Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1326  
 
Before the 
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554 
 
 
In the Matter of 
 
Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service 
 
Request for Review by 
Allegheny Telephone Company of 
Decision of Universal Service Administrator 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
 
CC Docket No. 96-45 
 
 
ORDER 
 
   Adopted:  March 16, 2007 Released:  March 16, 2007 
 
By the Acting Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau: 
 
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 
1. 
2. 
                                                          
In this Order, we deny Allegheny Telephone Company’s (Allegheny) appeal of the 
Administrator’s Decision on Contributor Appeal by the Universal Service Administrative Company 
(USAC).
1
  In its appeal, Allegheny alleges that it is de minimis and, thus, not subject to universal service 
contributions.
2
  In its decision on appeal, USAC found that, based on the information Allegheny 
provided, Allegheny is not eligible for the de minimis exemption. 
Pursuant to the Commission’s rules, if a contributor’s universal service contribution in 
any given year is less than $10,000, that contributor is not required to contribute directly to the federal 
Universal Service Fund (USF or Fund).
3
  For the period of time at issue (calendar years 2001 and 2002), 
the Commission required contributors to file revenue information semi-annually (until May 2001) and 
then quarterly with an annual filing to true-up the quarterly filings.
4
  Also during this time, contributors’ 
assessments were based on historical gross-billed revenues.  The Commission modified its contribution 
methodology to assess contributors based on their projected collected revenues in 2003.
5
   
 
(continued....) 
1
 See Letter from Burton J. Nord, Allegheny Telephone Company, to Office of the Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 96-45 (filed November 4, 2002) (Allegheny Appeal). 
2
 The appeal that Allegheny filed with the Commission states, in its entirety:  “We are appealing the USAC charges 
for 2001 and 2002 as our revenue dropped precipitously to at least ½ of 2000 revenue.  That makes us deminimus 
[sic] however, USAC is not resigning [sic] the deminimus [sic] status.  If you have any questions please call me at 
[xxx-xxx-xxxx].” 
3
 See 47 C.F.R. § 54.708. 
4
 See, e.g., Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Petition for Reconsideration filed by AT&T, CC Docket 
No. 96-45, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd 5748, 5750, 5752-53, paras. 6 & 12 
(2001). 
5
 See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review – Streamlined Contributor 
Reporting Requirements Associated with Administration of Telecommunications Relay Service, North American 
Numbering Plan, Local Number Portability, and Universal Service Support Mechanisms, Telecommunications 
Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 
Administration of the North American Numbering Plan and North American Numbering Plan Cost Recovery 
 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1326  
 
 
2 
3. 
4. 
5. 
                                                          
Allegheny filed an appeal with USAC disputing charges assessed for calendar year 2001 
and during the first quarter of 2002.
6
  According to the USAC Decision, Allegheny revised its FCC Form 
499-A reporting 2000 revenues several times, which USAC processed in October 2001, November 2001 
and January 2002.
7
  After USAC processed Allegheny’s revisions, its calendar year 2001 USF 
contribution obligation was $13,795.00 – an amount above the de minimis exemption.
8
  Since that time, 
USAC has processed Allegheny’s 2002 FCC Form 499-A, and posted several adjustments to Allegheny’s 
account.
9
   Based on the information in the 2002 filing, USAC concluded that Allegheny still did not 
qualify for the de minimis exemption for 2001.
10
  Allegheny filed an appeal of USAC’s decision with the 
Commission on November 4, 2002.
11
 
II. DISCUSSION 
We deny Allegheny’s appeal and find that, based on the information that Allegheny 
provided to USAC, Allegheny did not qualify for the Commission’s de minimis exemption in 2001.  The 
Commission has delegated authority to the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) to consider petitions 
for review of decisions by the Administrator.
12
  Section 54.723 of the Commission’s rules specifies that 
the Bureau shall conduct a de novo review.
13
   
Allegheny asserts that it qualifies for the de minimis exemption based on the amount of 
its interstate telecommunications services revenues.
14
  We determine that it does not and, thus, we must 
deny its appeal.  Although we are required to conduct a new review of the facts, Allegheny fails to present 
any facts in its appeal.  We therefore must rely on information it provided previously to USAC.  We have 
reviewed Allegheny’s FCC Forms 499-A and 499-Q and we conclude that it had in excess of $10,000 in 
USF obligations for calendar years 2001 and 2002 and is therefore not de minimis. 
 
(...continued from previous page) 
Contribution Factor and Fund Size, Number Resource Optimization, Telephone Number Portability, Truth-in-
Billing and Billing Format, CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 98-171, 90-571, 92-237, 99-200, 95-116, 98-170, Report and 
Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 24952, 24970, para. 29 (2002).
6
 See USAC Decision at 1. 
7
 See USAC Decision at 2. 
8
 47 C.F.R. § 54.708. 
9
 See Letter from USAC to Belinda Nixon, Federal Communications Commission (March 13, 2007), attached hereto 
at App. A. 
10
 Id. at 1-2. 
11
 See note 1, supra. 
12
 47 C.F.R. § 54.722(a). 
13
 47 C.F.R. § 54.723. 
14
 Allegheny Appeal.  As mentioned above, Allegheny’s “appeal” consists of three sentences.  Allegheny’s appeal is 
also procedurally defective on several counts.  Specifically, Allegheny failed to provide: a “full statement of 
relevant, material facts with supporting affidavits and documentation”; the question presented for review with 
reference, where appropriate, to the relevant rule, order or statutory provision; and a “statement of the relief sought 
and the relevant statutory or regulatory provision to which such relief is sought.”  See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.49, 54.721(b).  
In addition, there is no indication that Allegheny served the Administrator with a copy of its appeal, as required by 
the Commission’s rules.  See 47 C.F.R. § 54.721(c).  Moreover, this appeal failed to comply with section 54.721(a) 
of the Commission’s rules, requiring a particular format for captions for requests for review.  See 47 C.F.R. § 
54.721(a).  Although we deny Allegheny’s request on its merits, denial on procedural grounds would also be 
justified, and contributors should be on notice that we may deny future appeals based on procedural defects in their 
pleadings before the Commission. 
 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1326  
 
 
3 
III. ORDERING CLAUSE 
6. 
7. 
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 
and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to 
authority delegated in sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 
0.291, and 54.722(a) that the Requests for Review as filed by Allegheny Telephone Company IS 
DENIED. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to authority delegated under sections 0.91, 
0.291 and 1.102 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.102, this Order SHALL BE 
EFFECTIVE upon release. 
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
 
 
 
 
Renée R. Crittendon 
Acting Deputy Chief 
Wireline Competition Bureau 
 
 
 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1326  
 
APPENDIX A