COMBINED RESPONSES OF FEDERAL RESPONDENTS AND SUPPORTING INTERVENORS TO THE BRIEF 
OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATES  
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 
 
NO. 11-9900 
 
IN RE: FCC 11-161 
 
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDERS OF THE 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
 
WILLIAM J. BAER 
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 
 
ROBERT B. NICHOLSON 
ROBERT J. WIGGERS 
ATTORNEYS 
 
UNITED STATES  
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SEAN A. LEV 
GENERAL COUNSEL 
 
RICHARD K. WELCH 
DEPUTY ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL 
 
LAURENCE N. BOURNE 
JAMES M. CARR 
MAUREEN K. FLOOD 
COUNSEL 
 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 
(202) 418-1740 
 
 
 
[COUNSEL FOR SUPPORTING INTERVENORS ARE LISTED IN THE SECOND OF THE ATTACHED BRIEFS]
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 1     
  
FEDERAL RESPONDENTS’  FINAL RESPONSE TO THE BRIEF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 
STATE UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATES 
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 
 
NO. 11-9900 
 
IN RE: FCC 11-161 
 
ON PETITIONS FOR REVIEW OF ORDERS OF THE 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
 
WILLIAM J. BAER 
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 
 
ROBERT B. NICHOLSON 
ROBERT J. WIGGERS 
ATTORNEYS 
 
UNITED STATES  
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530 
 
SEAN A. LEV 
GENERAL COUNSEL 
 
RICHARD K. WELCH 
DEPUTY ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL 
 
LAURENCE N. BOURNE 
JAMES M. CARR 
MAUREEN K. FLOOD 
COUNSEL 
 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 
(202) 418-1740 
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 2     
i 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
Table Of Aut horities ......................................................................................... ii  
Glossary  ........................................................................................................... iv  
Issue Presented .................................................................................................. 1  
Introduc t i o n And Summa ry Of Ar gument ........................................................ 1  
Argument ........................................................................................................... 5  
I.  The FCC Justified The ARC Under Specific Grants Of 
Statutor y Aut hority. ................................................................................... 5  
II.  The ARC Lawfully Rec overs Both Interst a t e And Intrast a t e 
Revenues That Are Reduced  By ICC Re forms. ........................................ 6  
III.  The Order Lawfully Permits Eligibl e Recovery To Be 
Allocated To ARCs On A Holding-Company Basis. ................................ 8  
Conclusi on ....................................................................................................... 13  
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 3     
i i 
TAB L E OF AUTH O R I T I E S 
CASES  
AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd. , 525 U.S. 366 
(1999) ........................................................................................................3, 6 
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Na tural Res. Def. Council , 
467 U.S. 837 (1984) ...................................................................................... 7 
Connectic u t Office of Consumer Counsel v. FCC , 
915 F.2d 75 (2d Ci r. 1990) .......................................................................... 12 
Nat’l Ass’n of Reg. Util. Comm’rs v. FCC , 737 F.2d 
1095 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ............................................................................. 4, 11 
Nat’l Ass’n of State Util. Consumer Advocate s v. 
FCC, 372 F.3d 454 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ............................................................. 8 
Reservati o n Tel. Coop. v. FCC , 826 F.2d 1129 
(D.C. Cir. 1987) ........................................................................................... 11 
Rural Cellular Ass’n v. FCC , 588 F.3d 1095 (D.C. 
Cir. 2009)  ..................................................................................................... 12 
Sorenson Commc’ns , Inc. v. FCC , 567 F.3d 1215 
(10th Cir.  2009) ............................................................................................. 5 
Sorenson Commc’ns , Inc. v. FCC , 659 F.3d 1035 
(10th Cir. 2011 ) .................................................................................. 3, 5, 10 
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. FCC , 153 F.3d 523 (8th Cir. 
1998) .............................................................................................................. 8 
Texas Office of Pub. Util. Counsel v. FCC , 265 F.3d 
313 (5th Cir.  2001) ........................................................................................ 8 
S T A T U T E S  
47 U.S.C. §201(b) ..................................................................................... 3, 5, 6 
47 U.S.C. §202(a ) ..................................................................................... 10, 11 
47 U.S.C. §251(b)(5)  ................................................................................ 3, 5, 6 
47 U.S.C. §405(a) ................................................................................... 3, 5, 10 
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 4     
iii 
ADMI NISTRATI VE DECI SIONS  
Access Charge Reform , 12 FCC Rcd 15982 (1997), 
a f f ’ d Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. FCC , 153 F.3d 523 (8th 
Cir. 1998)  ....................................................................................................... 8 
Access Charge Reform , 15 FCC Rcd 12962 (2000), 
a f f ’ d in perti n e n t part , Texas Office of Pub. Util. 
Counsel v. FCC , 265 F.3d 313 (5th Cir. 2001) ............................................. 8 
 
 
 
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 5     
iv 
G L O S S A RY 
ARC   Access Recovery Charge 
Br.   Petitio n e r ’ s Brief 
CAF   Connect America Fund 
FCC   Federal Communi c a t i o n s Commiss i o n 
ICC   Interca r r i e r Compensa t i o n 
ILEC   Incumben t Local Exchange Carrier 
JA   Joint Appendix 
LEC   Local Exchange Carrier 
NASUCA National Associat i o n of State Utility 
Consume r Advocat e s 
SLC Subscribe r Line Charge 
 
 
 
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 6     
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 
 
NO. 11-9900 
 
IN RE: FCC 11-161 
 
ON PETITIONS FOR REVIEW OF ORDERS OF THE 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
 
FEDERAL RESPONDENTS’  FINAL RESPONSE TO THE BRIEF OF THE NATIONAL 
ASSOCIATION OF STATE UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATES 
 
I S S U E PRES EN T E D 
Whether the Federal Communi ca t i o n s Commissio n (“FCC”) lawfull y 
estab l i s h e d a transi t i o n a l Access Recove ry Charge (“ARC”) that incu mb ent 
local ex chang e carrier s (“incumb e n t LEC s” or “ILECs”) may charge their 
end-user custo me r s to recov e r some of  the revenu e s that are reduce d pursu a n t 
to the agency’ s interc a r r i e r co mp ens a t i o n (“ICC”) reforms. 
I N T R O D U C T I O N AND SU MMARY OF ARGUME N T 
In the Order  on revie w, 1 the FCC started a co mp re h e n s i v e refor m of 
the way lo cal exchan ge carriers are co mpensated wh en they ex change 
teleco m m u n i c a t i o n s with other teleco m m u n i c a t i o n s provid e r s.  The revis e d 
regim e “phas e[s] out regula t e d pe r-minute intercar r i e r … char ges,” Order 
                                           
