Opinion ID: 799751
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged upward trend

Text: 13 In justification of its choice of 6.0% the FCC also cites an upward trend in the X-Factor during the last years it surveyed. See 1997 Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 16,697, p 139 ([F]rom 1993 onward there has been an upward trend in the X-Factor); id. at p 141 ([T]here appears to be a strong upward trend in productivity growth from 1992 to 1995). 2 The FCC's reliance on the upward trend necessarily reflects the (unexplained) assumption that the trend will continue, at least in the immediate future. Explanation might be reasonably omitted if there were no obvious reason to doubt continuation of an observed trend. But two such reasons exist. 14 First, the trend appears to be part of a cyclical pattern. Although the X-Factor did increase steadily in the 1992-95 period, it also decreased from 1990 to 1992, after rising from 1986 to 1990. See Table 1, supra. Perhaps there was reason to believe that there would be no cyclical downturn during the expected life of this X-Factor determination, which was to be reviewed about two years after being made. See 1997 Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 16,707, p 166. But the FCC offered no such reason. 15 Second, the X-Factor is calculated as the sum of two components, neither of which followed a trend during the period in question. In fact, their year-to-year fluctuations swamped the trend increments: 16 Table 2 Year Difference between LEC & US changes Difference between LEC and in total factor productivity US changes in input prices 1992 0.21 3.21 1993 1.44 3.26 1994 3.69 1.71 1995 1.78 5.04 17 1997 Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 16,785. Where's the trend? As the underlying variables appear to be thrashing about wildly, the FCC's conclusion that the trend in the difference between the two had some predictive value requires explanation.