Opinion ID: 168880
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Regulatory Background: The FCC's Interpretation of the Act

Text: 20 In 2002, Qwest petitioned the FCC for a declaratory ruling about the types of negotiated contractual arrangements between incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) and competitive LECs that should be subject to the filing requirements of [§ 252(a)(1)]. In re Qwest Commc'ns Int'l, Inc., 17 F.C.C.R. 19337, 19337 (2002). Qwest argued that the following categories of arrangements should not be subject to [the filing requirement in] section 252(a)(1): . . . agreements regarding matters not subject to sections 251 or 252 ( e.g., . . . network elements that have been removed from the list of elements subject to mandatory unbundling). Qwest Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Utah, 2005 WL 3534301, at  (D.Utah Dec.21, 2005) (quoting Qwest's Petition Br.). 21 The FCC rejected this approach, advising that: 22 [A]n agreement that creates an ongoing obligation pertaining to resale, number portability, dialing parity, access to rights-of-way, reciprocal compensation, interconnection, unbundled network elements, or collocation is an interconnection agreement that must be filed pursuant to section 252(a)(1).... [W]e do not believe that section 252(a)(1) can be given the cramped reading that Qwest proposes. Indeed, on its face, section 252(a)(1) does not further limit the types of agreements that carriers must submit to state commissions. 23 In re Qwest, 17 F.C.C.R. at 19341. However, the FCC also disagreed with commentators who had urged that § 252 requires the filing of all agreements between an incumbent LEC and a requesting carrier. Id. at 19341 n. 26. Instead, it ruled that only those agreements that contain an ongoing obligation relating to section 251(b) or (c) must be filed under 252(a)(1). Id. Although it held that agreements need not be filed if they simply provide for `backward-looking consideration,' the FCC otherwise decline[d] to address all the possible hypothetical situations presented in the record before [it]. Id. at 19342. Rather, the FCC emphasized that the state commissions should be responsible for applying, in the first instance, the statutory interpretation we set forth today to the terms and conditions of specific agreements. Id. at 19340.