontier  (Nov. 
 4,  1998)  (noting  that  subsequent  to  the  filing  of  this  complaint,  Frontier  agreed  to  pay  compensation  to  Bell  Atlantic  for  payphones  in  the  following  jurisdictions:  Massachusetts,  New  Hampshire,  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Vermont, 


 and  West  Virginia.)  At  the  time  of  the  filing  of  the  complaint,  Frontier  had  not  made  any  payphone  compensation  payments  to  Bell  Atlantic  for  the  fourth  quarter  1997  or  the  first  quarter  1998. 


 31  See  Complaint  (Frontier)  at  Exhibits  E-  F.  Exhibit  E  to  the  Complaint  against  Frontier  is  the  following: 
 Letter  to  Michael  J.  Nighan,  Director  -  Regulatory  Affairs,  Frontier  Communications  from  Diane  Giacalone,  Vice  President,  Marketing  and  Planning  (Dec.  10,  1997)  [hereinafter  Complaint  (Frontier)  at  Exhibit  E].  Exhibit  F  to  the 


 Complaint  against  Frontier  is  the  following:  Letter  from  Paul  V.  Francischetti,  Vice  President  -  Marketing  and  Planning,  Bell  Atlantic  (Mar.  13,  1998)  [hereinafter  Complaint  (Frontier)  at  Exhibit  F]. 


 32  See  Complaint  (MCI)  at  Exhibits  D-  E.  Exhibit  D  to  the  Complaint  against  MCI  is  the  following:  Letter  to 
 Laura  Pickeral,  MCI  Communications  from  Diane  Giacalone,  Vice  President,  Marketing  and  Planning,  Bell  Atlantic  (Nov.  12,  1997)  [hereinafter  Complaint  (MCI)  at  Exhibit  D].  Exhibit  E  to  the  Complaint  against  MCI  is  the 


 following:  Letter  from  Paul  V.  Francischetti,  Vice  President  -  Marketing  and  Planning,  Bell  Atlantic  (Mar.  13,  1998)  [hereinafter  Complaint  (MCI)  at  Exhibit  E].  We  note  that  Exhibit  E  to  the  complaint  against  MCI  is  identical 
 to  Exhibit  F  to  the  complaint  against  Frontier. 
 33  See  Complaint  (Frontier)  at  Exhibit  E;  Complaint  (MCI)  at  Exhibit  D  (stating  that  "Bell  Atlantic  has 
 satisfied  all  the  FCC's  requirements  for  deregulating  payphones"). 
 34  Frontier  Answer  at  para.  22  (stating  that  Frontier  attended  the  meeting  and  indicated  at  that  time  that  Bell 
 Atlantic  "had  not  proven  that  it  is  entitled  to  payphone  compensation").  See  also  Complaint  (MCI)  at  para.  20. 
8
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  99-  1971  ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 9 
 Commission  staff  expressed  the  position  that  the  Payphone  Orders  clearly  mandated  that  IXCs  must  compensate  a  LEC  payphone  service  provider  upon  receipt  of  the  LEC's  certification  of 
 eligibility  without  further  inquiry  or  requirements.  Nonetheless,  each  Defendant  stated  that  it  would  not  compensate  Bell  Atlantic  until  Bell  Atlantic  had  proven  to  each  Defendant's 
 satisfaction  that  it  had  removed  intrastate  subsidies  from  its  rates.  35 
 1.11  In  July  1998,  Bell  Atlantic  initiated  the  present  action  alleging  that  Defendants'  refusal  to  pay  payphone  compensation  violated  section  276  of  the  Act  and  the  Commission's 
 implementing  rules  and  orders.  To  facilitate  resolution  of  the  issues  addressed  in  the  complaint,  the  Enforcement  Division  of  the  Common  Carrier  Bureau  (Division)  held  a  status  conference  for 
 all  parties  on  August  25,  1998.  At  that  conference,  the  Division  directed  the  parties  to  brief  two  specific  issues:  (1)  what  constitutes  a  "certification"  as  required  by  the  Commission's  Payphone 
 Orders,  and  has  Bell  Atlantic  complied  with  this  certification  requirement;  and  (2)  are  there  any  circumstances  under  which  an  interexchange  carrier  may  refuse  to  pay  payphone  compensation 
 after  receiving  a  certification  from  a  payphone  service  provider.  36 
 III.  DISCUSSION 
 A.  Introduction. 
 1.12  In  the  Payphone  Orders,  the  Commission  set  forth  prerequisites  that  LEC  payphone  service  providers  must  satisfy  to  be  eligible  to  receive  payphone  compensation.  37  In 
 doing  so,  the  Commission  delineated  explicit  guidelines  that  LECs  must  follow  to  satisfy  each  prerequisite,  including,  in  some  cases,  filing  tariffs  satisfying  the  prerequisite.  38  In  the  Order  on 
 Reconsideration,  the  Commission  stated  that  once  these  prerequisites  had  been  met,  "[  t]  o  receive  compensation,  a  LEC  must  be  able  to  certify  the  following" 


 35  See  Frontier  Answer  at  para.  22.  See  also  Complaint  (MCI)  at  Attachment  I  (Letter  to  Michael  Kellogg, 
 Counsel  for  RBOC  Coalition  from  Leonard  S.  Sawicki,  MCI  (June  24,  1998))  (stating  that  MCI  is  not  compensating  certain  companies,  including  Bell  Atlantic,  because  they  "have  not  met  the  requirement  that  LECs  remove  intrastate 


 payphone  subsidies  from  intrastate  access  rates  and  certify  this  to  the  interexchange  carriers."). 
 36  See  Letter  to  Jennifer  Myers,  Federal  Communications  Commission  from  Parties  (Aug.  26,  1998). 


