Click here for Microsoft Word Version
******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

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 Matters of                )
                                )
Bell  Atlantic-Delaware,   Inc., )
et al.,                          )
                                )
                       Complain- )
ants,                            )    File No. E-98-48
                                )
                                 )
v.                               )
                                )
Frontier Communications          )
Services, Inc., et al.,          )
                                )
                          Defen- )
dants.                           )
                                )
                                )
                                )    File No. E-98-49
Bell  Atlantic-Delaware,   Inc., )
et al.,                          )
                                )
                            Com- )
plainants,                       )

                               
v. 

MCI Telecommunications Corp.,

                          Defen-
dant.
               


                  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

   Adopted:  March 28, 2001             Released:  April 5, 2001

By the Commission:

I.   INTRODUCTION

In this Order, we resolve two supplemental complaints for damages 
filed on April 26, 2000 and June 23, 2000 by Bell Atlantic-
Delaware, Inc., et al. (``Verizon'' or ``Complainant'')1 - one 
against Frontier Communications Services, Inc., et al. (``Global 
Crossing'')2 and one against MCI Telecommunications Corporation 
(``MCI'')3 (collectively, ``Defendants'') - pursuant to section 
208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'').4  We 
hold that under the rules and orders that are applicable to this 
case, the Defendants' obligation to compensate Verizon for toll-
free calls extends to calls that the Defendants hand off to local 
exchange carriers (``LECs''), but that the Defendants are not 
required to pay per-call compensation to Verizon for traffic that 
they hand off to switch-based resellers.  However, in the latter 
situation, and upon Verizon's written request, the Defendants 
must provide information to Verizon that enables it to identify 
any resellers responsible for compensation.

II.  BACKGROUND 

     1.   2.        Section 276 of the Act requires the 
Commission to ``establish a per call compensation plan to ensure 
that all payphone service providers are fairly compensated for 
each and every completed intrastate and interstate call using 
their payphone.''5  In response, we adopted the following 
payphone compensation rules: 
     2.   
     3.    64.1300 Payphone Compensation Obligation. 

          (a)  Except as provided herein, every carrier to whom a 
            completed call from a payphone is routed shall 
            compensate the payphone service provider for the 
            call at a rate agreed upon by the parties by 
            contract.

                                    * * *                

          (c)  In the absence of an agreement as required by 
            paragraph (a) of this section, the carrier is 
            obligated to compensate the payphone service 
            provider at a per-call rate of $.24.6
      64.1310 Payphone Compensation Payment Procedures.

          (a)  It is the responsibility of each carrier to whom a 
            compensable call from a payphone is routed to track, 
            or arrange for the tracking of, each such call so 
            that it may accurately compute the compensation 
            required by Section 64.1300(a).7

     3.   Thus, when payphone users place toll-free calls that 
are routed to interexchange carriers (``IXCs''), the IXCs must 
compensate the payphone service providers (``PSPs'') for 
completed calls.  The compensation system becomes more 
complicated, however, when IXCs sell space on their networks to 
other IXCs, known as ``resellers.''8  This is because an IXC and 
several resellers may carry a single payphone call before the 
call is transferred to a LEC for completion. 

     4. The Common Carrier Bureau ruled in the liability phase 
of these proceedings that the Complainants properly had certified 
their eligibility to receive per-call compensation, and, upon 
review, we upheld this determination.9  At issue in this damages 
phase is which party - an IXC that first carries the call or a 
switch-based reseller that ultimately transfers the call to the 
LEC - is responsible for paying per-call compensation.10  Also at 
issue is the scope of an IXC's obligation to provide to a PSP 
tracking information regarding calls transferred to switch-based 
resellers.

