FCC Comrs. Martin and Copps issued statements saying they couldn’...

elements (UNEs). Both issued statements “concurring in part” and questioning FCC’s decision to consider price compliance for UNE combinations rather than looking at price of each element separately. Copps said agency took similar course in its recent approval of Verizon’s Sec. 271 petitions for N.H. and Del. “As in that order, the majority concludes that the statute permits Bell companies in all instances to demonstrate compliance with the checklist by aggregating the rates for non-loop elements,” Copps said: “I believe the better reading of the statute is that the rate for each network element must comport with Congress’s pricing directive.” Martin raised similar concerns, saying he disagreed with Commission finding “that the statute does not require it to evaluate individually the checklist compliance of UNE TELRIC rates on an element-by-element basis.” Martin said he disagreed with Commission argument “that because the general statutory provisions refer to the term network elements in the plural, the Commission is not required ’to perform a separate evaluation of the rate for each network element in isolation.'” Martin said “decision attempts to find support for its statutory interpretation by noting that the only party that raised this legal issue on the record also takes the position that some degree of aggregation is appropriate in conducting a benchmark analysis… I am not sure that an outside party’s inconsistency could absolve the Commission of its obligation under the Act, in this case, to evaluate individually the checklist compliance of UNE TELRIC rates on an element-by-element basis.” Martin also indicated discomfort with FCC’s considering information in interconnection agreements that Verizon added to record after it filed Sec. 271 petition in violation of “complete-as- filed” requirement. He said he understood that was unusual circumstance because Verizon’s interconnection agreements were delayed by FCC itself, which had been overseeing arbitration dispute in Va. in lieu of Va. State Corp. Commission. However, he said agency had been accepting late- filed information in other petitions and, “absent the kind of extremely unique circumstances at issue here, the Commission should avoid relying on late-filed information.” He said late-filed information could burden commenters, particularly those opposing Sec. 271 petition.