 37  See  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  20,604-  34,  paras.  127-  87  (establishing  eligibility  requirements  to 
 receive  per-  call  compensation);  see  also  Order  on  Reconsideration,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21,299-  21,329,  paras.  142-  220  (further  discussing  such  requirements).  These  orders  listed  the  steps  LECs  must  take  to  satisfy  the  prerequisites 


 including  what  tariffs,  if  any,  were  required  to  be  filed  with  either  the  states  or  the  Commission. 
 38  See  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  20,604-  34,  paras.  127-  87  (establishing  eligibility  requirements  to 
 receive  per-  call  compensation);  see  also  Order  on  Reconsideration,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21,299-  21,329,  paras.  142-  220  (further  discussing  such  requirements). 
9
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  99-  1971  ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 10 
 (1)  it  has  an  effective  cost  accounting  manual  (CAM)  filing;  (2)  it  has  an  effective  interstate  CCL  tariff  reflecting  a  reduction  for  deregulated  payphone  costs  and 
 reflecting  additional  multiline  subscriber  line  charge  (SLC)  revenue;  (3)  it  has  effective  intrastate  tariffs  reflecting  the  removal  of  charges  that  recover  the  costs 
 of  payphones  and  any  intrastate  [payphone]  subsidies;  (4)  it  has  deregulated  and  reclassified  or  transferred  the  value  of  payphone  customer  premises  equipment 
 (CPE)  and  related  costs  as  required  in  the  Report  and  Order;  (5)  it  has  in  effect  intrastate  tariffs  for  basic  payphone  services  (for  "dumb"  and  "smart"  payphones); 
 and  (6)  it  has  in  effect  intrastate  and  interstate  tariffs  for  unbundled  functionalities  associated  with  those  lines.  39 


 The  Commission  also  required  these  LECs  that  are  BOCs  to  "have  approved  [comparably  efficient  interconnection  (CEI)]  plans  for  basic  payphone  services  and  unbundled  functionalities 
 prior  to  receiving  compensation."  40 
 1.13  Bell  Atlantic  contends  that  it  is  entitled  to  receive  payphone  compensation  from  Defendants  because  it  "certified"  to  each  defendant  that  it  complied  with  the  Commission's 
 compensation  eligibility  prerequisites.  41  All  parties  agree  that,  in  these  letters,  Bell  Atlantic  does  not  attempt  to  demonstrate  to  the  IXC  payor  that  it  complied  with  each  prerequisite.  42  Instead, 
 the  letters  purport  to  confirm  to  the  IXC  that  Bell  Atlantic  has  complied  with  the  compensation 
 39  Order  on  Reconsideration,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21,293,  para.  131.  See  also  Implementation  of  the  Pay 
 Telephone  Reclassification  and  Compensation  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  21,370,  21,374,  para.  10  (Com.  Car.  Bur.  Apr.  15,  1997)  (Bureau  Intrastate  Tariffing  Waiver  Order)  (stating 


 that  the  requirements  for  intrastate  tariffs  are  as  follows: 
 (1)  that  payphone  service  intrastate  tariffs  be  cost-  based,  consistent  with  Section  276,  nondiscriminatory  and  consistent  with  Computer  III  tariffing  guidelines;  and  (2)  that  the  states  ensure  that  payphone 
 costs  for  unregulated  equipment  and  subsidies  be  removed  from  the  intrastate  local  exchange  service  and  exchange  access  service  rates)  (citations  omitted). 


 40  Order  on  Reconsideration,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21,294,  para.  132.  The  Commission  also  required  payphone 
 service  providers  to  transmit  payphone-  specific  coding  digits  to  IXCs  before  payphone  service  providers  would  be  eligible  to  receive  compensation.  Due  to  difficulties  implementing  coding  digits,  the  Bureau  granted  limited 


 waivers  of  the  payphone  service  providers'  obligation  to  provide  coding  digits,  but  reiterated  that  these  waivers  did  not  negate  an  IXC's  obligation  to  pay  payphone  compensation.  Bureau  Coding  Digit  Waiver  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at 
 4998.  The  provision  of  coding  digits  is  not  part  of  the  Commission's  certification  "requirement"  and  is  not  at  issue  in  this  order. 


 41  See  Bell  Atlantic  Reply  Brief  at  1. 
 42  See  Bell  Atlantic/  Frontier  Joint  Statement  at  2;  MCI  Answer  at  para.  12. 
10
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  99-  1971  ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 11 
 eligibility  prerequisites  set  forth  by  the  Commission  in  the  Payphone  Orders.  43  Defendants  argue  that  Bell  Atlantic's  statements  that  it  "certifies"  that  it  has  complied  with  the  Commission's 
 prerequisites  do  not  constitute  a  "certification"  as  required  by  the  Commission's  orders.  Instead,  Defendants  contend  that  Bell  Atlantic  must  demonstrate  to  the  IXCs  that  it  actually  has  met  the 
 Commission's  compensation  eligibility  prerequisites  to  constitute  a  valid  certification.  44  Defendants  thus  contend  that  Bell  Atlantic  is  not  entitled  to  payphone  compensation,  because  it 
 has  not  provided  the  IXCs  proof  positive  that  it  satisfied  the  compensation  eligibility  prerequisites,  including  the  requirement  that  the  LEC  remove  intrastate  payphone  subsidies  from 
 its  intrastate  rates.  45 
 1.14  To  resolve  the  complaints  before  us,  we  must  determine  whether  Bell  Atlantic's  letters  to  Defendants,  which  state  that  the  LEC  has  complied  with  each  compensation  eligibility 
 prerequisite,  constitute  a  valid  certification  triggering  a  payment  obligation  by  Defendants.  Specifically,  we  must  determine  whether  the  term  "certification,"  as  set  forth  in  the  Order  on 
 Reconsideration,  requires  a  LEC  to  demonstrate  to  the  IXC  payor  that  the  LEC  has  complied  with  each  payphone  compensation  prerequisite.  The  Commission  has  not  specifically  defined 
 the  term  "certification"  in  the  context  of  payphone  compensation.  The  courts  repeatedly  have  recognized  the  authority  of  agencies  to  interpret  the  agency's  own  rules.  46  For  the  reasons 
 discussed  below,  we  find  that  the  term  "certification"  as  set  forth  in  the  Order  on  Reconsideration  does  not  require  a  LEC  to  demonstrate  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  IXC  payor  that 
 such  LEC  has  satisfied  each  compensation  eligibility  prerequisite.  Rather,  we  find  that  the  term  "certification"  as  set  forth  in  the  Order  on  Reconsideration  requires  that  a  LEC  be  able  to  attest 
 authoritatively  that  such  LEC  indeed  has  complied  with  each  prerequisite.  Therefore,  we  conclude  that  Bell  Atlantic's  letters  to  Defendants,  which  attested  that  Bell  Atlantic  had  complied 