III. PROCEDURAL ISSUES

 5. The Defendants maintain that because Verizon's initial 
  complaints in the liability phase of these proceedings did not 
  raise explicitly the issue of whether a facilities-based 
  reseller is responsible for payment of per-call compensation, 
  supplemental complaints on this issue fail to state a claim 
  upon which relief may be granted.11  We disagree.  As an 
  initial matter, MCI consented to Verizon's filing of a 
  supplemental complaint for damages, and, along with Verizon, 
  requested that we address the facilities-based reseller 
  question.12  Consequently, MCI has waived any objection to our 
  consideration of the issue.  In any event, we believe Verizon 
  adequately raised the issue in its initial complaints.  
  Specifically, in its complaint against Global Crossing, 
  Verizon asked us to rule that ``[Global Crossing] is required 
  to make payments in full for all calls originated on [Verizon] 
  payphones during the fourth quarter of 1997 and the first 
  quarter of 1998, and to make future payments for upcoming 
  quarters as required by the FCC rules.''13  Similarly, 
  Verizon's complaint against MCI sought compensation for 
  ``every call it completes'' from Verizon's payphones.14  These 
  broad requests pertain to all calls handled by the IXCs, 
  including calls transferred to resellers.  We decline to read 
  Verizon's complaints in the restrictive manner Defendants 
  propose.15 

IV.    ANALYSIS

     6.   The Commission initially addressed per-call 
compensation and call tracking issues in the First Payphone 
Order.16  In that order, the Commission adopted a ``carrier-
pays'' system for per-call compensation, concluding that ``the 
primary economic beneficiary of payphone calls [i.e., IXCs] 
should compensate the PSPs,'' and that ``all IXCs that carry 
calls from payphones are required to pay per-call 
compensation.''17  In addition, the Commission held that a 
facilities-based carrier should pay compensation to the PSP ``in 
lieu of a non-facilities based carrier that resells service.''18  
A reseller that lacks its own facilities does not have the 
ability to track calls.19  Therefore, ``in the interests of 
administrative efficiency and lower costs,'' the Commission 
required facilities-based carriers to pay for calls received by 
their reseller customers and then, if they so chose, ``to impose 
the payphone compensation amounts on [reseller] customers.''20 

     7.The First Payphone Order also established rules for 
tracking payphone calls.  Specifically, the order stated that the 
``underlying, facilities-based carrier has the burden of tracking 
calls to its reseller customers,'' that the facilities-based 
carrier ``may recover that cost from the reseller, if it 
chooses,'' and that the tracking obligation ``parallel[s] the 
obligation of the facilities-based carrier to pay 
compensation.''21  

     8.   A number of parties requested that the Commission 
reconsider or clarify the rules adopted in the First Payphone 
Order.  In the Order on Reconsideration,22 the Commission made 
the following clarification regarding the ``carrier-pays'' 
approach as it pertains to facilities-based carriers and non-
facilities-based carriers:

          Some IXCs argue ... that we should, concurrent with our 
          conclusion that the primary economic beneficiary of a 
          call should pay the requisite compensation to the PSP, 
          require resellers to pay compensation for the calls 
          they receive from payphones and to assume 
          responsibility for the tracking of such calls.  We 
          continue to believe that it would be significantly 
          burdensome for some parties, namely debit card 
          providers, to track and pay compensation to PSPs on a 
          per-call basis.  We conclude, however, that we should 
          clarify our conclusion in the Report and Order 
          concerning which carriers are required to pay 
          compensation and provide per-call tracking.  We clarify 
          that a carrier is required to pay compensation and 
          provide per-call tracking for the calls originated by 
          payphones if the carrier maintains its own switching 
          capability, regardless if the switching equipment is 
          owned or leased by the carrier ....  If a carrier does 
          not maintain its own switching capability, then, as set 
          forth in the Report and Order and consistent with our 
          clarification here, the underlying carrier remains 
          obligated to pay compensation to the PSP in lieu of its 
          customer that does not maintain a switching 
          capability.23

     9.Subsequently, in the Coding Digit Waiver Order,24 the 
Common Carrier Bureau further explained the obligations of IXCs 
to disclose information about switch-based resellers providing 
resold 800 service:

