Click here for Microsoft Word Version

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Word or WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version (above).


                              Before the
                    Federal Communications Commission
                         Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                  )
C.F. Communications Corp., et     )    EB Docket No. 01-99
al.,                              )
           Complainants,          )    File Nos. E-89-170, E-89-
                                )    171, E-89-172, E-89-179, E-
                v.                )    89-180, E-89-181, E-89-182, 
                                )    E-92-97, E-93-34, E-93-35, 
Century Telephone of Wisconsin,   )    E-93-36, E-93-37, E-93-38, 
Inc., et al.,                     )    E-93-39, E-93-40, E-93-41, 
                                )    E-93-42, E-93-43, E-93-44, 
Defendants.                       )    E-93-45, E-93-46, E-93-47, 
                                )    E-93-48, E-93-49, E-93-50, 
                                     E-93-56, E-93-57, E-93-58, 
                                     E-93-59, E-93-60, E-93-61, 
                                     E-93-62, E-93-73, E-93-74, 
                    HEARING DESIGNATION ORDER 

   Adopted:  April 20, 2001             Released:  April 24, 2001

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:


    1.    Pursuant to the Commission's rules,1 we initiate a 
      consolidated hearing in this Hearing Designation Order 
      (``HDO'') for the above-captioned formal complaints to 
      determine the Complainants' damages.2  The Commission has 
      previously ruled that the defendant local exchange 
      carriers (``LECs'' or ``Defendants'') violated section 
      201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
      (``Act'') and Part 69 of the Commissions' rules3 by 
      improperly assessing End User Common Line (``EUCL'') 
      charges upon the Complainants, a group of independent 
      payphone providers (``IPPs'' or ``Complainants'').4  This 
      HDO resolves certain outstanding issues and refers others, 
      including whether Complainants are entitled to an award of 
      damages, to an Administrative Law Judge (``ALJ''). 


     II.A.     Procedural Status

    2.    A number of LECs have sought review of the Liability 
      Order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.5  
      Also, several IPPs have sought review of the 
      Reconsideration Order in that Court.6  The Court has not 
      issued a ruling to date in either case.  Sprint recommends 
      that the hearing be held in abeyance pending resolution of 
      the Liability Order's appeal.7  We reject this proposal 
      because we believe that proceeding promptly and 
      efficiently with the disposition of the claims for damages 
      will provide guidance in other similar disputes currently 
      before the Commission.8 

    3.    Pursuant to its finding that Defendants were liable for 
      the improper assessment of EUCL charges, the Commission 
      authorized Complainants to file supplemental complaints 
      for damages.9  In order to facilitate settlement 
      discussions, the Commission temporarily waived the 60-day 
      deadline for filing such complaints and stated that a 
      filing date would be announced at a status conference with 
      all the parties.10  During the status conference, 
      Enforcement Bureau staff informed the parties that the 
      damages phase of this proceeding could well be referred to 
      an ALJ for formal hearings.11  The parties were directed 
      to file proposed HDOs, as well as comments reflecting 
      their views on how any such hearing should proceed.12  
      After review of these proposed HDOs and consideration of 
      the accompanying comments, we designate the above-
      captioned complaints for hearing before an ALJ in the 
      manner set forth below. 13  

     II.B.     The End User Common Line Charge

    4.    During the period at issue in these cases, the 
      application of the end user common line charge on payphone 
      providers depended on whether or not a payphone was 
      ``public'' or ``semi-public.''14  In 1983, the Commission 
      created the public/semi-public distinction, explaining 
      that "[a] pay telephone is used to provide semi-public 
      telephone service when there is a combination of general 
      public and specific customer need for the service, such as 
      at a gasoline station or pizza parlor."15  By contrast, 
      "[a] pay telephone is used to provide public telephone 
      service when a public need exists, such as at ``an airport 
      lobby, at the option of the telephone company and with the 
      agreement of the owner of the property on which the phone 
      is placed."16

