5.1.1 13-State Amendment (Issue Nos.: NIM 4, 8, 12; Reciprocal Compensation 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 16)

The FAR adopts MCIm's position that these issues are not now ripe, or are moot, because they are currently governed by a 13-State Amendment through at least July 1, 2007. SBC-CA does not disagree that the 13-State Amendment now controls, saying the 13-State Amendment "will supersede any inconsistent terms in the ICA currently being arbitrated." (SBC-CA Opening Brief, page 139.)

Nonetheless, SBC-CA continues to argue in its June 14, 2006 statement that the FAR must be reversed because the issues will be in dispute after July 1, 2007, long before the termination of this replacement ICA (said by SBC-CA to be about mid-2009). We are not persuaded.

The FAR correctly finds for MCIm. Parties have a history of extending this and other agreements when reasonable and appropriate. The outcome here will be affected by events over the next year, including a possible FCC order on intercarrier compensation. It is unnecessary, unwise and a poor use of resources for the Commission to decide issues not currently in dispute only because they might be in dispute at a future time. Further, to do so now might prejudice parties' renegotiations and potential compromises over the course of the next several months or years.

Moreover, the FAR adopts a reasonable approach for Commission involvement in future dispute resolution, if needed. That is, the FAR notes parties may use the dispute resolution procedure in the ICA if they wish. The only requirement is that they notify the Commission and the service list of that choice.

Alternatively, if a dispute remains in 2007 (and parties have not agreed to extend the terms of the 13-State Amendment), SBC-CA is directed by April 1, 2007 to file an application for further arbitration limited to these 10 issues. If no new facts have emerged by April 1, 2007, parties may simply propose that the existing record in this matter (A.05-05-027) be used to resolve the disputes, including adoption of a proposed schedule in the FAR which provides the opportunity for a timely Commission decision. If new disputed facts have emerged, however, that is precisely the reason why the Commission should not now decide these issues. Rather, the new facts should be considered before a decision is reached.

Thus, we affirm the outcome in the FAR.