          When facilities?based IXCs  providing 800 service  have 
          determined  that   they  are   not  required   to   pay 
          compensation on  particular  800 number  calls  because 
          their switch?based  resale  customers  have  identified 
          themselves as responsible for paying the  compensation, 
          the facilities?based carriers must cooperate with  PSPs 
          seeking  to  bill   for  resold   services.   Thus,   a 
          facilities?based carrier must  indicate, on request  by 
          the  billing  PSP,  whether   it  is  paying   per?call 
          compensation for  a particular  800 number.   If it  is 
          not, then it  must identify  the switch?based  reseller 
          responsible for paying  payphone compensation for  that 
          particular  800  number.   Facilities-based  IXCs   and 
          switched-based resellers  may  not  avoid  compensating 
          PSPs by withholding the name of the carrier responsible 
          for paying per-call compensation, thereby avoiding  the 
          requirements of the Payphone Orders and Section 276.25

     10.  Verizon and the Defendants espouse different 
interpretations of our rules and orders regarding per-call 
compensation and call tracking.  According to Verizon, the IXC 
that first carries a call must track calls and pay per-call 
compensation in the first instance, and then the carrier may seek 
reimbursement from its facilities-based resellers.26  Verizon 
characterizes the Order on Reconsideration and the Coding Digit 
Waiver Order as clarifying application of this general rule to 
certain switch-based resellers.27  Specifically, Verizon views 
the Coding Digit Waiver Order as absolving the first facilities-
based carrier of compensation responsibility only if a reseller 
identifies itself to the PSP as being responsible for paying per-
call compensation and expressly undertakes to pay.28

     11.  Verizon also argues that not requiring the first 
facilities-based carrier to pay results in a compensation system 
that is unworkable for both PSPs and resellers.29  According to 
Verizon, PSPs lack the information necessary to identify the 
reseller responsible for completing the calls and cannot 
determine if a call was in fact completed by a given reseller.30  
Furthermore, Verizon argues that, even with this information, 
PSPs will endure long delays before they are compensated for 
calls that involve a number of switch-based resellers.31

     12.     The Defendants, on the other hand, argue that the 
facilities-based reseller that ultimately transfers the call 
directly to the LEC is the primary economic beneficiary of a call 
and therefore is responsible for compensation.32  According to 
the Defendants, the Order on Reconsideration confirms this view, 
and the Coding Digit Waiver Order further clarifies that IXCs 
have a choice regarding switch-based resellers:  either to pay 
per-call compensation for a particular 800 number; or, upon 
request of the billing PSP, to ``identify the switch-based 
reseller responsible for paying payphone compensation for that 
particular 800 number.''33  The Defendants contend that, rather 
than excusing IXCs from paying PSPs only when resellers identify 
themselves to PSPs, the Coding Digit Waiver Order allows IXCs not 
to pay when resellers advise IXCs that the resellers will 
undertake compensation obligations.34

     13.  Our rules and orders require the first facilities-based 
carrier (i.e., the IXC first handling the traffic) to compensate 
PSPs for calls that it transfers directly to a terminating LEC.  
With respect to calls transferred to switch-based resellers, the 
first facilities-based carrier's obligation is to identify the 
reseller responsible for paying per-call compensation. Whereas 
the First Payphone Order establishes a system whereby a PSP may 
collect from the first facilities-based carrier for all traffic 
carried over its switch, regardless of whether the traffic 
subsequently is handled by resellers,35 the Order on 
Reconsideration, as clarified in the Coding Digit Waiver Order, 
states that the first facilities-based carrier's responsibility 
is more limited.  Specifically, the Order on Reconsideration 
places tracking and compensation obligations squarely on 
facilities-based carriers, including facilities-based resellers.  
And the Coding Digit Waiver Order makes clear that a first 
facilities-based carrier need only identify the switch-based 
reseller responsible for paying compensation.36