    5.    Given that the end users of public payphones are the 
      ``transient general public,'' the Commission determined 
      that the owners and operators of these payphones would not 
      be assessed a EUCL charge because there was no fair and 
      practical mechanism for passing the charge on to the 
      actual cost causers, i.e., the end user callers.17  Yet, 
      the Commission held that payphones classified as "semi-
      public" would be subject to a EUCL charge.18  Amendments 
      to the Commission's rules following passage of the 
      Telecommunications Act of 1996 mandate that both IPPs and 
      LECs pay EUCL charges for all of their payphones, and thus 
      this proceeding concerns rules that are not currently in 

     II.C.     The Commission's Liability Order

          II.C.1.   IPPs Not End Users

    6.    The Commission's Liability Order responded to the 
      court's remand of an earlier Commission ruling.20   The 
      Commission's earlier ruling held that IPP payphones were 
      subject to a EUCL charge because the IPPs were "end users" 
      pursuant to section 69.2(m) of the rules.21  But on remand 
      from an appeal of that decision, the Commission reversed 
      itself and concluded in the Liability Order that, although 
      C.F. Communications and other IPPs own the payphones, they 
      cannot be considered "end users" under section 69.2(m), 
      because they do not own the premises where their payphones 
      are located.22  

          II.C.2.   IPPs Must Pay EUCL Charge

    7.    Nonetheless, the Liability Order did not relieve the 
      IPPs of the obligation to pay EUCL charges for their use 
      of the Defendants' common lines in all instances.  The 
      Commission concluded that, irrespective of whether an IPP 
      was an ``end user,'' the primary determination... was 
      whether the payphone is ``public'' or ``semi-public.''23  
      The Liability Order found that the LECs chose to assess 
      EUCL charges on all IPP payphones without regard to where 
      they were located or the manner in which they were used.24  
      The Liability Order concluded that the Defendants had 
      imposed an unreasonable charge in violation of section 
      201(b)25 and Part 69 of the Commission's rules to the 
      extent that they assessed and collected EUCL charges 
      against the Complainants' public payphones.26 


     III.A.    Untimely Issues

    8.    When the Bureau sought proposed HDOs from the parties, 
      it stated that parties could also submit comments 
      regarding the procedure of the hearing.27  A number of 
      Complainants, however, included numerous substantive 
      arguments apparently intended to expand the scope of their 
      damages complaints.28  Each of these arguments is rejected 
      as untimely because each should have been raised in a 
      timely filed reconsideration petition to the Liability 
      Order.29  Complainants are, therefore, barred from 
      asserting any of these claims in their supplemental 

     III.B.    Statute of Limitations

    9.    In this section, we address various arguments raised by 
      the parties regarding the statute of limitations.

          III.B.1.  October 1997 Court of Appeals Decision

    10.   Certain Complainants contend that the ``cause of action 
      for recovery of EUCL charges did not accrue for purposes 
      of the two year statute of limitations set forth in 47 
      U.S.C.  415 until the October 1997 decision by the Court 
      of Appeals'' to enable ``each complainant to recover all 
      EUCL charges they incurred so long as they filed a formal 
      complaint no later than two years after that decision.''30  
      Because all of the complaints at issue in this HDO were 
      filed well before 1997, we find that this argument is 
      irrelevant and decline to address it at this juncture.31

          III.B.2.  American Public Communication Council 

    11.   Certain Complainants argue that a 1989 Petition for 
      Declaratory Ruling filed by the American Public 
      Communications Council (``APCC'') concerning the EUCL 
      assessment on IPPs should be considered a section 208 
      complaint.32  In its view, such a complaint would enable 
      some or all of the Complainants (who are APCC members) to 
      recover damages for the two-year period prior to the 
      filing of that 1989 petition.  We note, however, that APCC 
      did not invoke the section 208 process and did not seek 
      any damages in its petition.  Moreover, our formal 
      complaint filing rules in effect at that time did not 
      provide for such petitions to be converted into formal 
      complaints.  Thus, APCC's petition cannot be deemed a 
      section 208 complaint.  

