Opinion ID: 1698996
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The FCC's Local Competition Order

Text: In addition to relying upon section 364.01 for authority, the Commission stated in its order: Furthermore, [paragraph 1035 of the local competition order] appears unequivocal in granting authority to state commissions to determine what geographic areas should be considered local areas for the purpose of applying reciprocal compensation obligations under Section 251(b)(5) of the Act. ILEC parties offer nothing to dispute what appears to be a clear delegation of authority from the FCC to state commissions to make determinations as to the geographic parameters of a local calling area. Sprint and Verizon contest this point and argue that reliance upon the local competition order is misplaced because that order did not delegate authority but, rather, simply expressed that the Act does not modify a state commission's existing authority over reciprocal compensation provisions. Specifically, in a section primarily addressing the distinction between transport and termination, which is subject to reciprocal compensation, and access services for long distance telecommunications, which are subject to access charges, the local competition order states: With the exception of traffic to or from a CMRS network, state commissions have the authority to determine what geographic areas should be considered local areas for the purpose of applying reciprocal compensation obligations under section 251(b)(5), consistent with the state commissions' historical practice of defining local service areas for wireline LECs. Local competition order ¶ 1035 (emphasis added). We conclude from the emphasized portion of this text that in implementing the local competition provisions of the Act, the FCC has not preempted state law regarding the issue of defining local service areas. While we do not agree with the Commission that the local competition order is a grant of authority to define a local calling area, we do find that it indicates that the Commission is not precluded by federal law from providing such a definition. Furthermore, because Sprint and Verizon have failed to show the Commission's action with regard to the local calling area issue is preempted by federal law and have failed to overcome the statutory presumption that the Commission's order does not exceed its powers under state law, we conclude that the Commission has complied with the essential requirements of law.