 43  See,  e.  g.,  Complaint  at  Exhibit  B  (stating,  "[  e]  nclosed  are  certifications  confirming  that  each  of  the  Bell 
 Atlantic  local  exchange  companies  has  met  all  requirements  established  by  the  [Commission]  for  eligibility  to  receive  payphone  compensation."). 


 44  See  Frontier  Answer  at  para.  40;  MCI  Answer  at  para.  7. 
 45  See  Bell  Atlantic/  Frontier  Joint  Statement  at  2  (stating  that  one  of  the  disputed  facts  is  that  "Bell  Atlantic 
 has  failed  to  demonstrate  that  it  removed  payphone  subsidies  from  its  intrastate  rates  for  telephone  exchange  or  exchange  access  service");  see  also  MCI  Answer  at  paras.  8,  12.  Although  Defendants  contend  that  Bell  Atlantic 


 must  demonstrate  that  it  has  satisfied  each  prerequisite  to  payphone  compensation,  Defendants'  main  challenge  to  Bell  Atlantic's  certification  letters  is  Bell  Atlantic's  failure  to  prove  one  particular  prerequisite  -  the  removal  of 
 intrastate  subsidies. 
 46  See  Udall  v.  Tallman,  380  U.  S.  1,  16-  17  (1965);  see  also  National  Association  of  Regulatory  Utility 
 Commissioners  v.  FCC,  746  F.  2d  1492,  1502  (D.  C.  Cir.  1984)  (stating  that  the  Commission's  interpretation  of  its  own  policies  and  regulations  is  entitled  to  "great  deference"  and  that  "the  administrative  interpretation  is  of 


 controlling  weight  unless  it  is  plainly  erroneous  or  inconsistent  with  the  regulation.")  (citations  omitted). 
11
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  99-  1971  ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 12 
 with  each  prerequisite,  constitute  a  valid  certification  such  that  Defendants  were  obligated  to  pay  Bell  Atlantic  payphone  compensation. 
 B.  A  valid  certification  as  set  forth  in  the  Order  on  Reconsideration  requires  an  attestation  of  compliance  not  a  demonstration  of  compliance. 
 1.15  In  the  Order  on  Reconsideration,  the  Commission  stated  that  to  be  eligible  to  receive  payphone  compensation,  a  LEC  "must  be  able  to  certify"  that  it  had  satisfied  the 
 prerequisites  set  forth  in  the  Payphone  Orders.  47  In  requiring  that  a  LEC  "must  be  able  to  certify,"  the  Commission  declined  to  require  LECs  to  provide  a  certification  to  a  state  or  federal 
 regulatory  agency,  or  any  other  entity.  Instead,  the  Commission  simply  required  that  the  LEC  be  able  to  certify  its  compliance.  48  The  Commission  also  specifically  declined  to  require  LECs  to 
 obtain  a  formal  certification  from  either  a  state  or  federal  regulatory  agency  to  be  eligible  for  compensation.  49  The  Bureau  Intrastate  Tariffing  Waiver  Order,  however,  permits  an  IXC  payor 
 to  request  such  a  certification  from  the  LECs.  50 
 1.16  We  conclude  that  "certification"  as  set  forth  in  the  Order  on  Reconsideration  requires  a  LEC  to  attest  that  it  has  complied  with  each  compensation  eligibility  prerequisite.  51  In 
 the  Order  on  Reconsideration,  the  Commission  required  a  LEC  to  "be  able  to  certify"  that  it  had  satisfied  the  compensation  eligibility  prerequisites.  52  The  Commission  did  not  set  forth  any 


 47  Order  on  Reconsideration,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21,293-  94,  para.  131. 
 48  As  discussed  above,  the  Commission  established  requirements  that  LEC  payphone  service  providers  must 
 satisfy  prior  to  being  eligible  to  receive  per-  call  compensation.  To  satisfy  some  of  these  requirements,  LECs  may  have  to  file  tariffs  or  other  documents  with  either  a  state  or  federal  Commission.  The  certification  requirement, 


 however,  is  distinct  from  the  individual  prerequisites,  and  does  not  require  a  LEC  payphone  service  provider  to  file  any  formal  certification  with  a  state  or  federal  agency  in  order  to  satisfy  such  a  certification.  As  discussed  infra,  in 
 the  Bureau  Intrastate  Tariffing  Waiver  Order,  the  Bureau  permitted  the  IXCs  to  request  a  certification  from  the  LECs.  Thus,  we  must  determine  what  satisfies  the  LECs  obligation  to  provide  such  a  certification  to  the  IXCs. 


 49  See  Second  Report  and  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  1780,  para.  1  n.  9;  see  also  Bureau  Coding  Digit  Waiver 
 Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  5001-  02,  para.  4  (emphasizing  that  there  are  no  state  or  federal  certification  requirements). 
 50  See  Bureau  Intrastate  Tariffing  Waiver  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  21,380,  para.  22. 