1 Connect America Fund , 26 FCC Rcd 17663 (2011) (“ Order ”) (JA at 390). 
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 7     
2 
¶736 (JA at 631), and repla c e s them ove r time with “a uni fo r m nati o n a l bill-
and-keep frame w o r k as the ultima t e end state for all teleco m m u n i c a t i o n s 
traff i c excha n g e d with a LEC,” i d . ¶34 (JA at 403).  The FCC determi n e d that 
a bill-and-keep frame w o r k – under which the LEC looks to its own 
subsc r i b e r s (and, if necess a r y, explic i t uni ver s a l servic e subsid i e s) to reco ve r 
its netwo r k costs ( i d . ¶737 (JA at 631)) – would “elimi n a t[e] the exist i n g 
opaqu e impli c i t subsi d y sy ste m under which consu m e r s pay” billi o n s of 
dolla r s to suppo r t other carri e r s ’ ne two r k s, and would help ensur e that 
“cons u me r s pay only for servi c e s that they choos e and recei v e.”  Id. ¶738 (JA 
at 631); s e e also id. ¶ ¶748-751 (JA at 636-38).  The FCC also deter mi n e d that 
a bill-and-keep framew o r k was well with i n its autho r i t y to repla c e impli c i t 
subsid i e s with expli c i t ones and to  adopt a regul a t o r y frame w o r k for 
teleco mm unications traffic that LECs  exchan g e with other provi d e r s.  See 
Order ¶ ¶747, 760-781 (JA at 636, 641-52); s e e also FCC Prelimin a r y Brief 
32-37.   
To implem e n t its bill-and-keep metho d o l o g y, the FCC establi s h e d a 
transi t i o n a l feder a l l y-tariff e d ARC that incu mb e n t LECs may bill to their end 
users.  Id. ¶ ¶906-916 (JA at 714-21).  Th e ARC is part of a recove r y 
mechan i s m (which also includ e s dir ect subsidies from th e Connect America 
Fund (“CAF”)) that the FCC establi s h e d to enabl e incumb e n t LECs to 
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 8     
3 
recover some of the interca r r i e r  co mpensa t i o n revenues that the Order 
r e d u c e s over time.  Id. ¶905 (JA at 714); see gen erally Argument II of the 
FCC’s Principa l ICC Brief (des crib i n g the operat i o n of the reco ve r y 
mechanism).   
Petition e r National Associat i o n of State Utility Consumer Advocate s 
(“NASUCA”) challe n g e s the lawfu l n e s s of the ARC in th ree respect s.  
I.  NASUCA contend s (Br. 5-8) that the FCC failed to identi f y its legal 
autho r i ty to adopt the ARC in the Order , a n d there f o r e canno t do so befor e 
this Court.  This claim is barre d by 47 U.S.C. §405(a) becaus e no party 
presen t e d it to the ag ency in the ad minis t r a t i v e proceed i n g s below.  Sorenso n 
Commc’ns , Inc. v. FCC , 659 F.3d 1035, 1044 (10th Cir. 2011) (“ Sorenson 
II ”).  The clai m is baseless, in  any event, becaus e the FCC’s Order f u l l y 
expla i n e d the statu t o r y basis for the ARC:  47 U.S.C. §§201(b) & 251(b)(5).  
Order  ¶¶760-781 (JA at 641-52).  
I I .  The FCC lawful l y desig n e d the ARC to recov e r i n t r a s t a t e, as well 
as inters t a t e, ICC revenues reduce d  under the reform s adopt e d in the Order .  
Compare Br. 8-11.  As the S upreme Court held in AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. 
Bd. , 525 U.S. 366, 378 (1999) (“ AT&T ”), the FCC has author i t y to imple m e n t 
secti o n 251(b)(5), which requi r e s LECs to “esta b l i s h recip r o c a l comp e n s a t i o n 
arran g e me n t s for the trans p o r t and termi n a t i o n of telec o m mu n i c a t i o n s.”  That 
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 9     
4 
provis i o n plain l y cover s intr astate tel eco mmunicati ons.  See Order ¶761 (JA 
at 642).  Accordin g l y, under estab l i s h e d Supreme Court preced e n t, the FCC 
acted lawful l y in establ i s h i n g the ARC to recove r in tras t a t e revenu e s.   
I I I .   The Court also should  reject  NASUCA’s assert i o n (Br. 11-14) that 
it was arbit r a r y, and unlaw f u l l y discr i mi n a t o r y, for the FCC to permi t ILECs 
to deter mi n e “at the holdi n g comp a n y le vel ” how eligi b l e recove r y will be 
alloc a t e d among subsi d i a r y ILECs’ A RCs.  NASUCA’s discr i mi n a t i o n claim 
is barre d by secti o n 405(a) becaus e it wa s not prese n t e d to the agenc y.  Its 
claim fails on the merit s, in any event,  becaus e the FCC provide d a “neutr a l, 
ration a l basis” for the holdi n g-comp a n y rule.  Nat’l Ass’n of Reg. Util. 
Comm’rs v. FCC , 737 F.2d 1095, 1133 ( D.C. Cir. 1984) (“ NARUC ”).  As the 
FCC explain e d, that rule spread s out ARC recover y over a broad e r class of 
custo m e r s and helps reduc e burde n s on th e CAF at the same time it main tai n s 
consu me r prote c t i o n s to ensur e that end-user rates remain reason a b l e.  Order 
¶910 (JA at 717).  Although NASUCA ma y disag r e e with the FCC’s policy 
judgme n t, the agenc y ’ s balan c i n g of  factor s is entitl e d to signif i c a n t 
defer e n c e and should be affir me d. 
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 10     
5 
A R G U M E N T 
I.  T H E FCC JUSTI FIE D THE ARC UNDER SPECIFI C 
GRAN TS OF STAT U TO RY A U TH O R I TY.  
The Court should dismi s s NASUCA’s claim (Br. 5-8) that the FCC 
failed to cite any autho r i ty for the AR C.  No one presen t e d this argume n t 
before the FCC.  It thus is barred by secti o n 405(a) of the Communic a t i o n s 
Act, which preve n t s revie w of “que st i o n s of fact or law upon which the 
[FCC] … has been affor d e d no oppor t u n it y to pass.”  47 U.S.C. §405(a); 
a c c o r d Sorenso n II , 659 F.3d at 1044; Sorenson Commc’ns , Inc. v. FCC , 567 
F.3d 1215, 1227-28 (10th Cir. 2009) (“ Sorenson I ”).   
The claim is meritl e s s, in any even t, because the ag ency set out in 
detai l its statu t o r y autho r i ty to adopt the ICC reforms o f which the ARC is a 
part .  Order ¶ ¶760-781 (JA at 641-52).  The FC C determi n e d that 47 U.S.C. 
§§201(b) & 251(b)(5), among other provi s i o n s, empowe r e d it to adopt rules 
establishing how LECs are co mp ensate d when they exchang e traffi c th at 
origin a t e s or termi n a t e s on their netwo r k s.  Order  ¶760 (JA at 641-42).  
Acting under those provis i o n s, the FCC adopted bill-and-keep as the end 
point of its ICC reforms, while allow i n g a gradu a l trans i t i o n from the exist i n g 
regime.  Order ¶ ¶736-739 (JA at 631-32).  Because the ARC provide s a 
portio n of the co mp en s a t i o n ILECs ma y recei v e durin g that trans i t i o n, i d 
¶ ¶906-916 (JA at 714-21), and forms an integ r a l part of the overa r c h i n g 
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 11     
6 
mechani s m for trans i t i o n i n g to bill-and- keep, it falls square l y within the 
Order ’ s  d e t a i l e d expla n a t i o n of the agenc y ’ s  statut o r y author i ty to adopt a 
bill-and-keep framew o r k, i d . ¶¶760-81 (JA at 641-52). 2  
I I .  T H E ARC LAW F UL LY R E C O V E R S BOTH INTERS TAT E 
AND INTRAS TAT E REVEN U E S THAT ARE REDUCE D 
BY ICC REFORM S .  
NASUCA argues (Br. 8-11) that the FCC lacks author i t y to regula t e 
intra s t a t e acces s traff i c and that the A RC therefore must be unlawfu l, because 
it is design e d to offset reduc t i o n s in in trast a t e (as well as  inter s t a t e) access 
charges.  This clai m is baseles s.   
The FCC reasona b l y found autho r i t y to adopt rules gover n i n g all  
teleco m m u n i c a t i o n s – intras t a t e, as we ll as inters t a t e – ex chan g e d with a 
LEC.  See Order  ¶¶760-762 (JA at 641-42).  The FCC explain e d that the 
Supreme Court had confi r med its aut ho r i ty under 47 U.S.C. §201(b) to adopt 
rules imple m e n t i n g the Communi c a t i o n s Act, includ i n g secti o n 251(b)(5).  
Id. ¶760 (JA at 641-42) (citing AT&T , 525 U.S. at 378).  The agency furthe r 
deter mi n e d that secti o n 251(b)(5), by its terms, covers intra s t a t e 
“telec o m m u n i c a t i o n s ” exchan g e d with a LEC.  Order ¶761 (JA at 642).  
Because the ARC recover s some of th e intras t a t e access reven u e s reduc e d by 
                                           
