Dissenting on a draft order on special access pricing is...
Dissenting on a draft order on special access pricing is not the only option for Republican commissioners concerned about suspending the pricing flexibility triggers. Commissioners Robert McDowell and Ajit Pai could simply decline to vote at all until the commission…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
rules require them to, FCC officials said. If that happens after June 25, the AT&T petitions for pricing flexibility in San Francisco and San Antonio would be “deemed granted,” under the Communications Act. Windstream’s petition for pricing flexibility in Houston, Tulsa, Okla., and Lincoln, Neb., would also be automatically granted in the same timeframe. The FCC’s rules on pricing flexibility say a petition pertaining to special access “shall be deemed granted” unless the Wireline Bureau chief denies the petition no later than 90 days after the close of the pleading cycle. The Republican commissioners have not decided whether to approve the order, dissent, or wait, but they do have substantive concerns about the draft order which would suspend the pricing flexibility triggers, officials said. Suspending the triggers would mean any party that meets them would not be entitled to relief -- and this would have the effect of indefinitely suspending the waiver requests, an FCC official said. Pai is still studying the draft order, and has just begun having meetings with affected stakeholders. Meanwhile, AT&T Senior Vice President-Federal Regulatory Robert Quinn posted a blog entry Friday excoriating the commission for releasing 10,000 pages of documents (http://xrl.us/bnba3p) only after it presumably relied on this evidence in its proposed order. “Why was the evidence not submitted into the record until after the Order went on circulation?” Quinn wrote, arguing the “last minute submission seems intended to thwart” any opportunity to respond to the evidence, and is “at odds with the spirit” of the Administrative Procedure Act. “They dump 10,000 pages into the record after their Order is circulated, giving no time for anyone to consider that evidence, let alone respond. Then they conclude that they now have a sufficient basis to overturn a well-established, judicially affirmed deregulatory decision … this does not represent the gold standard for openness and transparency.”