 51  As  stated  above,  the  Order  on  Reconsideration  does  not  require  a  LEC  to  provide  any  form  of  a 
 certification  to  the  IXC  payor  (or  to  any  other  entity).  Instead,  the  Order  on  Reconsideration  merely  requires  that  a  LEC  "must  be  able  to  certify."  The  requirement  that  a  LEC  "be  able  to  certify"  is  triggered  by  an  IXC  payor's 


 request,  as  permitted  in  the  Bureau  Intrastate  Tariffing  Waiver  Order,  to  see  such  a  certification. 
 52  Order  on  Reconsideration,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21,293,  para.  131. 
12
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  99-  1971  ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 13 
 specific  requirements  for  such  a  certification.  53  Therefore,  we  find  it  appropriate  to  examine  the  use  of  the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  term  "to  certify"  to  determine  a  basis  for  a  certification. 
 Black's  Law  Dictionary  defines  "certification"  as  "the  formal  assertion  in  writing  of  some  fact  .  .  .  ,  54  and  to  "certify"  as  "[  t]  o  authenticate  or  vouch  for  a  thing  in  writing."  55  Similarly,  Webster's 
 Dictionary  defines  "certify"  as  "to  attest  authoritatively"  and  "to  attest  as  being  true  or  as  represented  or  as  meeting  a  standard."  56 


 1.17  The  Commission  also  has  used  this  common  meaning  of  the  term  "to  certify"  in  other  contexts  where  it  has  not  identified  specific  criteria  to  constitute  "certification."  For 
 example,  the  Commission's  definition  of  "certify"  in  the  context  of  a  formal  complaint  proceeding  requires  that  "[  t]  he  signature  of  an  attorney  or  party  shall  be  a  certificate  that  the 
 attorney  or  party  has  read  the  pleading,  motion  or  other  paper;  that  to  the  best  of  his  or  her  knowledge,  .  .  .  it  is  well  grounded  in  fact  .  .  .  ."  57  Thus,  we  find  that,  in  this  context,  the 
 ordinary  meaning  of  the  certification  signifies  an  assertion  or  representation  by  the  certifying  party,  not,  as  Defendants  assert,  a  demonstration  of  proof  of  the  facts  being  asserted. 


 53  We  conclude  that  where  the  Commission  seeks  particular  criteria  to  constitute  certification,  it  states  so 
 explicitly.  See  Bell  Atlantic  Reply  Brief  at  4  (arguing  that  if  the  Commission  had  intended  for  LECs  to  prove  their  eligibility,  it  would  have  stated  so  explicitly).  For  example,  the  Commission  set  forth  specific  guidelines  for  the 


 payphone  industry  regarding  the  resolution  of  disputed  ANIs.  See  Order  on  Reconsideration,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21,281-  82,  paras.  102-  104.  Likewise,  with  regard  to  tariff  review  plans,  in  the  Material  to  be  Filed  in  Support  of 
 1998  Annual  Access  Tariff  Filings,  the  Commission  (as  the  title  indicates)  explicitly  set  forth  filing  requirements  and  stated,  "[  w]  e  set  forth  herein  the  summary  material  that  incumbent  [LECs]  should  file  to  support  the  annual 
 revisions  to  the  rates  in  their  intrastate  service  tariffs."  13  FCC  Rcd  6702  (1998).  It  is  thus  significant  here  that  the  Commission  did  not  establish  a  similarly  specific  criteria  to  satisfy  certification  in  the  context  of  payphone 
 compensation. 
 54  BLACK'S  LAW  DICTIONARY  at  227  (6th  ed.  1990). 


 55  Id.  at  228. 
 56  WEBSTER'S  NINTH  NEW  COLLEGIATE  DICTIONARY  at  223  (1989). 
 57  See  47  C.  F.  R.    1.734(  c).  section  1.734(  c)  states  in  full: 


 The  original  of  all  pleadings  and  other  submissions  filed  by  any  party  shall  be  signed  by  that  party,  or  by  the  party's  attorney.  The  signing  party  shall  include  in  the  document  his  or  her  address, 
 telephone  number,  facsimile  number  and  the  date  on  which  the  document  was  signed.  Copies  should  be  conformed  to  the  original.  Unless  specifically  required  by  rule  or 
 statute,  pleadings  need  not  be  verified.  The  signature  of  an  attorney  or  party  shall  be  a  certificate  that  the  attorney  or  party  has  read  the  pleading,  motion,  or  other  paper;  that  to 
 the  best  of  his  or  her  knowledge,  information,  and  belief  formed  after  reasonable  inquiry,  it  is  well  grounded  in  fact  and  is  warranted  by  existing  law  or  a  good  faith  argument  for 
 the  extension,  modification,  or  reversal  of  existing  law;  and  that  it  is  not  interposed  for  the  purposes  of  delay  or  for  any  other  improper  purpose. 
13
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  99-  1971  ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 14 
 1.18  We  also  find  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  Payphone  Orders  to  suggest  other  than  the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  term  "to  certify."  We  find  Defendants'  arguments  supporting  a 
 broader  meaning  of  the  term  "certify"  to  be  unpersuasive.  As  previously  emphasized,  the  Commission,  in  the  Order  on  Reconsideration,  stated  only  that  a  LEC  must  be  able  to  certify  that 
 it  had  satisfied  each  compensation  eligibility  prerequisite.  The  Commission  did  not  institute  a  separate  additional  requirement  that  LECs  prove  in  advance  to  the  Commission,  IXC,  or  any 
 other  entity  that  the  prerequisites  had  been  met.  Nor  did  the  Bureau  in  subsequent  orders  require  LECs  to  prove  to  IXC  payors  that  it  had  satisfied  each  compensation  eligibility  prerequisite  to 
 constitute  "certification."  In  the  Bureau  Intrastate  Tariffing  Waiver  Order,  the  Bureau  specifically  refused  AT&  T's  request  to  clarify  that  "a  LEC  is  not  eligible  for  payphone 
 compensation  'until  it  has  provided  proof  of  state  action  verifying  the  LEC's  compliance  with  section  276  .  .  .  .'"  58  In  response,  the  Bureau  reiterated  that  the  Commission's  previous  orders 
 required  only  that  a  LEC  "be  able  to  certify"  compliance  with  the  payphone  compensation  prerequisites.  59  The  Bureau  stated  that  the  IXCs  could  request  a  certification  from  the  LECs.  60 
 Nothing  in  this  Order,  however,  suggests  that  the  Commission  was  creating  a  new  requirement  that  the  IXCs  could  mandate  that  LECs  provide  a  factual  demonstration  of  compliance  to  the 
 IXCs'  individual  standards  before  that  IXC  was  obligated  to  pay  compensation  directed  by  the  statute  and  by  the  Commission's  rules. 


