Opinion ID: 186018
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Additional Comfort

Text: 39 Z-Tel also objects to the Order insofar as the Commission stated that it gained confidence in Verizon's compliance with the checklist based upon cited evidence that was not properly in the record (because it was submitted too late). Specifically, the Commission stated in a footnote that information about ... billing cycles [after June] does provide additional confirmation of Verizon's satisfaction of its obligations under section 271(c). Id. ¶ 7 n. 20. Elsewhere the Commission stated that it took additional comfort and gained additional confidence from Verizon's voluntarily committing to a series of undertakings aimed at ensuring continued acceptable performance. Id. ¶ 41. Although the Commission explicitly stated in the Order that it was not relying upon this evidence, id., Z-Tel nevertheless insists the Commission's unacknowledged reliance upon evidence not properly before it requires reversal. 40 As the Commission points out, Z-Tel's argument is foreclosed by AT&T Corp., 220 F.3d at 625. The appellants in that case made a similar argument about similar statements in the similar order there under review. We took the Commission at its word when it similarly stated in the order that it was not relying upon evidence it had described as providing it with further assurance. Id. So, too, in this case, though we do hope the Commission avoids in the future the necessity to distinguish between deriving additional comfort from, and relying upon, evidence not properly before it.