2 NASUCA’s argume n t (Br. 6-8) that th e FCC lacks ancil l a r y autho r i t y to 
adopt the ARC is irrelev a n t becaus e the FCC never invok e d such autho r i t y 
for the ARC.   
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 12     
7 
the Order p u r s u a n t to that feder a l autho r it y,  the ARC falls well within the 
FCC’s stat uto r y powers.  The FCC’s reas on a b l e constr u c t i o n of the statut e is 
entit l e d to defer e n c e under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Na tural Res. Def. Council , 
467 U.S. 837 (1984).  See FCC Principa l ICC Brief, Argument I (explai n in g 
in detai l the FCC’s statut o r y autho r i ty to adopt comp r e h e n s i v e ICC reform). 
In light of this statu t o r y autho r ity  for estab l i s h i n g the ARC, NASUCA 
misses the point in emphas i z i n g (Br. 8-11) that the FCC’s earlie r preced e n t s 
involv i n g inter s t a t e acces s charg e s do not  thems e l v e s estab l i s h the agenc y ’ s 
autho r i t y for the ARC.  The FCC mere ly menti o n e d those prece d e n t s as 
example s of analogo u s reform s the ag enc y had previ o u s ly under t a k e n.  Order 
¶852 (JA at 685); s e e also id.  ¶¶906-916 (JA at 714-21).   
In those prior decisi o n s, which we re uphel d on judic i a l revie w, the 
FCC had moved incre me n t a l l y to phase  out certa i n per-minute inter s t a t e 
charg e s that LECs had impos e d on long-d istanc e carrie r s, in favor of flat 
month l y end-user charg e s (called “subs c r i b e r line charg e s ” or “SLCs”) that 
did not vary with subscr i b e r s ’ usage.   The FCC determi n e d that switc h i n g 
from interca r r i e r ch arge s to end-user  charge s would bette r refle c t cost-
causa t i o n prin c i p l e s and reduc e impl i c i t subs i d i e s that had been embed d e d 
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 13     
8 
within the interc a r r i e r charge s. 3  These decis i o n s fully suppo r t the 
reaso n a b l e n e s s of the ICC reforms adopt e d in the Order . 
I I I .  TH E ORDER LAWFULLY PERMI T S ELI GIBLE 
RECOV E RY TO BE ALLOC AT E D TO ARCS ON A 
HOLDING - C O M PA N Y BAS I S. 
In design in g the ARC, the FCC adopt ed numer o u s safeg u a r d s to ensur e 
that consu m e r s will see only small incre a s e s in their month l y bills.  It cappe d 
at $0.50 per year an y increa s e s in th e monthly ARC charged to reside n ti a l 
and single-line busine s s custo m e r s.  Order ¶909 (JA at 716).  It capped at 
$1.00 (per line) per year any increa s e s in the month l y ARC for multi-line 
busin e s s cust o me r s, and it requi r e d “pot ential revenue from su ch increas es to 
be imput e d to carri e r s ” – wheth e r or not they actua l l y im posed those char ges 
– there b y reduc i n g the reve n u e s eligi b l e for recov e r y  throu g h ARCs charg ed 
to resid e n ti a l consu m e r s.  Id.  Price cap LECs may adopt annua l incre a s e s in 
the ARC for only five years, and rate -of-retur n LECs for only six years.  Id. 
¶908 (JA at 715).  Addition a l l y, the FCC adopted a $30.00 per month 
                                           
