5. Arbitrated Portions of Amendment to ICA
The Act permits rejection of the ICA (or portions thereof) adopted by arbitration only if the Commission finds that the ICA does not meet the requirements of Section 251 of the Act, including the regulations prescribed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) pursuant to Section 251, or the standards set forth in Section 252(d) of the Act.2 The Commission may also reject an ICA (or portions thereof) if we find that it violates other requirements of the Commission, including, but not limited to, quality of service standards. (Commission Resolution ALJ-181, Rule 4.2.3.)
In its June 14, 2006 statement filed with the conformed ICA, AT&T-CA contends that potions of the ICA fail the tests for arbitrated agreements. In particular, AT&T-CA asserts that the conformed ICA fails tests in 6 areas covering 18 issues. AT&T-CA also argues that the FAR correctly decides issues in other areas, particularly in its holding that entrance facilities are not available at total element long run incremental cost (TELRIC) rates.
In its June 14, 2006 statement, Verizon Business says the ICA does not meet the standards for approval and requests two forms of relief. First, Verizon Business seeks a Commission statement that the TRO/TRRO Amendment resulting from Decision (D.) 06-01-043 in A.05-07-024 (AT&T-CA's TRO/TRRO consolidated arbitration with MCIm and other CLECs) governs the relationship under the conformed ICA adopted here. This would effectively reverse the Arbitrator's June 2, 2006 denial of Verizon Business's motion for addendum to the FAR. Second, Verizon Business asks that parties be directed to include in the conformed ICA here the interconnection rates for entrance facilities and Signaling System 7 (SS7) adopted by the Commission as part of TRO/TRRO Amendment in D.06-01-043.
We address each item in turn.
5.1 AT&T-CA
AT&T-CA seeks reversal of the FAR in 6 areas covering 18 issues.
2 Section 251 describes the interconnection standards. Section 252(d) identifies pricing standards.
