Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Response to NASUCA Brief, In Re: 11-161, 11-9900 (10th Cir.)

Download Options

Released: March 18, 2013

Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019020709 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 1
FEDERAL RESPONDENTS’ UNCITED 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 AN ORDER OF THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WILLIAM J. BAER
SEAN A. LEV
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
GENERAL COUNSEL


ROBERT B. NICHOLSON
PETER KARANJIA
ROBERT J. WIGGERS
DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL
ATTORNEYS


RICHARD K. WELCH
UNITED STATES
DEPUTY ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530
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: 01019020709 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS


Table of Authorities.......................................................................................... ii 
Glossary ........................................................................................................... iv 
Issue Presented .................................................................................................. 1 
Introduction and Summary of Argument .......................................................... 1 
Argument ........................................................................................................... 4 
I.  The FCC Justified The ARC Under Specific Grants Of
Statutory Authority. ................................................................................... 4 
II.  The ARC Lawfully Recovers Both Interstate And Intrastate
Revenues That Are Reduced By ICC Reforms. ........................................ 6 
III.  The Order Lawfully Permits Eligible Recovery To Be
Allocated To ARCs On A Holding-Company Basis. ................................ 8 
Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 13 
i

Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019020709 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

 
AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366
(1999) ........................................................................................................3, 6
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council,
467 U.S. 837 (1984) ...................................................................................... 7
Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel v. FCC,
915 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1990) .......................................................................... 12
Nat’l Ass’n of Reg. Util. Comm’rs v. FCC, 737 F.2d
1095 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ............................................................................. 4, 10
Nat’l Ass’n of State Util. Consumer Advocates v.
FCC, 372 F.3d 454 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ............................................................. 8
Reservation 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

STATUTES

 
47 U.S.C. §201(b)..................................................................................... 3, 5, 6
47 U.S.C. §202(a) ............................................................................................ 10
47 U.S.C. §251(b)(5) ................................................................................ 3, 5, 6
47 U.S.C. §405(a) ................................................................................... 3, 5, 10
ii

Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019020709 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 4

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

 
Access Charge Reform, 12 FCC Rcd 15982 (1997),
aff’d Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. FCC, 153 F.3d 523 (8th
Cir. 1998) ....................................................................................................... 8
Access Charge Reform, 15 FCC Rcd 12962 (2000),
aff’d in pertinent part, Texas Office of Pub. Util.
Counsel v. FCC
, 265 F.3d 313 (5th Cir. 2001) ............................................. 8



iii

Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019020709 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 5

GLOSSARY

ARC


Access Recovery Charge
Br.


Petitioner’s Brief
CAF


Connect America Fund
FCC


Federal Communications Commission
ICC


Intercarrier Compensation
ILEC


Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier
JA


Joint Appendix
LEC


Local Exchange Carrier
NASUCA
National Association of State Utility
Consumer Advocates
SLC
Subscriber Line Charge



iv

Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019020709 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 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 AN ORDER OF
THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

FEDERAL RESPONDENTS’ UNCITED RESPONSE TO THE BRIEF OF THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF STATE UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATES

ISSUE PRESENTED

Whether the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) lawfully
established a transitional Access Recovery Charge (“ARC”) that incumbent
local exchange carriers (“incumbent LECs” or “ILECs”) may charge their
end-user customers to recover some of the revenues that are reduced pursuant
to the agency’s intercarrier compensation (“ICC”) reforms.

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

In the Order on review,1 the FCC started a comprehensive reform of
the way local exchange carriers are compensated when they exchange
telecommunications with other telecommunications providers. The revised
regime “phase[s] out regulated per-minute intercarrier … charges,” Order