3 See , e . g . , Access Charge Reform , 12 FCC Rcd 15982, 16007-09 ¶¶69-71 
(1997), a f f’ d Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. FCC , 153 F.3d 523, 557-59 (8th Cir. 1998); 
Access Charge Reform , 15 FCC Rcd 12962, 12975 -76 ¶¶30-33 (2000), a f f’ d 
in perti n e n t part , Texas Office of Pub. Util. Counsel v. FCC , 265 F.3d 313, 
321-23 (5th Cir. 2001).  See also Nat’l Ass’n of State Util. Consumer 
Advocates v. FCC , 372 F.3d 454, 456-60 (D.C . Cir. 2004) (descri b i n g 
migra t i o n from inter c a r r i e r charg e s to end-user charg e s and rejec t i n g 
NASUCA’s challe n g e to that proces s).  
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 14     
9 
residen t i a l rate ceilin g for both price cap and rate-of-return LECs, i d . ¶913 
(JA at 718), so that a LEC may not char g e resid e n t i a l consu m e r s an ARC if it 
would drive above $30.00 the consu me r ’ s aggre g a t e month l y bill for the 
feder a l SLC, the ARC, and ass o rted local service ch arges, i d . ¶ ¶913-914 (JA 
at 718-19).   
Subject to these consum e r protec t i o n s, the FCC also allowe d parent 
ILEC holding comp a n i e s to pool the amou n t s thei r subs id i a r y ILECs are 
eligib l e to recove r under the Order , a n d then reall o c a t e those amoun t s among 
the ILEC subsidi a r i e s for purpo s e s of  cal culat i n g the ARCs that each may 
charge.  Id. ¶910 (JA at 717).  This does not a lter the total reven u e s that the 
relate d ILECs collect i v e l y may recove r, but it does potent i a l l y affec t the 
amoun t and sourc e of each subsi d i a r y ILEC’s recove r y. 4  Assume, for 
examp l e, that Holding Company X has two ILEC subsid i a r i e s – ILEC A and 
ILEC B.  Assume, further, that a $0.25 ARC increas e (below the $0.50 
                                           
4 The Order ’ s metho d o l o g y for calcu l a t i n g e ligi b l e recov e r y allow s each 
ILEC t o recov e r a porti o n of its annua l reduc t i o n  i n ICC revenue s resul t i n g 
from refor m.  For any given carri e r, th e size of the requi r e d annua l reduc t i o n 
depen d s on the level of its e x i s t i n g  charges for the rate el ement s subjec t to 
refor m.  See Order ¶801 & Figure 9 (JA at 661- 63) (showing timet a b l e and 
size of interc a r r i e r rate reduct i o n s); id ¶ ¶867-920 (JA at 694-723) (describ i n g 
recovery mechanism).  Be cau se each car rier’s exis ting ICC rate levels ar e 
likel y to diffe r (depend i n g on prior stat e regul a t o r y polic i e s), the calcu l a t i o n 
of any two ILECs’ eligib l e recov e r i e s  under the FCC’s reform s is likel y to 
yield differ e n t resul ts.   
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 15     
10 
annual cap on ARC increas e s) will recove r all of ILEC A’s eligib l e recov e r y 
in Oklahoma, witho u t resor t to CAF subs idi e s.  And assume that a full $0.50 
ARC increas e by ILEC B in Colorado is insuff i c i e n t to recove r all of that 
co mp an y ’ s eligi b l e recov e r y witho u t turni n g to explic i t subsi d i e s from the 
CAF.  The holdi n g-compa n y rule permi t s  the carrier s to realloc a t e so me of 
ILEC B’s eligib l e recov e r y to ILEC  A, thus permi t t i n g ILEC A to recov er 
more of the co mp anies’ co mbi n ed eligible revenue s thro u g h the ARC, while 
requir i n g ILEC B to make offse t t i n g reduc t i o n s in its subsi d y deman d s on the 
CAF.   
NASUCA argues that the holdi n g-com pa n y rule requi r e s “cons u m e r s 
in states that have previo u s l y reduce d their intras t a t e access ch arge s as well as 
juris d i c t i o n s that have no such charg e s ” to “pick up the burde n from state s 
that have not done so” – an outcome it chara c t e r i ze s as arbit r a r y and contr a r y 
to the statu t o r y prohi b i t i o n again s t “‘unj u s t or unrea s o n a b l e discr i mi n a t i o n in 
charge s.’”  Br. 12, 13 ( quoting 47 U.S.C. §202(a)).   
The Court should not consi d e r NASUCA’s unreas o n a b l e 
discrimi n a t i o n clai m because it wa s not prese n t e d to the FCC.  See 47 U.S.C. 
§405(a); Sorenso n II , 659 F.3d at 1044.    
NASUCA’s challe n g e is unsou n d in any event.  By its terms, secti o n 
202(a) prohibi t s only “ u n j u s t or unreas o n a b l e d i s c r imi n a t i o n in charg e s.”  47 
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 16     
11 
U.S.C. §202(a) (emphas i s added); s e e al so NARUC , 737 F.2d at 1133 
(section 202(a) addres s e s “ u n j u s t i f i a b l y  differe n t rates for the same ser v ice ”) 
(emphas i s added).  That provi s io n does no t bar rates that ha ve “a neutra l, 
rationa l basis.”  NARUC, 737 F.2d at 1133; a c c o r d Reser vati o n Tel. Coop. v. 
FCC, 826 F.2d 1129, 1136 (D.C. Cir. 1987) .  The ARC rates that the Order 
p e r mi t s pursu a n t to the holdi n g-compa n y rule have such a neutr a l and ratio n a l 
basis.   
First, allowi n g eligib l e revenu e recov e r y to be reall o c a t e d among 
subsid i a r y ILECs enable s carri e r s to “sprea d the recove r y ” throug h the ARC 
“among a broad e r set of custo m e r s,” there b y poten t i a l l y “mini mi z i n g the 
increa s e exper i e n c e d by any one custo me r.”  Order ¶910 (JA at 717).  
Second, by enabl i n g a holdi n g comp a n y ’ s subsi d i a r y ILECs (as a group) to 
recei v e a highe r propo r t i o n of their ove ra l l eligi b l e recov e r y throu g h the 
ARC, the holdin g-comp a n y rule “limi t[s]  the potent i a l impact on the CAF,” 
which provi d e s carri e r s with direc t subs id i e s if the ARC is insuffi c i e n t to 
genera t e all of the revenu e s to which ca rrie r s are entitl e d.  Id. ; s e e also id.  
¶¶917-919 (JA at 721-22) (descri b i n g th e role of the CAF under the recovery 
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 17     
12 
mechanism). 5  Third, while the holdin g-comp a n y rule provid e s these benef i t s, 
“[t]he ARC’s modes t and capp ed size, its interi m nature, … [its revenu e 
imput a t i o n featu r e], … [and] the $30 Resi dent i a l Rate Ceiling”  all comb i n e to 
“ensu r e that overa l l rates re main afford a b l e and set at reasona b l e levels.”  
Order n.1791 (JA at 717).  The FCC “enjoys broad discr e t i o n ” when 
conduc t i n g such balanc i n g, partic u l a r l y in the univers a l service context.  
RCA, 588 F.3d at 1103. 
Finally, Connectic u t Office of C onsumer Counsel v. FCC , 915 F.2d 75 
(2d Cir. 1990), undermi n e s rathe r th an suppo r ts NASUCA’s discr i mi n a t i o n 
clai m.  See Br. 13.  Although the court in that  cas e upheld an FCC decisi on to 
permi t AT&T to pass throu g h to its C onnecticu t custome r s, alone, the co sts 
of that state ’ s gross recei p t s tax, it did not hold that state-specif i c costs 
alway s mu st be recov e r e d from in-s tate consu me r s to avoid unlaw f u l 
discr i mi n a t i o n.  Indeed, the cour t acknow l e d g e d the lawful n e s s of the 
under l y in g inter s t a t e regul a t o r y regim e at the time, wh ich, in genera l, called 
for ratema k i n g on the basis of a natio n w i d e pooli n g of fixed costs acros s state 
                                           