 1.19  Thus,  with  regard  to  Defendants'  specific  allegation  that  Bell  Atlantic  must  prove  that  it  has  removed  intrastate  payphone  subsidies  from  its  rates  prior  to  being  eligible  to  receive 
 payphone  compensation,  we  find  that  there  is  no  such  requirement,  and  indeed,  directly  conflicts  with  prior  Commission  and  Bureau  orders.  In  the  Payphone  Orders,  when  setting  forth  the 
 specific  guidelines  for  the  removal  of  intrastate  subsidies,  the  Commission  did  not  institute  a  "proof"  requirement.  Instead,  the  Commission  stated  that,  "pursuant  to  the  mandate  in  Section 
 276(  b)(  1)(  B),  incumbent  LECs  must  remove  from  their  intrastate  rates  any  charges  that  recover  the  cost  of  payphones."  61  The  Commission  delegated  the  removal  of  intrastate  payphone 


 58  Bureau  Intrastate  Tariffing  Waiver  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  21,377,  para.  16. 
 59  Id.  at  21,380,  para.  22. 
 60  As  stated  above,  the  Order  on  Reconsideration  did  not  require  LECs  to  certify  compliance  to  either  a  state 
 or  federal  regulatory  agency  or  to  the  IXC  payors.  In  the  Bureau  Intrastate  Tariffing  Waiver  Order,  the  Bureau  allowed  the  IXC  to  request  a  certification  from  the  LECs.  The  Bureau  did  not  expand  upon  the  Order  on 


 Reconsideration's  requirement  that  the  LEC  "must  be  able  to  certify"  nor  did  it  require  the  LEC  to  prove  compliance  to  constitute  certification. 


 61  Order  on  Reconsideration,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21,319,  para.  193;  see  also  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at 
 20,634,  para.  186;  47  U.  S.  C.    276(  b)(  1)(  B)  (stating  in  pertinent  part  that  the  Commission  shall  enact  regulations  that  "discontinue  the  intrastate  and  interstate  carrier  access  charge  payphone  service  elements  and  payments  in  effect 


 on  such  date  of  enactment,  and  all  intrastate  and  interstate  payphone  subsidies  from  basic  exchange  and  exchange 
14
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  99-  1971  ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 15 
 subsidies  to  the  states,  noting  that  "states  must  determine  the  intrastate  rates  elements  that  must  be  removed  to  eliminate  any  intrastate  [payphone]  subsidies."  62  The  Commission  thus  required 
 LECs  to  follow  procedures  outlined  by  the  state  and  to  be  able  to  certify  that  they  have  taken  the  necessary  steps  to  satisfy  the  procedures.  63 


 1.20  Indeed,  the  interpretation  Defendants  ask  us  to  adopt  that  LECs  demonstrate  compliance  to  the  IXCs'  satisfaction  to  constitute  a  certification  would  place  in  the  hands  of  the 
 IXC  payor  the  ability  to  determine  when,  or  even  if,  it  should  become  obligated  to  pay  compensation  mandated  by  the  Act.  This  interpretation  not  only  would  constitute  an  abdication 
 of  the  Commission's  statutory  obligation  under  section  276  "to  ensure  that  all  payphone  service  providers  are  fairly  compensated  for  each  and  every  .  .  .  call,"  64  but  also  would  conflict  with  the 
 authority  specifically  delegated  to  the  Common  Carrier  Bureau  to  determine  whether  a  LEC  had  complied  with  each  prerequisite.  Accordingly,  we  agree  with  Bell  Atlantic  that  the  term 
 "certification"  as  used  in  the  Payphone  Orders,  does  not,  and  cannot,  require  it  to  prove  to  each  IXC's  satisfaction  that  the  LEC  has  met  the  Commission's  payphone  compensation  prerequisites. 


 1.21  We  also  find  MCI's  reliance  on  Committee  to  Elect  Lyndon  LaRouche  v.  Federal  Election  Commission  65  to  be  misplaced.  In  Committee  to  Elect  LaRouche,  the  court  reviewed  a 
 decision  of  the  Federal  Election  Commission  to  withhold  from  Lyndon  LaRouche,  a  1976  candidate  for  the  Presidential  nomination  of  the  United  States  Labor  Party,  certification  to 
 receive  primary  matching  funds  under  the  Presidential  Primary  Matching  Payment  Account  Act.  The  court  found  that  there  is  a  statutory  obligation  in  the  Presidential  Primary  Matching 
 Payment  Account  Act  that  the  candidate  certify  his  eligibility  to  the  FEC.  The  court  also  noted  that,  pursuant  to  statute,  the  FEC  must  review  the  submission,  determine  whether  the  candidate 
 has  satisfied  the  FEC's  eligibility  requirements  such  that  the  candidate  should  receive  funding,  and  certify  its  findings  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  for  payment,  if  appropriate.  Therefore, 
 the  court  held  that  Petitioner's  submission  of  a  notarized  statement  was  insufficient  to  satisfy  his  eligibility  threshold  and  stated  that  the  petitioner  must  provide  additional  documentation 
 demonstrating  that  he  had  met  the  threshold.  66  This  case  is  simply  inapposite  to  the  current 
 access  revenues  .  .  .  "). 
 62  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  20,634,  para.  186. 


