Opinion ID: 618656
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Direct Fed Buildings

Text: Direct fed buildings are buildings where PRTC's proprietary telephone network cables need to be installed (instead of using another company's equipment that is already installed at the site). PRTC's figures assumed that it would place its own equipment in 100 percent of the buildings, as it had done in the past. However, WorldNet showed that 15 percent of buildings in San Juan did not have PRTC-owned equipment, and further argued that a forward-looking model should not assume that PRTC's past practice was the least-cost, most-efficient method. The arbitrator here adopted WorldNet's proposed 15 percent reduction to the figure proposed by PRTC. PRTC argues that the arbitrator's decision to reduce PRTC's proposed cost input for PRTC direct fed buildings by 15 percent was arbitrary and capricious because there was no support for the arbitrator's findings (1) that PRTC's proposal was inconsistent with TELRIC or (2) that a 15 percent reduction in PRTC's proposal was consistent with TELRIC. PRTC notes that neither the arbitrator nor the Board pointed to a single citation in the record or to any legal authority to support the finding that the 15 percent reduction was consistent with forward-looking cost principles, and argues that this failure is sufficient to render the Board's determination arbitrary and capricious. PRTC's proposed cost model assumed it would place its own equipment in 100 percent of the buildings. The arbitrator reduced PRTC's proposal by 15 percent, reasoning that such a reduction was a reasonable estimate of the actual direct fed buildings in a least cost, most efficient network. The Board affirmed this decision, reasoning that it was consistent with forward-looking cost principles. As the arbitrator noted, PRTC suggests that it always terminates on its own equipment without claiming this is a least cost, most efficient design practice. Nor does PRTC advance such an argument on appeal. Rather, PRTC merely complains that the Board gave an insufficient explanation of its decision. However, the burden is on Appellant, not the Board. An agency's action is entitled to a presumption of validity, and the burden is upon the petitioner to establish the action is arbitrary or capricious. Sorenson Commc'ns, Inc. v. FCC, 567 F.3d 1215, 1221 (10th Cir.2009). And PRTC has failed to show that the agency relied on improper factors, failed to consider pertinent aspects of the problem, offered a rationale contradicting the evidence before it, or reached a conclusion so implausible that it cannot be attributed to a difference of opinion or the application of agency expertise. Associated Fisheries, 127 F.3d at 109. In affirming the arbitrator's decision as reasonable and consistent with both law and policy, the Board noted that the arbitrator had concluded that there was insufficient support showing why [PRTC's] existing policy is consistent with forward-looking cost principles. Therefore, PRTC has not met its burden of showing that the Board lacked a rational basis for its decision.