5 Although NASUCA complai n s that the holdi n g-compa n y ru le may requir e 
cons u me r s to pay high e r ARCs in some st ate s to cover reven u e losse s in other 
states, a simil ar result would occur if the a b s e n c e  of the rule led to increas ed 
deman d s on the CAF.  That is so b ecaus e CAF funds are recove r e d throu g h 
contr i b u t io n s from telec o m mu n i c a t i o n s provi d e r s n a t i o n w i d e  and are “al mos t 
alway s pass[ed on] … to their custo m e r s.”  Rural Cellula r Ass’n v. FCC , 588 
F.3d 1095, 1099 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“ RCA”).      
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 18     
13 
lines.  Id. a t 76-77, 79.  Like the holdin g-comp an y rule here, that nation w i d e 
syste m of poolin g lawfu l l y permi t t e d ca rri e r s to recov e r some costs incur r e d 
in one state throu g h charg e s impos e d on custo me r s in other state s.    
C O N C L U S I O N 
The petiti o n for revie w shoul d be di smi s s e d in part and other w i s e 
denied.  
 Respectf u l l y submi t t e d, 
WILLIAM J. BAER 
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 
 
ROBERT B. NICHOLSON 
ROBERT J. WIGGERS 
ATTORNEYS 
 
UNITED STATES  
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530 
 
SEAN A. LEV 
GENERAL COUNSEL 
 
RICHARD K. WELCH 
DEPUTY ASSOCIATE GENERAL 
COUNSEL 
 
/s/ Laurence N. Bourne 
 
LAURENCE N. BOURNE 
JAMES M. CARR 
MAUREEN K. FLOOD 
COUNSEL 
 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 
COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 
(202) 418-1740 
 
July 29, 2013
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 19     
C E R T I F I C A T E OF COMPL I A N C E 
Certif i c a t e of Com p li a n c e With Ty pe-V o l u m e Limit a t i o n s , Typef a c e 
Requi r e m e n t s , Type Style Requi r e m e n t s , 
 Privac y Redac t i o n Requi r e m e n t s 
 
1. This brief comp l i e s with the type-vol ume limi t a t i o n of the Second Briefin g 
Order. It does not exceed 15% of the size of  the brief to which it is respon d i n g. The 
Brief of The National Associat i o n of State Utility Consumer Advocate s was 
certi f i e d to be 2,429 words in lengt h. Ther efore, the FCC may f ile a respon s e brief 
up to 2,793 words in lengt h. This brief c onta i n s 2,570 words, exclu d i n g the parts of 
the brief exemp t e d by Fed. R.  App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii).  
 
2. This brief co mp li e s with the typefa c e requi r e m e n t s of Fed. R. App. P. 
32(a)(5) and 10th Cir. R. 32(a) and the type  style requi r e men t s of Fed. R. App. P. 
32(a)(6) because this filing has been prep ar e d in a propor t i o n a l l y spaced typefa c e 
using Microsof t Word 2010 in 14- point Times New Roman font. 
 
3. All requir e d priva c y redac t i o n s have been made. 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Laurence N. Bourne 
Laurence N. Bourne 
Counsel 
 
 
July 29, 2013 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 20     
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 21     
  
IN THE UNITED STATES  COUR T OF APPE A L S 
FOR THE TENTH CI RCUIT 
 
No. 11-9900 
 
IN RE:  FCC 11-161 
 
On Petition s for Review of Orders of the  
Federal Communic a t i o n s Commissi o n 
  
 
BRI EF OF INTERV E N O RS SUPP O R T I N G RESPO N D E N T S IN 
RESPON S E TO THE BRIEF OF THE NATIONA L ASS OCI A T I ON OF 
STATE UTILI T Y CONSU M E R ADVOC A T E S  
 
 
 
HEATHER M. Z ACHARY 
KELLY P. DUNBAR 
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING 
   HALE AND DORR LLP 
1875 Pennsylv a n i a Avenue, N.W. 
Washingto n, D.C. 20006 
(202) 663-6000 
 
CATHY CARPINO 
GARY L. PHILLIPS 
PEGGY GARBER 
AT&T  SERVICES, INC. 
1120 20th Street, N.W. 
Washingto n, D.C. 20036 
(202) 457-3058 
 
Counsel for AT&T Inc.  
 