 63  See  id.;  see  also  Order  on  Reconsideration,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21,293,  para.  131. 
 64  47  U.  S.  C.    276(  b)(  1)(  A). 
 65  613  F.  2d  834  (D.  C.  Cir.  1978). 
 66  See  id.  at  842. 
15
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  99-  1971  ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 16 
 dispute. 
 1.22  Unlike  the  statute  at  issue  in  Committee  to  Elect  LaRouche,  section  276  does  not  contain  any  certification  requirements.  In  contrast,  in  this  instance,  we  are  only  required  to 
 interpret  the  meaning  of  Commission  orders  stating  that  LECs  "must  be  able  to  certify"  compliance  and  that  IXCs  may  request  such  a  certification.  Absent  explicit  requirements  in  the 
 Act  or  these  orders,  it  is  firmly  within  our  discretion  to  interpret  these  orders  using  the  common  meaning  of  the  term  "to  certify"  as  previously  described.  67  Nothing  in  section  276  requires  a 
 LEC  to  certify  to  any  entity  that  it  has  satisfied  the  prerequisites  to  receiving  per-  call  compensation.  Nothing  in  section  276  requires  the  state  or  the  Commission  to  certify  to  the  IXC 
 that  such  prerequisites  have  been  met.  Finally,  neither  section  276  nor  the  Commission's  orders  requires  the  Commission  or  any  other  entity  to  review  a  LEC's  certification  to  determine  if  a 
 LEC  is  eligible  to  receive  per-  call  compensation,  and  if  so,  how  much  compensation  that  LEC  should  receive.  We  therefore  conclude  that  neither  section  276  nor  the  Commission's  rules  and 
 orders  authorize  the  IXC  to  review  a  LEC's  submission  and  determine,  based  on  its  analysis  of  whether  the  prerequisites  have  been  met,  whether  a  LEC  should  receive  per-  call  compensation.  68 


 1.23  We  conclude  that  Bell  Atlantic's  certification  letters  satisfy  the  Commission's  requirement  that  a  LEC  "must  be  able  to  certify"  as  set  forth  in  the  Order  on  Reconsideration.  In 
 the  instant  case,  Bell  Atlantic  provided  signed  letters  from  its  representatives  attesting  that  it  satisfied  the  Commission's  prerequisites  to  certification.  For  example,  in  its  initial  letter  seeking 
 compensation,  dated  June  27,  1997,  NYNEX  stated  that"[  t]  he  NYNEX  telephone  companies  hereby  certify  that  they  have  met  the  requirements  established  by  the  [Commission]  to  receive 
 compensation  from  carriers."  69  NYNEX  listed  each  of  its  companies  and  stated  that  the  letter  was  a  certification  that  each  company  satisfied  the  prerequisites.  NYNEX  further  stated  that 
 "[  a]  ccordingly,  NYNEX  is  in  full  compliance  with  the  applicable  requirements  as  set  forth  in  the  Payphone  Orders."  70  Similarly,  Bell  Atlantic,  on  behalf  of  its  companies,  stated  "[  e]  nclosed  are 


 67  See  Udall  v.  Tallman,  380  U.  S.  1,  16-  17  (1965);  see  also  National  Association  of  Regulatory  Utility 
 Commissioners  v.  FCC,  746  F.  2d  1492,  1502  (D.  C.  Cir.  1984)  (stating  that  the  Commission's  interpretation  of  its  own  policies  and  regulations  is  entitled  to  "great  deference"  and  that  "the  administrative  interpretation  is  of 


 controlling  weight  unless  it  is  plainly  erroneous  or  inconsistent  with  the  regulation.")  (citations  omitted). 
 68  To  the  contrary,  the  Bureau  specifically  has  stated  that  "LECs  that  have  certified  to  the  IXC  that  they 
 comply  with  the  requirements  of  the  Payphone  Orders  must  receive  per-  call  compensation."  Bureau  Coding  Digit  Waiver  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  5001-  02,  para.  4. 


 69  Complaint  (Frontier)  at  Exhibit  A;  Complaint  (MCI)  at  Exhibit  B. 
 70  Complaint  (Frontier)  at  Exhibit  A;  Complaint  (MCI)  at  Exhibit  B.  Specifically,  the  letters  state  that  "[  t]  he 
 NYNEX  telephone  companies  hereby  certify  that  they  have  met  the  requirements  established  by  the  [Commission]  to  receive  compensation  from  carriers  .  .  .  [as]  were  initially  set  forth  by  the  Commission  in  paragraphs  131  and  132 
16
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  99-  1971  ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 17 
 Certifications  confirming  that  each  of  the  Bell  Atlantic  local  exchange  companies  has  met  all  requirements  established  by  the  Federal  Communications  Commission  for  eligibility  to  receive 
 payphone  compensation  .  .  .  ."  71  Bell  Atlantic  provided  a  separate  certification  for  each  company.  72 


 1.24  As  detailed  above,  to  constitute  a  certification  the  LEC  must  assert  that  it  has  complied  with  the  compensation  eligibility  prerequisites.  The  Bureau  Intrastate  Tariffing 
 Waiver  Order  stated  that  an  IXC  could  request  "a  certification  for  each  prerequisite."  Accordingly,  we  find  that  a  satisfactory  certification  would  attest  that  the  LEC  had  satisfied  each 
 compensation  eligibility  prerequisite.  73  We  find  that  Bell  Atlantic's  letters  of  certification  clearly  meet  this  standard. 


