Opinion ID: 2623481
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Eighth Circuit's decision on remandIowa II

Text: In the midst of ACS's administrative appeal to the superior court, the Eighth Circuit decided Iowa Utilities Board v. Federal Communications Commission [26] ( Iowa II ). This time, the federal court vacated on substantive grounds the FCC's rule that, under the Telecommunications Act, a rural incumbent telephone company must bear the burden of proof in demonstrating to a state commission that it is entitled to a continued exemption from competition. [27] The court reasoned that [t]he plain meaning of the statute requires the party making the request to prove that the request meets the three prerequisites to justify the termination of the otherwise continuing rural exemption. [28] In reviewing ACS's administrative appeal, Judge Reese acknowledged the Eighth Circuit's authority but concluded that any error in the burden of proof allocation was harmless, even in light of Iowa II. Judge Reese noted: This [c]ourt recognizes the authority of the Eighth Circuit in this matter, but does not find the Iowa Utilities Bd. II decision decisive on the outcome of the current appeal. Judge Reese emphasized that the RCA based its decision on the evidence presented at the hearings and not on a consideration of the burden of proof. Judge Reese concluded: This [c]ourt must determine the applicability of Iowa Utilities Bd. II to the current appeal. The APUC used a record created in two separate hearings in its decision to terminate ACS['s] rural exemption. Both ACS and GCI were responsible for bearing the burden of proof at one of the hearings. Both ACS and GCI presented evidence and created a record accordingly. The RCA found that the record from both hearings justified termination of the rural exemption. The RCA's [decision to terminate ACS's rural exemptions] clearly shows that the Commission made its findings based on the weight of the evidence and not because of an unmet burden of proof[.] Implicit in Judge Reese's statement is an apparent determination that any error in the allocation of proof to ACS in light of Iowa II was harmless. Accordingly, the superior court affirmed the RCA's termination of ACS's rural exemptions.