 
SCOTT  H. ANGSTREICH 
BRENDAN J. CRIMMINS 
JOSHUA D. BRANSON 
KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, 
   EVANS &  FIGEL, P.L.L.C. 
1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400 
Washingto n, D.C. 20036 
(202) 326-7900 
 
MICHAEL E. GLOVER 
CHRISTOPHER M. MILLER 
CURTIS L. GROVES 
VERIZON  
1320 North Courtho u s e Road, 9th Floor 
Arlingto n, Virginia 22201 
(703) 351-3071 
 
Counsel for Verizon and Verizon 
Wireles s  
July 2013
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 22     
 C O R P O R A T E DISCLO S U R E STATEM E N T S 
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appella te Procedur e 26.1, interve n o r s AT&T 
Inc., Verizon, and Verizon Wireless resp ec t f u l l y submit th e follow i n g corpor a t e 
disclo s u r e statem e n t s: 
AT&T In c.   AT&T Inc. is a public l y trad e d corpo r a t i o n that, throug h its 
wholly owned affil i a t e s, is princi p a l l y  engag e d in the busin e s s of provi d i n g 
commu n i c a t i o n s servi c e s and produ c t s to the general public.  AT&T Inc. has no 
paren t comp a n y, and no public l y held co mp a n y owns 10 percen t or more of its 
stock. 
Veri zon and Veri zo n Wirel es s.   The Verizon compan i e s parti c i p a t i n g in 
this filin g are Cellco Partner s h ip, d/b/a Ve rizon Wireless, and the regul a t e d, wholly 
owned subsi d i a r i e s of Verizon Communic a t i o n s Inc.  Cellco Part ners h i p, a genera l 
partn e r s h ip forme d under the laws of the St ate of Delaware, is a joint ventu r e of 
Verizon Communic a t i o n s Inc. and Vodafone  Group Plc.  Verizon Communic a t i o n s 
Inc. and Vodafone Group Plc indire c t l y ho ld 55 percen t and 45 percen t partn e r s h ip 
inter e s t s, respec t i v e l y, in Cellco Partners h i p.  Both Verizon Communic a t i o n s Inc. 
and Vodafone Group Plc are public l y trad ed co mpan i e s.  Verizon Communicat i o n s 
Inc. has no paren t comp a n y.   No public l y held co mp a n y owns 10 percen t or more 
of Verizon Communic a t i o n s Inc.’s stock.  Insofar as releva n t to this litiga t i o n, 
Verizon’ s gener a l natur e and purpos e is to provid e commu n i c a t i o n s servi c e s, 
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 23     
i i 
inclu d i n g broad b a n d Interne t acces s se rvi c e s provi d e d by its wholl y owned 
tele p h o n e-compa n y and Veri zon Online LLC subsidi a r i e s and by Verizon 
Wireless. 
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 24     
iii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Page 
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS ....................................................... i  
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv  
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ................................................................... vi  
GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................ vii  
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................ 1 
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 2 
I.  THE ORDER EXPLAINS THE FCC’S AUTHORITY TO ADOPT 
THE ARC ........................................................................................................ 2 
II.  ALLOCATING THE ARC AT THE HOLDING-COMPANY LEVEL 
DOES NOT VIOLATE 47 U.S.C. § 202 ........................................................ 4  
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 5 
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 25     
iv 
T A B L E OF AUTHORI TI ES 
Page 
CASES 
Allnet Communic a t i o n s Servs., Inc. v. National Exch. Carrier Ass’n, 
Inc. , 741 F. Supp. 983 (D.D.C. 1990) ............................................................. 4 
Bechtel v. FCC , 10 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 1993) .......................................................... 2 
Diamond Int’l Corp. v. FCC , 627 F.2d 489 (D.C . Cir. 1980) ................................... 5 
MCI Telecomms . Corp. v. FCC , 750 F.2d 135 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ............................... 3 
National Ass’n of Regulato r y Util. Comm’rs v. FCC , 737 F.2d 1095 
(D.C. Cir.  1984) ............................................................................................... 3 
Rural Cellular Ass’n v. FCC , 588 F.3d 1095 (D.C . Cir. 2009) ................................. 3 
Sorenson Communic a t i o n s , Inc. v. FCC , 659 F.3d 1035 
(10th Cir.  2011) ............................................................................................... 3 
Union Tel. Co. v. Qwest Corp. , 495 F.3d 1187 (10t h Cir. 2007) .............................. 5 
US West, Inc. v. FCC , 778 F.2d 23 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ................................................ 4 
 
S T A T U T E S 
Communic a t i o n s Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 151 e t seq.  ............................................. 4 
47 U.S.C. § 153 (11) ......................................................................................... 4 
47 U.S.C. § 201 ................................................................................................ 2 
47 U.S.C. § 202 ................................................................................................ 5 
47 U.S.C. § 202(a ) ................................................................................... 1, 4, 5 
 
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 26     
v 
47 U.S.C. § 251( b)(5) ...................................................................................... 2 
47 U.S.C. § 332 ................................................................................................ 2 
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 27     
v i 
S T A T E M E N T OF RELATED CASES 
Interven o r s adopt the Statemen t of Rel ated Cases set forth in the Federal 
Responde n t s ’ Response to the Joint Preli mi n a r y Brief of the Petition e r s. 
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 28     
v i i 
G L O S S A R Y 
ARC Access Recovery Charge 
Communic a t i o n s Act or Act Communic a t i o n s Act of 1934, as amend e d 
(47 U.S.C. § 151 e t seq. ) 
FCC Federal Communi c a t i o n s Commiss i o n 
FCC Br. Federal Responde n t s ’  Response to the Brief of 
the National Associat i o n of State Utility 
Consumer Advocate s (filed Mar. 18, 2013) 
ICC 
LEC 
Intercarr i e r Compensat i o n 
Local Exchange Carrier 
NASUCA National Associat i o n of State Utility Consumer 
Advocates 
Order  Report and Order and Furt her Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaki n g, Connect America Fund , 26 FCC 
Rcd 17663 (2011) 
Pet. Br. Brief of the National Associat i o n of State Utility 
Consumer Advocate s (filed Oct. 23, 2012) 
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 29     
  
