Opinion ID: 186018
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Department of Justice Report

Text: 41 Section 271(d)(2)(A) of Title 47 requires the Commission, in deciding whether to grant an application under § 271, to consult with the Attorney General and to give substantial weight to the Attorney General's evaluation, but such evaluation shall not have any preclusive effect on any Commission decision. The evaluation the Department of Justice submitted in connection with Verizon's application concluded that one important issue remains unresolved, that is, Verizon filed its Pennsylvania application with the FCC without sufficient evidence to show that numerous problems with its wholesale billing systems have been corrected. Evaluation of the U.S. Dep't of Justice 2, 3. The Department went on to say that it realizes ... the Commission is likely to have further information prior to reaching a decision in this matter. Accordingly, we do not foreclose the possibility that the Commission may be able to approve Verizon's application at the culmination of these proceedings. Id. at 3. 42 Z-Tel argues the Commission failed to give this evaluation substantial weight. It reasons that (1) Commission precedents preclude finding an application complies with § 271 in the face of a contradictory evaluation by the Department of Justice unless the applicant files additional evidence; (2) the filing of any additional evidence would be a violation of the complete when filed rule (an argument of which we have already disposed); and (3) the Commission could not consider additional evidence anyway because to do so would involve consider[ing] evidence not in the record at the time of the DOJ consultation. 43 Z-Tel's first contention, the validity of which we shall assume for the sake of the argument, is irrelevant in this case because the Commission did consider other evidence to which the Department was not exposed, on the basis of which it came to a different conclusion — a possibility expressly anticipated in the Department's report. To hold that the Commission's consideration of such evidence deprived the Department of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon the application would be to elevate the status of its report from advisory to controlling, contrary to the expressed intention of the Congress. See 47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(2)(A); AT&T Corp., 220 F.3d at 627.