       14.     We reject Verizon's contention that first 
facilities-based carriers have a duty to pay compensation for all 
traffic unless a reseller identifies itself to Verizon.  The 
contention derives from the following sentence in the Coding 
Digit Waiver Order:  ``When facilities-based IXCs providing 800 
service have determined that they are not required to pay 
compensation on particular 800 number calls because their switch-
based resale customers have identified themselves as responsible 
for paying the compensation, the facilities-based carriers must 
cooperate with PSPs seeking to bill for resold services.''37  If, 
as Verizon suggests, the Common Carrier Bureau intended to excuse 
a first facilities-based carrier from its payment obligation only 
when a reseller identifies itself to the PSP, the Coding Digit 
Waiver Order would have included that limitation expressly.  
Moreover, Verizon's interpretation of the relevant sentence in 
the Coding Digit Waiver Order makes no sense.  There would be no 
need to require an IXC to assist a PSP in its attempts to bill 
for resold services if the PSP already had been advised of the 
reseller's identity.  The logical construction of the language 
from the Coding Digit Waiver Order requires a first facilities-
based carrier to pay unless the reseller has identified itself to 
the first facilities-based carrier as being responsible for 
paying compensation.

     15.  The parties also dispute what constitutes a proper 
          request for tracking information under the law 
          applicable to this case. The Coding Digit Waiver Order 
          specifies that ``a facilities-based carrier must 
          indicate, on request by the billing PSP, whether it is 
          paying per-call compensation for a particular 800 
          number.  If it is not, then it must identify the 
          switch-based reseller responsible for paying payphone 
          compensation for that particular 800 number.''38  We 
          likewise conclude that, in order to receive tracking 
          information, a PSP must inquire in writing whether a 
          facilities-based IXC will be paying per-call 
          compensation relating to a particular toll-free 
          number.39  If the IXC will not be the paying party 
          because it transferred the call to a switch-based 
          reseller, it is incumbent upon the IXC at that 
          juncture to identify the reseller.  Stated 
          differently, once a PSP issues a written request for 
          payment, the facilities-based IXC must provide 
          tracking information.40

     16.  Verizon argues that the alternative compensation 
          system it has proposed would better facilitate 
          collection of payphone compensation.  However, the 
          three orders on this issue - the First Payphone Order, 
          the Order on Reconsideration, and the Coding Digit 
          Waiver Order - establish the procedures under which 
          PSPs, carriers, and switch-based resellers must 
          operate.  We are mindful that the Commission has been 
          asked to clarify or revise existing regulations 
          governing the per-call compensation scheme on a going-
          forward basis.41  But because this issue has come 
          before us as part of a section 208 complaint 
          proceeding regarding past behavior, we are constrained 
          to interpret our current regulations and orders.

V.     COMPUTATION OF DAMAGES

     17.          Verizon is entitled to compensation from the 
Defendants for each call the Defendants transferred to a 
terminating LEC.  Additionally, upon Verizon's written request, 
the Defendants must provide information that will allow Verizon 
to track calls that were transferred to facilities-based 
resellers.  Therefore, pursuant to the Commission's formal 
complaint rules,42 we direct Global Crossing and MCI to pay 
Verizon the appropriate per-call compensation rate, plus 
interest,43 for each completed call (starting in the fourth 
quarter of 1997 through the present) made from a Verizon payphone 
to Global Crossing's or MCI's network, respectively, and to 
provide Verizon adequate tracking information regarding calls 
that were transferred to resellers.44 

18.   Global Crossing requests that we allow it to offset 
 alleged overpayments to Verizon against any damages it owes,45 
 because it already has paid some per-call compensation at the 
 rate of $0.284 per call.46  However, the formal complaint rules 
 specifically prohibit the adoption of a damages computation 
 method that incorporates an offset for a claim of a defendant 
 against a complainant.47  Therefore, we deny Global Crossing's 
 request to offset alleged overpayments to Verizon. 

       19.      Within 30 days of the release of this Order, the 
parties must file with the Enforcement Bureau a joint statement 
that does one of the following:  (1) details the parties' 
agreement as to the amount of damages, computed in accordance 
with this Order; (2) states that the parties are continuing to 
negotiate in good faith and requests that the parties be given an 
extension of time to continue such negotiations; or (3) details 
the bases for any continuing dispute and the reasons why no 
agreement can be reached.48

III.      CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES

     20.        For the reasons stated above, we hold that the 
Commission's rules require the Defendants to compensate Verizon 
for toll-free calls transferred to terminating LECs, but do not 
require the Defendants to compensate Verizon for traffic 
transferred to switch-based resellers.  Rather, with respect to 
the latter traffic, the Defendants must provide Verizon 
information that enables it to identify resellers responsible for 
compensation.  