          III.B.3.  Damages Recovery Back To September 6, 1995

    12.   Certain Complainants also contend that Complainants who 
      filed their complaints after September 6, 1995 -- the date 
      the Commission issued the order33 upholding the Bureau's 
      denial of the complaints -- should be permitted to recover 
      EUCL damages back to September 6, 1993.34  These Certain 
      Complainants assert that the Common Carrier Bureau's 
      October 14, 1993 Order35 and the Commission's September 6, 
      1995 Order denying them the relief they sought ``made it 
      futile'' for Complainants to file complaints for EUCL 
      charges at that time.  Because the last complaint at issue 
      in this proceeding was filed in 1993, we decline to 
      address this argument at this time, as it is irrelevant to 
      any of the complaints affected by this HDO.     

     III.C.    Equity Considerations

    13.   Because the LECs assessed EUCL charges indiscriminately 
      on the IPPs' public and semi-public payphones, Certain 
      Complainants contend that Defendants are estopped from 
      claiming EUCL charges for Complainants' semi-public 
      payphones.36  We reject this view.  As a way of recovering 
      their costs, the LECs were lawfully entitled to assess the 
      EUCL on semi-public payphones.  Thus, the Defendants may 
      retain the EUCL charge for the IPPs' semi-public 


     A.   Procedural and Evidentiary Rules

    14.   This Proceeding shall be governed by section 1.201 
      through 1.36437 of the Commission's rules of practice for 
      hearing proceedings, to the extent practicable for the 
      adjudication of these issues.38  The ALJ may, in his 
      discretion, require that the parties submit all or any 
      portion of their case in writing if he determines that 
      such written submission would contribute significantly to 
      the disposition of the proceeding.39  

     IV.A.     Consolidation

    15.   We conclude that consolidating the supplemental 
      complaints into a single proceeding will provide greater 
      administrative efficiency.40 

     IV.B.     Statute Of Limitations

    16.   Consistent with prior Commission precedent, when ruling 
      on the time period of a damages complaint, the ALJ must 
      consider the following elements. 

    17.   Complaints for damages are subject to a two-year 
      statute of limitations period starting from the date on 
      which the formal complaint was filed.41  Several 
      Complainants may have filed informal complaints about 
      improper EUCL charges prior to their filing of formal 
      complaints.  The Liability Order states, pursuant to 
      section 1.718 of the Commission's rules, that a formal 
      complaint is deemed to relate back to the filing of an 
      informal complaint if the formal complaint: (1) is filed 
      within six months from the date of the carrier's response 
      to the informal complaint; (2) makes reference to the date 
      of the informal complaint; and, (3) is based on the same 
      cause of action as the informal complaint.42  If the 
      unsatisfied informal complainant fails to file a formal 
      complaint within the six-month period, the complainant is 
      deemed to have abandoned the informal complaint and the 
      statute of limitations runs from the date the formal 
      complaint was filed.43

    18.   In the Reconsideration Order, the Commission deferred 
      to the damages phase of this proceeding the issue of 
      whether each formal complaint for damages would qualify 
      under the relating back rules.44  Accordingly, 
      Complainants and Defendants may present arguments 
      concerning the application of the relating-back rule to 
      any particular complaint or Complainant. 

    19.   There is an outstanding issue as to whether Ascom is 
      subject to the same limitations period as its bankrupt 
      predecessor.45  We find that this issue requires a factual 
      determination which the Bureau cannot make without 
      additional information provided by Ascom.  We, therefore, 
      refer this issue to the ALJ for a decision.