1 Connect America Fund, 26 FCC Rcd 17663 (2011) (“Order”) (JA__).

Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019020709 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 7
¶736 (JA__), and replaces them over time with “a uniform national bill-and-
keep framework as the ultimate end state for all telecommunications traffic
exchanged with a LEC,” id. ¶34 (JA__). The FCC determined that a bill-and-
keep framework – under which the LEC looks to its own subscribers (and, if
necessary, explicit universal service subsidies) to recover its network costs
(id. ¶737 (JA__)) – would “eliminat[e] the existing opaque implicit subsidy
system under which consumers pay” billions of dollars to support other
carriers’ networks, and would help ensure that “consumers pay only for
services that they choose and receive.” Id. ¶738 (JA__); see also id. ¶¶748-
751 (JA__-__). The FCC also determined that a bill-and-keep framework
was well within its authority to replace implicit subsidies with explicit ones
and to adopt a regulatory framework for telecommunications traffic that
LECs exchange with other providers. See Order ¶¶747, 760-781 (JA__-__);
see also FCC Preliminary Brief 32-37.
To implement its bill-and-keep methodology, the FCC established a
transitional federally-tariffed ARC that incumbent LECs may bill to their end
users. Id. ¶¶906-916 (JA__-__). The ARC is part of a recovery mechanism
(which also includes direct subsidies from the Connect America Fund
(“CAF”)) that the FCC established to enable incumbent LECs to recover
some of the intercarrier compensation revenues that the Order reduces over
2

Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019020709 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 8
time. Id. ¶905 (JA__); see generally Argument II of the FCC’s Principal ICC
Brief (describing the operation of the recovery mechanism).
Petitioner National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates
(“NASUCA”) challenges the lawfulness of the ARC in three respects.

I.

NASUCA contends (Br. 5-8) that the FCC failed to identify its legal
authority to adopt the ARC in the Order, and therefore cannot do so before
this Court. This claim is barred by 47 U.S.C. §405(a) because no party
presented it to the agency in the administrative proceedings below. Sorenson
Commc’ns, Inc. v. FCC, 659 F.3d 1035, 1044 (10th Cir. 2011) (“Sorenson
II”). The claim is baseless, in any event, because the FCC’s Order fully
explained the statutory basis for the ARC: 47 U.S.C. §§201(b) & 251(b)(5).
Order ¶¶760-781 (JA__-__).

II.

The FCC lawfully designed the ARC to recover intrastate, as well
as interstate, ICC revenues reduced under the reforms adopted in the Order.
Compare Br. 8-11. As the Supreme Court held in AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils.
Bd., 525 U.S. 366, 378 (1999) (“AT&T”), the FCC has authority to implement
section 251(b)(5), which requires LECs to “establish reciprocal compensation
arrangements for the transport and termination of telecommunications.” That
provision plainly covers intrastate telecommunications. See Order ¶761
3

Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019020709 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 9
(JA__). Accordingly, under established Supreme Court precedent, the FCC
acted lawfully in establishing the ARC to recover intrastate revenues.

III.

The Court also should reject NASUCA’s assertion (Br. 11-13) that
it was arbitrary, and unlawfully discriminatory, for the FCC to permit ILECs
to determine “at the holding company level” how eligible recovery will be
allocated among subsidiary ILECs’ ARCs. NASUCA’s discrimination claim
is barred by section 405(a) because it was not presented to the agency. Its
claim fails on the merits, in any event, because the FCC provided a “neutral,
rational basis” for the holding-company 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 explained, that rule spreads out ARC recovery over a broader class of
customers and helps reduce burdens on the CAF at the same time it maintains
consumer protections to ensure that end-user rates remain reasonable. Order
¶910 (JA__). Although NASUCA may disagree with the FCC’s policy
judgment, the agency’s balancing of factors is entitled to significant
deference and should be affirmed.

ARGUMENT

I.

THE FCC JUSTIFIED THE ARC UNDER SPECIFIC
GRANTS OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY.

The Court should dismiss NASUCA’s claim (Br. 5-8) that the FCC
failed to cite any authority for the ARC. No one presented this argument
4

Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019020709 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 10
before the FCC. It thus is barred by section 405(a) of the Communications
Act, which prevents review of “questions of fact or law upon which the
[FCC] … has been afforded no opportunity to pass.” 47 U.S.C. §405(a);
accord Sorenson 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 meritless, in any event, because the agency set out in
detail its statutory authority to adopt the ICC reforms of which the ARC is a
part. Order ¶¶760-781 (JA__-__). The FCC determined that 47 U.S.C.
§§201(b) & 251(b)(5), among other provisions, empowered it to adopt rules
establishing how LECs are compensated when they exchange traffic that
originates or terminates on their networks. Order ¶760 (JA__). Acting under
those provisions, the FCC adopted bill-and-keep as the end point of its ICC
reforms, while allowing a gradual transition from the existing regime. Order
¶¶736-739 (JA__-__). Because the ARC provides a portion of the
compensation ILECs may receive during that transition, id ¶¶906-916 (JA__-
__), and forms an integral part of the overarching mechanism for
transitioning to bill-and-keep, it falls squarely within the Order’s detailed
5

Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019020709 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 11
explanation of the agency’s statutory authority to adopt a bill-and-keep
framework, id. ¶¶760-81 (JA__-__).2

II.

THE ARC LAWFULLY RECOVERS BOTH INTERSTATE
AND INTRASTATE REVENUES THAT ARE REDUCED
BY ICC REFORMS.

NASUCA argues (Br. 8-11) that the FCC lacks authority to regulate
intrastate access traffic and that the ARC therefore must be unlawful, because
it is designed to offset reductions in intrastate (as well as interstate) access
charges. This claim is baseless.
The FCC reasonably found authority to adopt rules governing all
telecommunications – intrastate, as well as interstate – exchanged with a
LEC. See Order ¶¶760-762 (JA__-__). The FCC explained that the Supreme
Court had confirmed its authority under 47 U.S.C. §201(b) to adopt rules
implementing the Communications Act, including section 251(b)(5). Id.
¶760 (JA__) (citing AT&T, 525 U.S. at 378). The agency further determined
that section 251(b)(5), by its terms, covers intrastate “telecommunications”
exchanged with a LEC. Order ¶761 (JA__). Because the ARC recovers
some of the intrastate access revenues reduced by the Order pursuant to that
federal authority, the ARC falls well within the FCC’s statutory powers. The

2 NASUCA’s argument (Br. 6-8) that the FCC lacks ancillary authority to
adopt the ARC is irrelevant because the FCC never invoked such authority
for the ARC.
6

Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019020709 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 12
FCC’s reasonable construction of the statute is entitled to deference under
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). See
FCC Principal ICC Brief, Argument I (explaining in detail the FCC’s
statutory authority to adopt comprehensive ICC reform).
In light of this statutory authority for establishing the ARC, NASUCA
misses the point in emphasizing (Br. 8-11) that the FCC’s earlier precedents
involving interstate access charges do not themselves establish the agency’s
authority for the ARC. The FCC merely mentioned those precedents as
examples of analogous reforms the agency had previously undertaken. Order
¶852 (JA__); see also id. ¶¶906-916 (JA__-__).
In those prior decisions, which were upheld on judicial review, the
FCC had moved incrementally to phase out certain per-minute interstate
charges that LECs had imposed on long-distance carriers, in favor of flat
monthly end-user charges (called “subscriber line charges” or “SLCs”) that
did not vary with subscribers’ usage. The FCC determined that switching
from intercarrier charges to end-user charges would better reflect cost-
causation principles and reduce implicit subsidies that had been embedded
7

Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019020709 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 13
within the intercarrier charges.3 These decisions fully support the
reasonableness of the ICC reforms adopted in the Order.

III. THE ORDER

LAWFULLY PERMITS ELIGIBLE

RECOVERY TO BE ALLOCATED TO ARCS ON A
HOLDING-COMPANY BASIS.

In designing the ARC, the FCC adopted numerous safeguards to ensure
that consumers will see only small increases in their monthly bills. It capped
at $0.50 per year any increases in the monthly ARC charged to residential
and single-line business customers. Order ¶909 (JA___). It capped at $1.00
(per line) per year any increases in the monthly ARC for multi-line business
customers, and it required “potential revenue from such increases to be
imputed to carriers” – whether or not they actually imposed those charges –
thereby reducing the revenues eligible for recovery through ARCs charged to
residential consumers. Id. Price cap LECs may adopt annual increases in the
ARC for only five years, and rate-of-return LECs for only six years. Id. ¶908
(JA__). Additionally, the FCC adopted a $30.00 per month residential rate