I N T R O D U C T I O N AND SU MMA R Y OF ARGUM E N T 
 The FCC shows in its brief th at NASUCA’s challen g e s to the Order ’ s 
adopt i o n of the ARC were not preser v e d fo r judici a l review and lack mer it.  
Interven o r s write sep ara t e l y  to emph a s i z e two poin ts.  
I .  Contrary to NASUCA’s clai m, the Order  clearl y ident i f i e s the FCC’s 
legal author i t y to adopt the ARC.  The Order  exp lain s that the ARC is an interi m 
measur e that is part of the agency ’ s effo r t s to facili t a t e the transi t i o n to bill-and-
keep, s e e , e . g . , Order  ¶ 847 (JA at 683), and the Order  contai n s a subsec t i o n that 
sets forth the FCC’s author i t y to adopt such trans i t i o n mecha n i s ms, see  i d .  ¶¶ 809-
810 (JA at 665).  Nothing more was requi r e d. 
I I .  NASUCA’s argume n t that permi t t i n g ca rrier s to allocat e th e ARC at a 
holdin g-comp a n y level viola t e s the prohi b i t i o n of unrea s o n a b l e discr i mi n a t i o n in 
47 U.S.C. § 202(a) is equall y witho u t mer it.  As the FCC explain s (at 10-11), 
holdin g-comp a n y flexi b i l it y serve s neutr a l purpo s e s that are consi s t e n t with 
§ 202(a).  But NASUCA’s argume n t also fa ils for a more basic reaso n.  Section 
202(a) applie s only to “commo n carri e r s, ” and holdi n g comp a n i e s are not commo n 
carrie r s.  
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 30     
 2 
ARGUM ENT  
I. THE ORDER EXPLAINS THE FCC’ S AUTHOR I T Y TO ADOPT 
THE ARC  
As the FCC demonst r at e s, the ARC fo rms an impor t a n t comp o n e n t of the 
Order ’ s comp r e h e n s i v e ICC reforms.  See FCC Br. 5-6.  The Order  fully expla i n s 
the FCC’s legal author i t y to adopt th ose broad e r ICC reforms under 47 U.S.C. 
§§ 201, 251(b)(5), and 332.  See  Order  ¶¶ 760-781 (JA at 641-52).  Nonethele s s, 
NASUCA argues (at 5) that the FCC’s exp lan a t i o n of the ARC is defici e n t becau s e 
the FCC suppos e d l y faile d to  “menti o n ” its “legal author i t y ” in the specif i c 
subsec t i o n of the Order  “devoted to the Rec overy Mechanis m.”   
But, in the very first parag r a p h NASUCA cites as lacki n g suffi ci e n t 
expla n a t i o n, see  Pet. Br. 5 & n.2 (citing Order  ¶¶ 847-932 (JA at 683-729)), the 
FCC made clear that the ARC is a “trans i t i o n a l recov e r y mecha n i s m ” inten d e d to 
facil i t a t e a “gradu a l trans i t i o n ” to bill-and-keep, Order  ¶ 847 (JA at 683); s e e also , 
e.g. , i d .  ¶¶ 36-38, 849, 910 n.1791 (JA at 404-05, 684, 717).  The Order  contai n s a 
separa t e subse c t i o n in which the FCC expr ess l y ident i f i e d its legal autho r i t y to 
“[s]pecify the [t]ransit i o n ” to bill-and-keep.  Id.  ¶¶ 809-810 (JA at 665).  The FCC 
had no oblig a t i o n to repea t that analy s i s every time it adopt e d a speci f i c trans i t i o n 
measure.  See  Bechtel v. FCC , 10 F.3d 875, 878 (D.C. Cir.  1993) (noting that the 
FCC “need not repeat itsel f inces s a n t l y ”).     
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 31     
 3 
As the Order  explain s, transi t io n a l measur e s  have long been a “ ‘stan d a r d 
tool of the [FCC]’ ” that permi t it to “ ‘ avo i d exces s i v e l y burden i n g carri e r s ’ ” as 
they “ ‘adju s t to [a] new pricin g system.’ ”  Id.  ¶ 809 (quoti n g National Ass’n of 
Regulatory Util. Comm’rs v. FCC , 737 F.2d 1095, 1135-36 (D.C. Cir. 1984)) 
(JA at 665).  Courts afford the FCC “ ‘s ubst a n t i a l defer e n c e ’ ” when it adopt s such 
interi m measur e s.  Id.  (quotin g Rural Cellular Ass’n v. FCC , 588 F.3d 1095, 1106 
(D.C. Cir. 2009)); see  Sorenson Communic a t i o n s , Inc. v. FCC , 659 F.3d 1035, 
1046 (10th Cir. 2011) (“Because the pr ovis i o n s under review are merely 
transi t i o n a l, our review is especi a l l y defere n t i a l.”) (inter n a l quota t i o n marks 
omit t e d); MCI Telecomms . Corp. v. FCC , 750 F.2d 135, 141 (D.C. Cir. 1984) 
(FCC has autho r i ty to adopt “[i]nteri m so lut i o n s ” to ameli o r a t e “unfa i r n es s of 
abrup t l y shift i n g polici e s ”).   
Although NASUCA intimat e s (at 6) that  the ARC is a “novel charge,” it 
does not dispu t e that the ARC is an inte ri m measur e that falls well within the 
FCC’s author i t y to speci f y th e transi t i o n to bill-and-keep. *   Nor could it, for the 
ARC is an integ r a l compo n e n t of th e unifo r m ICC regime adopt e d in the Order .  
See FCC Br. 5-6.  The ARC facilit a t e s the gr adu a l imple m e n t a t i o n of bill-and-keep 
                                                 
*  The FCC ably refute s NASUCA’s clai m (at 8-11) that the ARC, unlike 
past transiti o n measu r es such as the subscr i b e r line charge (which NASUCA 
concedes (at 3) “was within [the FCC’s]  estab l i s h e d auth o r i t y ”), impro p e r ly offs e t s 
reduct i o n s in past intras t a t e  acces s charg e reven u e s.  See FCC Br. 6-8.    
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 32     
 4 
by provid i n g carri e r s a cushio n again s t the reven u e losse s assoc i a t e d with decli n i n g 
ICC payments.  See  Order  ¶¶ 847-849, 905-907 (J A at 683-84, 714-15).  
Moreover, consis t e n t with the FCC’s broad e r ICC reforms, the ARC provide s 
carriers wi th recovery from cus tomer s rather than other carrie r s.  See  i d .  ¶¶ 906-
907 (JA at 714-15).   
I I . ALLOC A T I N G THE ARC AT THE HOLDIN G - C O M P A N Y LEVEL 
DOES NOT VIOLAT E 47 U.S.C. § 202 
The FCC reasona b l y provid e d the paren t  comp a n i e s of in cumb ent LECs the 
flexib i l i t y to alloca t e ARCs at  the holdi n g-comp an y level.  See  Order  ¶ 910 
(JA at 717); FCC Br. 8-13.  NASUCA main tai n s (at 13) that such flexi b i l it y 
const i t u t e s “ ‘unj u s t or unrea s o n a b l e discr i mi n at i o n ’ ” in viola t i o n of 47 U.S.C. 
§ 202(a), becaus e it allow s differ e n t in cumb e n t LEC subsidi a ries of a single 
holdin g comp a n y to charg e diffe r e n t  ARCs in differ e n t states.   
NASUCA’s discri mi n a t i o n argum e n t fails at the thresh o l d becau s e § 202(a) 
applie s only to commo n carri e r s, and hol di n g comp a n i e s are not “enga g e d as a 
common carri e r for hire, in inter s t a t e  or forei g n commu n i c a t i o n by wire.”  47 
U.S.C. § 153(11) (defini n g commo n carri e r); s e e US West, Inc. v. FCC , 778 F.2d 
23, 26 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (explain i n g that “holdin g comp a n i e s ” are not “commo n 
carri e r s ” and that the FCC’s prima r y juris d i c t i o n exten d s only to “hold i n g 
co mpanie s ’ subsidia r i e s ”); Allnet Commu nicati o n s Servs ., Inc. v. National Exch. 
Carrier Ass’n, Inc. , 741 F. Supp. 983, 984 (D.D.C. 1990)  (rejecti n g tarif f chall e n g e 
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 33     
 5 
against associ a t i o n becaus e “title II” of the Commu n ica t i o n s Act, which includ e s 
§ 202, “proscr i b e[s] the activi t i e s of commo n carri e r s ” and “NECA is not a 
co mmon carrier ”); cf .  Union Tel. Co. v. Qwest Corp. , 495 F.3d 1187, 1195 (10th 
Cir. 2007) (§ 202(a) provid e s that “tele c o m m u n i c a t i o n s carri e r s may not 
unre a s o n a b l y disc r imi n a t e ”). 
Thus, any variat i o n among the ARCs that a holdi n g comp a n y ’ s diffe r e n t 
subsid i a r y LECs in differe n t states ch arge their custom e r s does not implic a t e 
§ 202(a).  Indeed, that has been settl e d la w for more than 30 years:  § 202(a) has 
never “req u i r e[d] that [tarif f] charges be id enti c a l in each st ate.  Rather, it is to be 
expect e d under the statut o r y scheme that  there will be variat i o n s from state to 
state.”  Diamond Int’l Corp. v. FCC , 627 F.2d 489, 493 n.7 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (per 
curi a m). 
C O N C L U S I O N 
For the foreg o i n g reaso n s, and those set forth in the FCC’s brief, the Court 
shoul d deny NASUCA’s petit i o n for revie w. 
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 34     
 6 
 