 1.25  In  addition  to  stating  that  it  had  complied  with  each  prerequisite,  Bell  Atlantic's  letters  listed  each  requirement  separately  and  stated  how  it  satisfied  each  prerequisite.  74  For 
 of  the  [Order  on  Reconsideration]  in  the  Payphone  Reclassification  Proceeding,  and  [  .  .  .  ]  clarified  and  modified  by  subsequent  Orders."  NYNEX  certified  the  following: 
 1.)  NYNEX  has  an  effective  cost  accounting  manual  (CAM)  filing.  2.)  NYNEX  has  an  effective  interstate  CCL  tariff  reflecting  a  reduction  for 
 deregulated  payphone  costs  and  reflecting  additional  multi-  line  subscriber  line  charge  (SCL)  revenue. 
 3.)  NYNEX  has  effective  intrastate  tariff  filings  reflecting  the  removal  of  charges  that  recover  the  costs  of  payphones  and  any  intrastate  subsidies. 
 4.)  NYNEX  has  deregulated  and  reclassified  the  value  of  payphone  customer  premises  equipment  (CPE)  and  related  costs  as  required  in  the  Report  and  Order. 
 5.)  NYNEX  has  in  effect  intrastate  tariffs  for  basic  payphone  service  (for  "dumb"  and  "smart"  payphones). 
 6.)  NYNEX  has  in  effect  intrastate  and  interstate  tariffs  for  unbundled  functionalities  associated  with  those  lines. 
 7.)  NYNEX  has  an  approved  Comparably  Efficient  Interconnection  (CEI)  plan  for  basic  payphone  services  and  unbundled  functionalities  prior  to  receiving  compensation. 


 NYNEX  also  provided  the  following:  (1)  a  statement  that  NYNEX  had  informed  the  states  that  it  had  complied  with  the  "new  services  test"  set  forth  by  the  Bureau;  and  (2)  a  statement  that  it  had  filed  rate  changes  required  in  the 
 existing  intrastate  tariffs  so  as  to  satisfy  the  "'new  services  test'  on  any  unbundled  functionalities  that  were  not  then  in  compliance."  Id. 


 71  Complaint  (Frontier)  at  Exhibit  B. 
 72  See  id. 
 73  See  Bureau  Intrastate  Tariffing  Waiver  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  21,380,  para.  22. 
 74  Letter  to  Michael  Nighan,  Manager-  Regulatory,  Allnet/  Frontier  from  Paul  V.  Francischetti,  Vice  President- 
17
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  99-  1971  ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 18 
 example,  Bell  Atlantic  provided  compliance  matrices  indicating  the  tariff  approval  date  reflecting  intrastate  subsidy  removal  and  the  approval  date  of  a  CEI  plan  where  appropriate.  We 
 found  above  that  certification  requires  an  attestation  that  the  LEC  has  complied  with  each  compensation  eligibility  prerequisite.  Thus,  Bell  Atlantic  not  only  satisfied  its  obligation  to 
 attest  to  its  compliance,  but  also  provided  specific  information  to  the  IXC  concerning  compliance.  In  light  of  such  thorough  filings,  Defendants  had  no  basis  for  refusing  to  pay 
 compensation. 
 C.  Eligibility  Disputes 
 1.26  Frontier  contends  that  a  dispute  as  to  a  carrier's  eligibility  to  receive  payphone  compensation  after  certification  negates  an  IXC's  obligation  to  pay  payphone  compensation.  75  In 
 support  of  its  position,  Frontier  compares  its  present  dispute  regarding  payphone  compensation  eligibility  to  how  disputed  ANIs  are  resolved.  According  to  Frontier,  a  carrier  is  not  required  to 
 pay  compensation  on  disputed  ANIs  until  "'a  LEC  makes  a  positive  identification  of  an  installed  payphone.  '"  76 


 1.27  We  reject  Frontier's  contention.  The  Commission  established  specific  procedures  to  resolve  disputed  ANIs.  77  In  contrast,  although  the  Bureau  Intrastate  Tariffing  Waiver  Order 
 permits  IXC  payors  to  request  a  certification  from  the  LECs,  78  we  have  specifically  stated  that  IXCs  must  pay  compensation  upon  receipt  of  the  LEC's  certification.  79  There  is  no  exception  to 
 this  absolute  obligation  to  pay  upon  receipt  of  certification.  As  noted  above,  the  Payphone  Orders  delegated  to  the  Bureau  the  authority  to  determine  whether  a  LEC  had  complied  with  the 
 prerequisites  to  payphone  compensation.  80  IXCs  questioning  the  veracity  of  a  LEC's  certification  are  obligated  to  challenge  the  LEC's  compliance  may  initiate  a  proceeding  at  the 
 Commission. 
 1.28  In  the  instant  matter,  neither  Frontier  nor  MCI  have  availed  themselves  of  this 
 Legislative  Planning  &  Re-  Engineering,  Bell  Atlantic  (June  30,  1997). 
 75  See  Frontier  Brief  at  8. 


 76  Id.  (citing  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  20,597-  98,  para.  113). 
 77  See  47  C.  F.  R.    64.1310(  e)(  1),  (2);  see  also  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  20,598,  paras.  113-  14. 
 78  See  Bureau  Intrastate  Tariffing  Waiver  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  21,380,  para.  22. 
 79  See  id. 
 80  See  supra  para.  19;  see  also  Order  on  Reconsideration,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  21,294,  para.  132. 
18
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  99-  1971  ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 19 
 remedy,  but  instead  have  undertaken  the  remedy  of  self-  help  by  refusing  to  pay  compensation  mandated  by  our  rules.  As  we  have  stated  in  other  contexts,  such  self-  help  remedies  are  strongly 
 disfavored  by  the  Commission.  81  We  emphasize  that  a  LEC's  certification  letter  does  not  substitute  for  the  LEC's  obligation  to  comply  with  the  requirements  as  set  forth  in  the  Payphone 
 Orders.  The  Commission  consistently  has  stated  that  LECs  must  satisfy  the  requirements  set  forth  in  the  Payphone  Orders,  subject  to  waivers  subsequently  granted,  to  be  eligible  to  receive 
 compensation.  Determination  of  the  LEC's  compliance,  however,  is  a  function  solely  within  the  Commission's  and  state's  jurisdiction.  As  stated  above,  the  Commission  specifically  delegated  to 
 the  Common  Carrier  Bureau  the  authority  to  determine  whether  a  LEC  has  complied  with  the  compensation  eligibility  prerequisites.  82 