     IV.C.     Discovery

    20.   Discovery shall be conducted in accordance with 
      sections 1.311-1.325 of the Commission's rules.46

     IV.D.     The Burdens of Proceeding and Burden of Proof

    21.   Complainants have both the burden of proceeding with 
      the introduction of evidence and the burden of proving 
      damages.47  Given the passage of time, determining the 
      exact number of public and semi-public payphones may be 
      difficult.  We therefore encourage the parties to consider 
      proxies that can be used to obtain a reasonable estimation 
      of that number.48

     IV.E.     Bureau Participation 

    22.   The Enforcement Bureau shall be a party to the 
      proceeding and will determine its level of participation, 
      as appropriate, on an issue-by-issue basis.  Pursuant to 
      section 1.47(c) of the Commission's rules, the Bureau 
      shall be served with documents in the same manner as other 


     V.A.      Measure of Damages

    23.   The scope of the hearing is limited to determining the 
      proper amount of damages to which Complainants are 
      entitled.49  The measure of damages is the amount of EUCL 
      payments Defendants assessed and collected from the 
      Complainants for their public payphones.50  Based on the 
      Liability Order's findings, each Complainant must 
      demonstrate the number of public payphones it had, under 
      the definition established in the First Reconsideration 
      Order,51 as clarified in the Liability Order,52 and the 
      amount of EUCL charges it paid for those public 
      payphones.53  In addition, each Complainant must calculate 
      the applicable amount of interest due on those improperly 
      assessed charges.54  

     V.B.      Defenses to Damages Claim

    24.   During the liability phase, the Commission rejected 
      Defendants' argument that Complainants had not been 
      damaged financially by the improper assessment of EUCL 
      charges.55  Given that this no-damages defense has been 
      thoroughly considered, Defendants are barred from raising 
      it during the hearing.  Defendants may, however, 
      demonstrate that the improperly assessed EUCL charges were 
      not paid. 


    25.   ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 
      4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 203(c), 206, 207 and 208 of the 
      Communications Act of 1934 as amended, 47 U.S.C.  
      151,154 (i), 154 (j), 201 (b), 203(c), 206, 207, and 208 
      and sections 0.111, 0.311, 1.722(d)(1) and 69.105(a) of 
      the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 
      1.722(d)(1) and 69.105(a), that the above-captioned 
      before an Administrative Law Judge, at a time and place to 
      be specified in a subsequent Order, upon the following 

    (1) To determine the relevant time period of each complaint 
pursuant to section 415 of the Act, section 1.718 of the 
Commission's rules, and the Waiver Order;            

   (2) To determine how many payphones each Complainant owned 
   during the period covered in issue (1) were ``public'';56

   (3)  To determine  the amount  of EUCL  charges paid  for  the 
``public'' payphones identified in Issue (2) above, over the time 
period determined under Issue (1) above;

   (4) To determine, in light of the evidence adduced under the 
   foregoing issues, the amount of damages, if any, to which 
   each Complainant is entitled;

   (5) To determine the amount of interest, if any, that each 
   Complainant shall be awarded.  

    26.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that to avail themselves of the 
      opportunity to be heard and the right to present evidence, 
      the designated parties, pursuant to section 1.221 (c) of 
      the Commission's rules SHALL FILE in triplicate, within 
      twenty (20) days of the mailing of this Order by the 
      Secretary, a WRITTEN NOTICE OF APPEARANCE, stating an 
      intention to appear on the date fixed for the hearing and 
      present evidence on the issues specified in this Order. 

    27.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the rules of practice and 
      procedure governing this hearing will be in accordance 
      with the Commission's Hearing Proceedings, 47 C.F.R.  
      1.201 - 1.364 subject to the ALJ's discretion to regulate 
      the hearing.  

    28.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that all Discovery shall be 
      conducted in accordance with 47 C.F.R.  1.311 - 1.325, 
      subject to the ALJ's discretion. 

    29.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Complainants shall have 
      both the burden of proceeding with the introduction of 
      evidence and the burden of proof on all issues.

    30.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Enforcement Bureau 
      shall be a party to the proceeding.