 
   /s/ Heather M. Zacha r y   
HEATHER M. Z ACHARY 
KELLY P. DUNBAR 
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING 
   HALE AND DORR LLP 
1875 Pennsylv a n i a Avenue, N.W. 
Washingto n, D.C. 20006 
(202) 663-6000 
heather.zachar y @ w i l m e r h a l e.com 
 
CATHY CARPINO 
GARY L. PHILLIPS 
PEGGY GARBER 
AT&T  SERVICES, INC. 
1120 20th Street, N.W. 
Washingto n, D.C. 20036 
(202) 457-3058 
 
Counsel for AT&T Inc.  
Respectf u l l y submi t t e d, 
 
   /s/ Scott H. Angstreic h                       
SCOTT  H. ANGSTREICH 
BRENDAN J. CRIMMINS 
JOSHUA D. BRANSON 
KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, 
   EVANS &  FIGEL, P.L.L.C. 
1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400 
Washingto n, D.C. 20036 
(202) 326-7900 
sangstr e i c h @ k h h t e.com 
 
MICHAEL E. GLOVER 
CHRISTOPHER M. MILLER 
CURTIS L. GROVES 
VERIZON  
1320 North Courtho u s e Road, 9th Floor 
Arlingto n, Virginia 22201 
(703) 351-3071 
 
Counsel for Verizon and Verizon Wirel e s s 
 
July 2013     
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 35     
  
C E R T I F I C A T E OF COMPL I A N C E  
 
Certif i c a t e of Compl i a n c e Wi th Type-V o l u m e Limita t i o n s , 
Typeface Requirem e n t s , Ty pe Style Requi r e m e n t s , 
and Priva c y Redac t i o n Requi r e m e n t s  
 
1. This brief conta i n s 991 words of th e 21,400 words the Court alloc a t e d for 
the brief s of inter v e n o r s in suppo r t of  the FCC in its October 1, 2012 Order 
Consolid a ti n g Case No. 12-9575 with Other FCC 11-161 Cases, Establis h i n g 
Windstre a m Briefing Schedule, and Modify ing Interveno r Participa t i o n.  The 
interv e n o r s in suppo r t of the FCC have comp l i e d with the type-volume limit a t i o n 
of that order becau s e their brief s, comb i n e d, conta i n a total of fewer than 21,400 
words, exclud i n g the parts of those br ief s exemp t e d by Fed. R. App. P. 
32(a)(7)(B)(iii).  
 
2. This brief co mp li e s with the typefa c e  requi r e m e n t s of Fed. R. App. P. 
32(a)(5) and 10th Cir. R. 32(a) and the type  style requi r e men t s of Fed. R. App. P. 
32(a)(6) because this brief has been prep ar e d in a propor t i o n a l l y spaced typefa c e 
using Microsof t Word 2007 in 14- point Times New Roman font.  
 
3. All requir e d priva c y red ac t i o n s have been made.  
 
 
  
             /s/  Scott H. Angstreic h 
Scott H. Angstreic h 
 
July 9, 2013 
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 36     
C E R T I FI C A T E OF DI GITAL SUBMIS S I O N 
Certi f i c a t e of Compl i a n c e wi th Virus Scan  
 
The Combined Respons e s of Federal Responde n ts and Supporti n g 
Interve n o r s to the National Asociati o n of  State Utility Consumer Advocate s ’ Brief 
were scann e d for virus e s with Sy mante c Endpoin t Protect i o n, versi o n 
11.0.7200.1147, updated on July 29, 2013, and accor d i n g to the progr a m are free 
of viruse s. 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Laurence N. Bourne 
Laurence N. Bourne 
Counsel 
 
July 29, 2013 
  
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 37     
C E R T I FI C A T E OF SERVI C E 
 
 
I hereby certi f y that on July 29, 2013, I caused the foreg o i n g Combined 
Respons e s of Federal Respond e n t s and Su pporti n g Interve n o r s to the National 
Asociati o n of State Utility Consumer Advo cate s ’ Brief to be filed by delive r i n g a 
copy to the Court via e-ma il at FCC_briefs _ o n l y @ ca10. uscour t s.gov. I furthe r 
certi f y that the foreg o i n g docum e n t will be  furni s h e d by the C ourt throu g h (ECF) 
electro n i c servi c e to all partie s in this case throug h a regist e r e d CM/ECF user. This 
docume n t will be av aila b l e for viewin g and downl o a d i n g on the CM/ECF system. 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Laurence N. Bourne 
Laurence N. Bourne 
Counsel 
 
 
July 29, 2013  
Appellate Case: 11-9900     Document: 01019099633     Date Filed: 07/29/2013     Page: 38