     21.    Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 
4(i), 4(j), 208, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), 208, and 276, and 
sections 0.111, 0.311, 1.722, 64.1300, and 64.1310 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.722, 64.1300, 
and 64.1310, that Verizon and the Defendants must file a joint 
statement consistent with this Order within thirty (30) days 
after the Order is released.49



                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                              Magalie Roman Salas
                              Secretary
_________________________

1 The original  named complainants  in these  actions were  Bell 
Atlantic-Delaware,  Inc.;  Bell  Atlantic-Maryland,  Inc.;  Bell 
Atlantic-New Jersey,  Inc.;  Bell  Atlantic-Pennsylvania,  Inc.; 
Bell Atlantic-Virginia,  Inc.; Bell  Atlantic-Washington,  D.C., 
Inc.; Bell  Atlantic-West  Virginia, Inc.;  New  York  Telephone 
Company; and New England Telephone and Telegraph Company.  These 
companies now are doing business as Verizon Communications.  See 
Complainant's Initial Brief on the  Reseller Issue, File No.  E-
98-48 (filed July 14, 2000) (``Verizon Brief'') at 1.

2  The  original  named  defendant  was  Frontier   Corporation.  
Pursuant  to  a  subsequent  stipulation,  Verizon  amended  its 
complaint to substitute Frontier Communications Services,  Inc.; 
Frontier   Communications    International,    Inc.;    Frontier 
Communications of the West, Inc.; Frontier  Communications-North 
Central Region, Inc.;  Frontier Communications  of New  England, 
Inc.; and Frontier Communications of  the Mid Atlantic, Inc.  as 
defendants.  These  companies  now  are  known  collectively  as 
Global Crossing.

3 MCI now  is doing business  as WorldCom, Inc.   This order  is 
binding on all named parties and their successors-in-interest.

4 47 U.S.C.  208.  Section 208 gives a party the right to  file 
a complaint with  the Commission  if the party  believes that  a 
common carrier acted, or failed to act, in contravention of  the 
Act or a Commission rule or order.

5 47 U.S.C.  276(b)(1)(A).  Section 276 exempts emergency calls 
and telecommunications relay service calls for hearing  disabled 
individuals from the per-call compensation requirement.  Id.

6 47 C.F.R.  64.1300(a), (c).

7 47 C.F.R.  64.1310(a).

8 Resellers can be divided into two categories -  ``switchless'' 
and ``switch-based.''   Switchless resellers  simply rename  the 
underlying IXC service.  Switch-based (or  ``facilities-based'') 
resellers install their own switch to handle traffic.

9 See  In  the  Matter  of Bell  Atlantic-Delaware,  et  al.  v. 
Frontier  Communications  Services,  Inc.,  et  al.,  Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd  16050 (Com. Car. Bur. 1999),  and 
In the Matter  of Ameritech Illinois,  U S West  Communications, 
Inc., et al., v. MCI Telecommunications Corporation,  Memorandum 
Opinion and  Order, 14  FCC  Rcd 18643  (Com. Car.  Bur.  1999), 
aff'd, In  the  Matter of  Bell  Atlantic-Delaware, et  al.,  v. 
Frontier Communications Services, Inc., et al., Order on Review, 
15 FCC Rcd 7475  (2000).  Global Crossing  has filed a  Petition 
for Review of  the Commission's  Order on Review  in the  United 
States Court of  Appeals for the  District of Columbia  Circuit.  
See Global Crossing  Telecommunications, Inc. v.  FCC, Case  No. 
00-1204 (D.C. Cir.).

