Opinion ID: 169513
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Other FCC Orders

Text: Several other FCC orders provide guidance about BOCs' obligations in complying with the FCC's NST requirements. These orders make clear the Commission's intention that LECs are to bear the burden of demonstrating NST compliance to regulators and illuminate the difference between the per-call compensation certification requirement and the burden of demonstrating actual NST compliance. As to the burden placed on LECs to demonstrate NST compliance, in 2000, after the Wisconsin Public Service Commission declined jurisdiction to consider whether four Wisconsin LECs' tariffs were NST compliant, the FCC's Common Carrier Bureau invoked its own jurisdiction under § 276 to ensure the LECs' compliance. See In re Wisconsin Public Service Commission, 15 F.C.C.R. 9978, 9980 ¶ 5, 2000 WL 232182 (2000) ( Bureau Wisconsin Order ). The Common Carrier Bureau required the LECs to submit a copy of a tariff and supporting information. Id. at 9981 ¶ 7. Each LEC subject to the Bureau Wisconsin Order was instructed to submit complete cost studies with full documentation for each rate element. Id. The Order stated [t]o satisfy the new services test, an incumbent LEC filing payphone line rates must demonstrate that the proposed rates do not recover more than the direct costs of the service plus a `just and reasonable portion of the carrier's overhead costs.' Id. at 9981 ¶ 9 (quoting 47 C.F.R. § 61.49(f)(2)) (emphasis added). It further specified, [i]n determining a just and reasonable portion of overhead costs to be attributed to services offered to competitors, the LEC must justify the methodology used to determine such overhead costs. [10] Id. at 9982 ¶ 11 (emphasis added). Upon reconsideration of the Bureau Wisconsin Order, the FCC determined it could require NST compliance only of BOCs rather than all LECs. See In re Wisconsin Public Service Commission, Order Directing Filings, 17 F.C.C.R.2051, 2060-61 ¶ 31 2002 WL 122570 (2002) ( New Services Test Order ). As to the BOCs, however, the FCC endorsed the Common Carrier Bureau's language regarding the burden of demonstrating NST compliance. Id. at 2069 ¶ 58 (Consistent with Commission precedent, the BOCs bear the burden of justifying their overhead allocations for payphone services and demonstrating compliance with our standards.); see also Nw. Pub. Commc'ns Council, 100 P.3d at 781 (Wollheim, J., concurring) (stating that, under the NST, BOCs must affirmatively justify their overhead allocations). Unlike the Bureau Wisconsin Order, which explicitly applied only to the four Wisconsin LECs named in the Order, 15 F.C.C.R. at 9982 ¶ 13, the New Services Test Order was intended to apply to BOCs generally. New Services Test Order, 17 F.C.C.R. at 2151 ¶ 2; see also New Eng. Pub. Commc'ns Council, 334 F.3d at 75 (stating the New Services Test Order establishes a rule that affects payphone line rates in every state). A separate line of FCC adjudicatory orders distinguishes the relatively easy process of LEC certification for the purposes of receiving per-call compensation, referenced in the Order on Reconsideration, 11 F.C.C.R. at 21293 ¶ 131, from the far more burdensome process of ensuring actual NST compliance, mandated in the Order on Reconsideration's paragraph 163. In In re Bell Atlantic-Delaware v. Frontier Communications Services, Inc., Mem. Op. and Order, 17 Commc'ns Reg. 955, 1999 WL 754402 (1999), the FCC declared the term certification meant that an LEC seeking per-call compensation from a long distance carrier had only to attest[] authoritatively that it had met the requirements set out in paragraph 131. Id. at ¶ 3. Certification, the Commission said, did not require LECs to provide a data-based demonstration of compliance to long distance carriers. Id. [11] The Commission explained, however, that a LEC's certification letter does not substitute for the LEC's obligation to comply with the requirements as set forth in the Payphone Orders. Id. at ¶ 28. It reiterated that [d]etermination of the LEC's compliance [with the Payphone Orders ] . . . is a function solely within the Commission's and the state's jurisdiction, id., thereby implicitly emphasizing the difference between per-call compensation certification and the process of obtaining approval of NST-compliant tariff rates. See also In re Ameritech Ill. v. MCI Telecomms. Corp., Mem. Op. and Order, 1999 WL 1005080 at ¶ 19 (1999) (determining two letters submitted by U.S. West to long distance carrier MCI certifying U.S. West's compliance with paragraph 163 of the Order on Reconsideration satisfied U.S. West's certification obligations under paragraph 131 and the Bell Atlantic-Delaware adjudication's articulation of those obligations).