    31.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Secretary of the 
      Commission shall cause to have this Order published in the 
      Federal Register. 

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                              David H. Solomon, Chief
                              Enforcement Bureau
                           APPENDIX A

Alcazar Ltd.
American Payphone, Inc.
Ascom Communication, Inc
B.D.A. Sales Inc. 
Bell Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania
Best Payphones, Inc.
C&P Telephone Co. of Maryland
C&P Telephone Co. of Virginia
C.F. Communications Corp.
Carolina Telephone Co.
Century Telephone of Wisconsin, Inc.
Crescent Communications
GTE Florida, Inc.
GTE North, Inc. 
GTE South, Inc.
Just Telephone Inc. 
Kayson Communication
Michigan Bell Telephone Co.
Millicom Services Co.
Mosinee Telephone Co.
New England Telephone and Telegraph Co.
New Jersey Bell Telephone Co.
NYPAY Communications Co.
New York Pay Phone Systems, Inc.
New York Telephone Co.
North West Telephone Co.
Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
Telebeam Telephone
Turtle Lake Telephone Co.
United Telephone Co. of  Florida
United Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania
Utelco, Inc.
Wisconsin Bell, Inc.


1  47 C.F.R.  1.722(d)(1)  (``Issues concerning the amount,  if 
any, of  damages may  be either  designated by  the  Enforcement 
Bureau for hearing before, or,  if the parties agree,  submitted 
for mediation  to, a  Commission Administrative  Law  Judge.'').  
See also Implementation of  the Telecommunications Act of  1996, 
Amendment of  Rules Governing  Procedures  to Be  Followed  When 
Formal Complaints Are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report  and 
Order, 12 FCC  Rcd 22497,  22555 (1998);  Implementation of  the 
Telecommunications Act  of 1996,  Amendment of  Rules  Governing 
Procedures to  Be  Followed  When Formal  Complaints  Are  Filed 
Against Common  Carriers, Order  on Reconsideration,  FCC  01-78 
(rel. Mar. 7, 2001).

2  See Appendix A for a list of the parties.

3  47  U.S.C.   201(b);  47  C.F.R.   69.1  et  seq.   Unless 
otherwise indicated,  all  C.F.R.  references are  to  the  2000 
edition.  We refer to prior  C.F.R. editions in instances  where 
the prior rules were different than the current rules. 

4  C.F. Communications  Corp., et  al. v.  Century Telephone  of 
Wisconsin, Inc.,  et.  al.,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  on 
Remand, 15  FCC Rcd  8759 (2000)  (``Liability Order'');  recon. 
denied, 15  FCC  Rcd  22906  (2000).    This  order  reversed  a 
previous decision of the Commission that had been vacated by the 
D.C.  Circuit  and  remanded  to  the  Commission  for   further 
consideration consistent with  that court's  opinion.  See  C.F. 
Communications Corp.  v.  FCC, 128  F.3d  735 (D.C.  Cir.  1997) 
(``Appeals Court Decision''). 

5  In its  July 19, 2000  Reconsideration Order, the  Commission 
affirmed certain of its  determinations in the Liability  Order. 
C.F. Communications  Corp.,  et  al.  v.  Century  Telephone  of 
Wisconsin, Inc., et. al., Order  on Reconsideration, 15 FCC  Rcd 
22906 (2000)  (``Reconsideration  Order'').  See  Bell  Atlantic 
Telephone Companies,  et al.  v.  FCC,  No. 00-1207  (D.C.  Cir. 
filed May 15, 2000). 

6  See Alcazar Homes Ltd. d/b/a Alcazar Ltd., et al. v. FCC, No. 
00-1404 (D.C. Cir. filed Sept. 10, 2000).

7  Sprint Proposed HDO at 5 (filed Oct. 13, 2000).

8  There are many informal complaints from IPPs raising the same 
issues involved in the instant complaints.  See Liability Order, 
15 FCC Rcd at 8761.