10 As  discussed infra,  paragraph 7,  we have  determined  that 
switchless resellers do not have the ability to track calls and, 
therefore, are not obligated to pay per-call compensation in the 
first instance (although IXCs subsequently can collect from such 
resellers per-call compensation that the  IXCs have paid on  the 
resellers' behalf).

11 MCI Answer to Amended Supplemental Complaint, File No.  E-98-
49 (filed June 30, 2000) (``MCI Answer''), 7; Global  Crossing 
Supplemental Answer  and Affirmative  Defenses to  Complainant's 
Amended Supplemental Complaint, File No. E-98-48 (filed May  16, 
2000) (``Global Crossing Answer''),  24. 

12 Joint Request for Waiver to File Supplemental Complaint, File 
No. E-98-49 (filed Jan. 21, 2000) at 1. 

13 Revised Complaint, File No. E-98-48 (filed Sept. 4, 1998),   
36.

14 Complaint, File No. E-98-49 (filed July 15, 1998),  32-33.

15 The Defendants identify additional procedural deficiencies in 
Verizon's Supplemental Complaints and argue that the  complaints 
should be dismissed or denied as  a result.  MCI Answer at  6?7, 
13?15; Global Crossing Answer, Part III at 2?5.  See 47 C.F.R.  
1.720 (establishing general pleading requirements); 47 C.F.R.   
1.721(a)  (establishing  rules   for  format   and  content   of 
complaints);  47  C.F.R.    1.722(c)  (establishing  rules  for 
requests for damages).   We agree that  Commission staff  should 
have directed  Verizon to  amend its  pleadings to  correct  the 
deficiencies.   However,  because  the  deficiencies  have   not 
compromised the Defendants' ability to address the legal  issues 
raised  in  Verizon's  complaints,  and  in  order  to  expedite 
resolution of the cases,  we will not  require Verizon to  amend 
its pleadings.

16 See  In the  Matter of  Implementation of  the Pay  Telephone 
Reclassification   and    Compensation   Provisions    of    the 
Telecommunications Act of  1996, Report  and Order,  11 FCC  Rcd 
20541 (1996) (``First Payphone Order'').

17 Id., 11 FCC Rcd at 20584,  83.

18 Id., 11 FCC Rcd at 20586,  86.

19 Id.

20 Id., 11 FCC Rcd at 20586,  86-87.

21 Id., 11 FCC Rcd at 20591-92,  100.

22 See  In the  Matter of  Implementation of  the Pay  Telephone 
Reclassification   and    Compensation   Provisions    of    the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC 
Rcd 21233 (1996) (``Order on Reconsideration'').

23 Id., 11 FCC Rcd at 21277,  92.

24 See Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification  and 
Compensation Provisions of the  Telecommunications Act of  1996: 
AT&T Request for  Limited Waiver  of the  Per Call  Compensation 
Obligation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 10893 (Com. 
Car. Bur. 1998),  petition for  reconsideration and  application 
for review  pending  on  other grounds  (``Coding  Digit  Waiver 
Order''). 

25 Id., 13 FCC Rcd at 10916,  38.

26 Verizon Brief at 3-4.

27 Id. at 4.

28 Id. at 3-9.

29 Id. at 9-12.

30 Id.

31 Id. at 9.

32 Global Crossing Brief at 5.

33 MCI Brief at 8; Global  Crossing Brief at 6-7 (citing  Coding 
Digit Waiver Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 10916,  38).

34 MCI Brief at 5-6; Global Crossing Brief at 6-7.

35 See First Payphone Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20591-92,  100.

36 Coding Digit Waiver Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 10916,  38 (``Thus, 
a facilities-based  carrier must  indicate,  on request  by  the 
billing PSP, whether  it is paying  per-call compensation for  a 
particular 800 number.  If it is not, then it must identify  the 
switch-based   reseller   responsible   for   paying    payphone 
compensation for that particular 800 number.'').