 D.  Damages. 
 1.29  We  conclude  above  that  Bell  Atlantic's  letters  constitute  an  adequate  certification,  such  that  these  letters  triggered  Defendants'  obligation  to  pay  payphone  compensation.  The 
 Commission  bifurcated  this  proceeding  into  liability  and  damages  phases.  Thus,  in  accordance  with  section  1.722(  b)  of  the  Commission's  rules,  the  complainant  may  file  a  supplemental 
 complaint  for  damages  within  sixty  days  of  the  release  of  this  order.  83 
 IV.  BELL  ATLANTIC'S  MOTION  TO  STRIKE 
 1.30  On  September  17,  1998,  Bell  Atlantic  filed  a  motion  to  strike  Frontier's  opening  brief.  Bell  Atlantic  argues  that  the  Commission  Should  strike  Frontier's  brief  because  the  brief 
 ignored  the  issues  that  the  Commission  directed  the  parties  to  brief  and  instead  addressed  questions  that  the  Commission  rejected  as  issues  for  briefing.  84  On  September  24,  1998,  Frontier 
 filed  a  reply  to  Bell  Atlantic's  motion  to  strike  and  argued  that  it  directly  "addressed  the  issues  identified  by  Commission  staff  for  briefing.  85  We  deny  Bell  Atlantic's  motion  to  strike. 
 Frontier's  brief  did  address  issues  set  forth  by  the  Commission.  To  the  extent  Frontier  addressed  matters  beyond  the  scope  of  the  issues  set  forth  for  this  briefing,  we  did  not  consider  those 
 arguments. 
 81  See  MCI  Telecommunications  Corp.,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  62  FCC  2d  703,  705-  06  (1976) 
 (stating  that  a  customer  may  not  withhold  payment  of  properly  billed  tariffed  charges  for  voluntarily  ordered  services). 


 82  See  supra  para.  19. 
 83  47  C.  F.  R.    1.722(  b). 
 84  Motion  to  Strike  at  1. 
 85  Reply  to  Motion  to  Strike  at  1. 
19
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  99-  1971  ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 20 
 V.  CONCLUSION  AND  ORDERING  CLAUSES 
 1.31  In  conclusion,  we  find  that  Bell  Atlantic's  letters  to  Defendants  satisfy  the  Commission's  certification  requirement.  We  also  find  that  Defendant's  arguments  that  Bell 
 Atlantic  was  required  to  demonstrate  compliance  to  their  satisfaction  are  without  merit  for  the  reasons  stated  above.  Under  Defendants'  theory,  the  IXC  would  be  the  ultimate  judge  of  whether 
 the  LEC  payphone  service  provider  had  complied  with  the  Commission's  rules  and  orders.  This  outcome  is  unacceptable.  First,  such  a  construct  would  allow  the  IXC  to  delay  paying 
 compensation  indefinitely.  Second,  the  statute  requires  that  the  Commission  "ensure  all  payphone  service  providers  are  fairly  compensated  for  each  .  .  .  call"  made  from  a  payphone.  86 
 The  Commission  has  not  and  cannot  delegate  this  statutory  requirement  to  IXCs.  Therefore,  we  conclude  that  Bell  Atlantic  is  entitled  to  receive  per-  call  compensation  from  Frontier  and 
 MCI. 
 1.32  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED,  pursuant  to  Sections  1,  4(  i),  4(  j),  208,  and  276  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    151,  154(  i),  154(  j),  208,  and  276, 
 that  the  instant  complaint  filed  on  July  15,  1998,  by  Bell  Atlantic-  Delaware,  Inc.,  Bell  Atlantic-Maryland,  Inc.,  Bell  Atlantic-  New  Jersey,  Inc.,  Bell  Atlantic-  Pennsylvania,  Inc.,  Bell  Atlantic-Virginia, 
 Inc.  Bell  Atlantic-  Washington,  D.  C.,  Inc.,  Bell  Atlantic-  West  Virginia,  Inc.,  New  York  Telephone  Company  and  New  England  Telephone  and  Telegraph  Company  against  Frontier 
 Communications  Services  Inc.,  Frontier  Communications  International  Inc.,  Frontier  Communications  of  the  West  Inc.,  Frontier  Communications-  North  Central  Region  Inc.,  Frontier 
 Communications  of  New  England  Inc.,  and  Frontier  Communications  of  the  Mid  Atlantic  Inc.  IS  GRANTED  TO  THE  EXTENT  INDICATED  HEREIN. 


 1.33  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED,  pursuant  to  Sections  1,  4(  i),  4(  j),  208,  and  276  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    151,  154(  i),  154(  j),  208,  and  276, 
 that  the  instant  complaint  filed  on  July  15,  1998,  by  Bell  Atlantic-  Delaware,  Inc.,  Bell  Atlantic-Maryland,  Inc.,  Bell  Atlantic-  New  Jersey,  Inc.,  Bell  Atlantic-  Pennsylvania,  Inc.,  Bell  Atlantic-Virginia, 
 Inc.  Bell  Atlantic-  Washington,  D.  C.,  Inc.,  Bell  Atlantic-  West  Virginia,  Inc.,  New  York  Telephone  Company  and  New  England  Telephone  and  Telegraph  Company  against  MCI 
 Communications  Corporation  IS  GRANTED  TO  THE  EXTENT  INDICATED  HEREIN. 
 1.34  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  Bell  Atlantic  MAY  FILE  a  supplemental  complaint  for  damages  within  sixty  (60)  days  pursuant  to  Section  1.722(  b)(  2)  of  the 
 Commission's  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    1.722(  b). 


 86  47  U.  S.  C.    276. 
20
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  99-  1971  ______________________________________________________________________________ 
 21 
 1.35  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  Bell  Atlantic's  motion  to  strike  is  DENIED. 
 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 Lawrence  E.  Strickling  Chief,  Common  Carrier  Bureau 
21