9  Id. at 8771.

10  Id. 

11   See  Sept.  25,  2000  Letter  Ruling  from  Tejal   Mehta, 
Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to Counsel for Parties. File Nos. E-93-
060 through 62; E-93-074;  E-93-081; E-93-034 through 50;  E-93-
056 (``Letter Ruling'').   

12  Id.

13  We issue this designation  order pursuant to sections  4(i), 
4(j) and 208 (a)  of the Communications  Act and sections  0.111 
and 0.311 of the Commission's rules. 47 U.S.C.   154 (i),  154 
(j), 208 (a); 47  C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311.   See also 47 C.F.R.   

14  Liability Order,15 FCC Rcd at 8768.

15  MTS and WATS Market Structure, Order on Reconsideration,  97 
FCC 2d 682, 704, n.40 (1983) (``First Reconsideration  Order'').  
At the time  the Commission developed  this scheme for  payphone 
access charges, the only existing payphones were owned by LECs.  

16  Id. at 704, n.41.

17  Id. at 705.  

18  Id. at 706.  

19   See   Liability  Order,   15  FCC   Rcd  at   8761   citing 
Implementation  of  the   Pay  Telephone  Reclassification   and 
Compensation Provisions of the  Telecommunications Act of  1996, 
First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 20541,   187 (1996) (``First 
Payphone  Order'');   Implementation   of  the   Pay   Telephone 
Reclassification   and    Compensation   Provisions    of    the 
Telecommunications  Act   of   1996,   Report   and   Order   on 
Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 21233,  207 (1996).

20  See Appeals Court Decision, 128  F.3d at 742; see also  C.F. 
Communications Corp. v. Century Telephone of Wisconsin, Inc. et. 
al., Memorandum  Opinion  and Order,  8  FCC Rcd  7334,  7335-36 
(1993) (``Bureau Order''); C.F. Communications Corp. v.  Century 
Telephone of Wisconsin,  Inc., et. al.,  Memorandum Opinion  and 
Order, 10 FCC  Rcd 9775 (1995);  C.F. Communications Corp.,  et. 
al. v. Michigan  Bell Telephone Co.,  et. al., 12  FCC Rcd  2134 

21  The  Commission's ruling  was  pursuant to  section  69.2(m) 
which provides that "a carrier  other than a telephone  company" 
is an  end  user  when it  "offers  telecommunications  services 
exclusively as a reseller" and all of its "resale  transmissions 
... originate on the premises of such reseller."  Bureau  Order, 
8 FCC Rcd at 7336.  See also 47 C.F.R.  69.2(m).  

22  Liability Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 8768.

23  Id.

24  Id. at  8766, 8768.   See also Appeals  Court Decision,  128 
F.3d at 741. 

25  Id. at 8768, 8773.

26  Id. at 8768.

27  See Letter Ruling.

28  See  Comments  of  Certain  Complainants  Regarding  Hearing 
Designation Order, filed Oct. 13, 2000 (``Certain  Complainants' 
Comments'') at 10-13 and Comments of Kayson Communications  Inc. 
and Best  Payphones Inc.  Regarding Hearing  Designation  Order, 
filed on  Oct. 23,  2000  (``Kayson and  Best Comments'')  at  3 
(arguing that because IPPs were found to not be end-users  users 
within the meaning of section 69.104(a), the collection of  EUCL 
charges  for   semi-public  payphones   is  unlawful);   Certain 
Complainants' Comments at 14  (contending that the  Commission's 
Liability Order constitutes a ``new'' construction of the Access 
Charge rules); Certain Complainants' Comments at 8 (arguing that 
the collection of EUCL  charges from IPPs  by the LECs  violates 
section 203 of the  Act because IPPs are  not end users and  the 
the LECs' tariffs specify that EUCL charges will be assessed  on 
``end  users''  );  Certain  Complainants'  Comments  at   14-16 
(arguing that New York  Telephone Company's state tariff  should 
have bearing on this damages proceeding).  In addition,  Certain 
Complainants contend  that Defendants  must bear  the burden  of 
proving which payphones were used primarily for semi-public use.  
See Certain Complainants' Comments at 16.