3 See, e.g., Access Charge Reform, 12 FCC Rcd 15982, 16007-09 ¶¶69-71
(1997), aff’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), aff’d
in pertinent 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) (describing
migration from intercarrier charges to end-user charges and rejecting
NASUCA’s challenge to that process).
8

Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019020709 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 14
ceiling for both price cap and rate-of-return LECs, id. ¶913 (JA__), so that a
LEC may not charge residential consumers an ARC if it would drive above
$30.00 the consumer’s aggregate monthly bill for the federal SLC, the ARC,
and assorted local service charges, id. ¶¶913-914 (JA__-__).
Subject to these consumer protections, the FCC also allowed parent
ILEC holding companies to pool the amounts their subsidiary ILECs are
eligible to recover under the Order, and then reallocate those amounts among
the ILEC subsidiaries for purposes of calculating the ARCs that each may
charge. Id. ¶910 (JA__). This does not alter the total revenues that the
related ILECs collectively may recover, but it does potentially affect the
amount and source of each subsidiary ILEC’s recovery.4 Assume, for
example, that Holding Company X has two ILEC subsidiaries – ILEC A and
ILEC B. Assume, further, that a $0.25 ARC increase (below the $0.50
annual cap on ARC increases) will recover all of ILEC A’s eligible recovery

4 The Order’s methodology for calculating eligible recovery allows each
ILEC to recover a portion of its annual reduction in ICC revenues resulting
from reform. For any given carrier, the size of the required annual reduction
depends on the level of its existing charges for the rate elements subject to
reform. See Order ¶801 & Figure 9 (JA__-__) (showing timetable and size
of intercarrier rate reductions); id ¶¶867-920 (JA__-__) (describing recovery
mechanism). Because each carrier’s existing ICC rate levels are likely to
differ (depending on prior state regulatory policies), the calculation of any
two ILECs’ eligible recoveries under the FCC’s reforms is likely to yield
different results.
9

Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019020709 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 15
in Oklahoma, without resort to CAF subsidies. And assume that a full $0.50
ARC increase by ILEC B in Colorado is insufficient to recover all of that
company’s eligible recovery without turning to explicit subsidies from the
CAF. The holding-company rule permits the carriers to reallocate some of
ILEC B’s eligible recovery to ILEC A, thus permitting ILEC A to recover
more of the companies’ combined eligible revenues through the ARC, while
requiring ILEC B to make offsetting reductions in its subsidy demands on the
CAF.
NASUCA argues that the holding-company rule requires “consumers
in states that have previously reduced their intrastate access charges as well as
jurisdictions that have no such charges” to “pick up the burden from states
that have not done so” – an outcome it characterizes as arbitrary and contrary
to the statutory prohibition against “‘unjust or unreasonable discrimination in
charges.’” Br. 12, 13 (quoting 47 U.S.C. §202(a)).
The Court should not consider NASUCA’s unreasonable
discrimination claim because it was not presented to the FCC. See 47 U.S.C.
§405(a); Sorenson II, 659 F.3d at 1044.
NASUCA’s challenge is unsound in any event. By its terms, section
202(a) prohibits only “unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges.” 47
U.S.C. §202(a) (emphasis added); see also NARUC, 737 F.2d at 1133
10

Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019020709 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 16
(section 202(a) addresses “unjustifiably different rates for the same service”)
(emphasis added). That provision does not bar rates that have “a neutral,
rational basis.” NARUC, 737 F.2d at 1133; accord Reservation Tel. Coop. v.
FCC, 826 F.2d 1129, 1136 (D.C. Cir. 1987). The ARC rates that the Order
permits pursuant to the holding-company rule have such a neutral and rational
basis.
First, allowing eligible revenue recovery to be reallocated among
subsidiary ILECs enables carriers to “spread the recovery” through the ARC
“among a broader set of customers,” thereby potentially “minimizing the
increase experienced by any one customer.” Order ¶910 (JA__). Second, by
enabling a holding company’s subsidiary ILECs (as a group) to receive a
higher proportion of their overall eligible recovery through the ARC, the
holding-company rule “limit[s] the potential impact on the CAF,” which
provides carriers with direct subsidies if the ARC is insufficient to generate
all of the revenues to which carriers are entitled. Id.; see also id. ¶¶917-919
11

Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019020709 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 17
(JA__-__) (describing the role of the CAF under the recovery mechanism).5
Third, while the holding-company rule provides these benefits, “[t]he ARC’s
modest and capped size, its interim nature, … [its revenue imputation
feature], … [and] the $30 Residential Rate Ceiling” all combine to “ensure
that overall rates remain affordable and set at reasonable levels.” Order
n.1791 (JA__). The FCC “enjoys broad discretion” when conducting such
balancing, particularly in the universal service context. RCA, 588 F.3d at
1103.
Finally, Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel v. FCC, 915 F.2d 75
(2d Cir. 1990), undermines rather than supports NASUCA’s discrimination
claim. See Br. 13. Although the court in that case upheld an FCC decision to
permit AT&T to pass through to its Connecticut customers, alone, the costs
of that state’s gross receipts tax, it did not hold that state-specific costs
always must be recovered from in-state consumers to avoid unlawful
discrimination. Indeed, the court acknowledged the lawfulness of the
underlying interstate regulatory regime at the time, which, in general, called

5 Although NASUCA complains that the holding-company rule may require
consumers to pay higher ARCs in some states to cover revenue losses in other
states, a similar result would occur if the absence of the rule led to increased
demands on the CAF. That is so because CAF funds are recovered through
contributions from telecommunications providers nationwide and are “almost
always pass[ed on] … to their customers.” Rural Cellular Ass’n v. FCC, 588
F.3d 1095, 1099 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“RCA”).
12

Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019020709 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 18
for ratemaking on the basis of a nationwide pooling of fixed costs across state
lines. Id. at 76-77, 79. Like the holding-company rule here, that nationwide
system of pooling lawfully permitted carriers to recover some costs incurred
in one state through charges imposed on customers in other states.

CONCLUSION

The petition for review should be dismissed in part and otherwise
denied.

Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM J. BAER
SEAN A. LEV
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
GENERAL COUNSEL


ROBERT B. NICHOLSON
PETER KARANJIA
ROBERT J. WIGGERS
DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL
ATTORNEYS


RICHARD K. WELCH
UNITED STATES
DEPUTY ASSOCIATE GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
COUNSEL
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530


/s/ Laurence N. Bourne

LAURENCE N. BOURNE
JAMES M. CARR
MAUREEN K. FLOOD
COUNSEL

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554
(202) 418-1740

March 18, 2013
13

Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019020709 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 19

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Certificate of Compliance With Type-Volume Limitations, Typeface

Requirements, Type Style Requirements, Privacy Redaction

Requirements, and Virus Scan


1.
This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of the Second Briefing
Order. It does not exceed 15% of the size of the brief to which it is responding. The
Uncited Brief of The National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates
was certified to be 2,429 words in length. Therefore, the FCC may file a response
brief up to 2,793 words in length. This brief contains 2,570 words, excluding the
parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii).

2.
This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(5) and 10th Cir. R. 32(a) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(6) because this filing has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface
using Microsoft Word 2010 in 14-point Times New Roman font.

3.
All required privacy redactions have been made.

4.
This brief was scanned for viruses with Symantec Endpoint Protection,
version 11.0.7200.1147, updated on March 17, 2013, and according to the program
is free of viruses.




/s/ Laurence N. Bourne
Laurence N. Bourne
Counsel


March 18, 2013









Appellate Case: 11-9900 Document: 01019020709 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 20

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE



I hereby certify that on March 18, 2013, I caused the foregoing Federal
Respondents’ Uncited Response to the Brief of The National Association of State
Utility Consumer Advocates to be filed by delivering a copy to the Court via e-
mail at FCC_briefs_only@ca10.uscourts.gov. I further certify that the foregoing
document will be furnished by the Court through (ECF) electronic service to all
parties in this case through a registered CM/ECF user. This document will be
available for viewing and downloading on the CM/ECF system.




/s/ Laurence N. Bourne
Laurence N. Bourne
Counsel


March 18, 2013 

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.