37 Id.

38 Coding  Digit  Waiver Order,  13  FCC  Rcd at  10916,    38.  
Although the Coding  Digit Waiver Order  addressed a  particular 
subset of  compensable calls  (i.e.,  800 numbers),  the  Bureau 
relied on  paragraph  92  of the  Order  on  Reconsideration  in 
reaching its conclusion  regarding tracking obligations.   Order 
on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd  at 21277,  92.  That  paragraph 
pertains  to  compensable  calls  in  general,  not  simply  800 
numbers.  Id.  Therefore, we  believe the holding of the  Coding 
Digit Waiver Order  provides an interpretation  of the Order  on 
Reconsideration  that  is  applicable  to  all  calls  that  are 
eligible for per-call compensation under the Commission's  rules 
and orders. 

39 In this  connection, a PSP's  submission of payphone  numbers 
pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  64.1310(e) would be considered a written 
inquiry regarding an IXC's intention to pay compensation.

40 In  its supplemental  brief  addressing the  reseller  issue, 
Verizon alleges for the first time that Global Crossing  delayed 
notifying Verizon of the  proper resellers, thereby engaging  in 
an unreasonable practice in violation  of section 201(b) of  the 
Act, 47 U.S.C.   201(b).  Verizon  Brief at 6.   We decline  to 
address this  allegation.   In the  Enforcement  Bureau's  order 
requesting   additional   briefing,   the   Enforcement   Bureau 
instructed the parties to brief the legal issues surrounding the 
reseller issue raised in the earlier pleadings.  See Letter from 
David   A.   Strickland   (Attorney-Advisor,   Market   Disputes 
Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau) to John M. Goodman  and 
Gilbert E. Geldon  (Counsel for Verizon),  Michael J.  Shortley, 
III and Martin T. McCue (Counsel for Global Crossing), and Danny 
E. Adams and Steven A. Augustino (Counsel for Global  Crossing), 
File No. E-98-48 (dated June 27,  2000) at 1; Letter from  David 
A.  Strickland  (Attorney-Advisor,  Market  Disputes  Resolution 
Division, Enforcement Bureau) to John M. Goodman and Gilbert  E. 
Geldon (Counsel for  Verizon), and  J. Carl Wilson  and Lisa  B. 
Smith (Counsel for MCI), File No. E-98-49 (dated June 22,  2000) 
at 3.  The supplemental briefing  stage was not the proper  time 
for the parties to assert new claims.

41 See Public Notice, Common Carrier Bureau Seeks Comment on the 
RBOC/GTE/SNET  Payphone  Coalition  Petition  for  Clarification 
Regarding  Carrier  Responsibility  for  Payphone   Compensation 
Payment, DA 99-730 (Com. Car. Bur. rel. Apr. 15, 1999) at 1. 

42 47 C.F.R. 1.722(d)(4).

43 The parties shall compute interest on the principal at  11.25 
percent per year. See In the Matter of Implementation of the Pay 
Telephone Reclassification  and Compensation  Provisions of  the 
Telecommunications Act  of 1996,  Third  Report and  Order,  and 
Order on Reconsideration of the Second Report and Order, 14  FCC 
Rcd 2545, 2631,  189 (1999) (``Third Report and Order'').   Our 
use of the  11.25 percent interest  rate is unique  to cases  in 
which IXCs  are late  in making  payments to  PSPs, and  is  not 
necessarily applicable in other contexts.

44 The per-call compensation rate for the period from October 7, 
1997 to April 20, 1999 is $0.238. See Third Report and Order, 14 
FCC Rcd at 2635,  196. The per-call  compensation rate for  the 
period from  April  21, 1999  forward  is $0.24.   47  C.F.R.   
64.1300(c).  See American Public Communications Council v.  FCC, 
251  F.3d  51  (D.C.  Cir.  2000)  (upholding  the  Commission's 
determination  that  $0.24  is  the  proper  rate  for  per-call 
compensation  for  ``dial  around''  coinless  calls  made  from 
payphones). 

45 Global Crossing Answer, Part III at 8, n.24.

46 Global Crossing Answer,  25.

47 47 C.F.R.  1.722(d)(4).  See In the Matter of 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, 22581,  194 (1997).

48 47 C.F.R. 1.722(d)(4).

49 See 47 C.F.R.  1.722(d).