Opinion ID: 1895932
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: TracFone's Second Proposed Alternative Collection Method Was Outside Commission's Jurisdiction

Text: TracFone's second proposed alternative collection method was essentially a supplemented version of the first. TracFone proposed to collect a 1-percent surcharge on the purchase price of each sale of prepaid wireless service purchased directly from TracFone and require its third-party vendors to collect a 1-percent surcharge from users at the point of sale, which would be remitted to TracFone for remittance to the Commission. The Commission rejected this alternative as being outside its regulatory authority. The Commission's jurisdiction extends to a wide variety of commercial activities: common carriers; grain dealing and storage; manufactured homes, modular housing units, and recreational vehicles; motor carrier registration and safety; pipeline carriers and rights-of-way; railroad carrier safety; telecommunications carriers; transmission lines and rights-of-way; water service; and certain natural gas public utilities. [17] Nothing in § 75-109.01 gives the Commission jurisdiction over third-party vendors that do not fall within those categories. TracFone does not argue otherwise. Instead, TracFone's argument rests entirely upon § 86-457(3), which provides that if a wireless carrier resells its service through other entities, each reseller shall collect the surcharge from its customers and shall remit the surcharge to the Commission. The 911 Act does not define reseller. TracFone argues that its third-party vendors are resellers within the meaning of § 86-457(3). But as explained above, § 86-457(3) applies to postpaid wireless services, not prepaid wireless services such as TracFone's. And contrary to TracFone's second proposal, § 86-457(3) requires resellers, not the initial wireless carrier, to remit surcharges to the Commissionrequiring the Commission to exercise jurisdiction over the reseller. There is simply no indication that § 86-457(3) was intended to extend the Commission's jurisdiction to every gas station or grocery store that sells a prepaid calling card. And the legislative history of the 911 Act buttresses this conclusion, indicating that the Legislature intentionally omit[ted] any reference to collection of the surcharge by the retail industry who resells this prepaid wireless service, because it did not believe that the ... Commission should have the authority over the retail industry to collect a telecommunications surcharge. [18] The legislative history explains that under § 86-457(3), [i]f a carrier resells its service, each reseller shall collect the surcharge, except with respect to resellers of prepaid service, which are addressed in a later subsection. [19] And in that later subsection, § 86-457(6), the Legislature struck proposed language authorizing the collection from an entity that resells the prepaid wireless service, and insert[ed] a provision that the duty to remit the surcharge is the responsibility of the wireless carrier. [20] Because TracFone's second proposed alternative was beyond the Commission's authority to adopt or enforce, the Commission did not err in rejecting it. We find no merit to TracFone's fourth assignment of error.