29  We note that a number  of complainants filed a petition  for 
reconsideration  on   May  15,   2000  that   could  well   have 
incorporated these  arguments but  did not.   See  Complainant's 
Petition For  Reconsideration.   The  Commission  ruled  on  the 
issues raised in this petition in its Reconsideration Order,  15 
FCC Rcd 22906 (2000).

30  Certain Complainants' Comments at 8.

31  The most recent complaint was  filed in 1993.  See File  No. 

32  Certain Complainants' Comments at 8.

33  C.F. Communications Corp. v. Century Telephone of Wisconsin, 
Inc., et. al.,  Memorandum Opinion  and Order, 10  FCC Rcd  9775 
(1995).  This  decision  affirmed  the  Bureau  Order.   It  was 
subsequently vacated by the Appeals Court Decision.

34  Certain Complainants' Comments at 8.

35  Bureau Order, 8 FCC Rcd 7334, 7335-36 (1993).

36  Certain Complainants' Comments at 15.

37  47 C.F.R.  1.201- 1.364.

38  47 C.F.R.  1.722. 

39  See Hi Tech Furnace Systems, Inc. v. FCC, 224 F.3d 781,  786 
(D.C. Cir.  2000); 47  U.S.C.   154(i),  154(j); 47  C.F.R.   

40  Certain  Complainants'  Comments  at  17;  Kayson  and  Best 
Comments at 4.

41  47 U.S.C.  415.

42  Id.  

43 Id; but see Informal Complaints Filed By Independent Payphone 
Service  Providers  Against  Various  Local  Exchange   Carriers 
Seeking Refunds of End  User Common Line  Charges, File No.  89-
170, DA 99-1858,  Common Carrier  Bureau (rel.  Sept. 10,  1999) 
(``Waiver Order'').   In its  Waiver Order,  the Common  Carrier 
Bureau, in the  interests of  administrative efficiency,  tolled 
the six  month relation  back requirement  contained in  section 
1.718 for a number of informal  complaints as of June 15,  1998, 
as long as the formal complaint is filed with the Commission  no 
less than 90  days after  a final nonappealable  order has  been 
entered in the remand proceeding. Id. at  5.

44  Reconsideration Order at  5.

45   See Ascom et. al Comments at 9.

46  47 C.F.R  1.311-1.325. 

47  See Hi Tech Furnace Systems, Inc. v. FCC, 224 F.3d 781,  786 
(D.C. Cir. 2000);  see also  New Valley  Corporation v.  Pacific 
Bell Telephone Company, 15 FCC Rcd  5128 at  14; and  Liability 
Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 8771. (``Complainants will have to  provide 
evidence sufficient to  prove among  other things,  how many  of 
their payphones  were  in  fact `public  payphones,'  under  the 
definition established in  the First  Reconsideration Order,  as 
clarified in the Liability Order.'')

48  Liability Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 8771.

49   Fidelity  Radio,  Inc.,  1  FCC  2d  66  (1965);   Atlantic 
Broadcasting Co., 5 FCC 2d 717 (1966).

50  Liability Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 8771.

51  First  Reconsideration Order,  97 FCC  2d at  704, n.40  and 

52  Liability Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 8771.

53  The rates for the EUCL charges are to be determined from the 
LECs' tariffs for the relevant time period.  

54  The IRS rate of  interest for corporate overpayments is  the 
appropriate interest rate for  this type of proceeding,  because 
the rate is easily  obtainable and revised  on a regular  basis.  
See U.S. Sprint Communications Partnership v. Pacific  Northwest 
Bell Telephone  Co., Memorandum  Opinion and  Order, 8  FCC  Rcd 
1288, 1298,  51, n.109 (1993).

55  See Liability Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 8770.

56  Id. at 8771.