Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from Microsoft Word.
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
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.
*****************************************************************
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-116
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
AT&T Corp., )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Proceeding Number 17-56
) Bureau ID Number EB-17-MD-001
Iowa Network Services, Inc. d/b/a )
Aureon Network Services, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
Adopted: August 1, 2018 Released: August 1, 2018
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. On June 8, 2017, AT&T Corp. (AT&T) filed a formal complaint against Iowa Network
Services, Inc. d/b/a Aureon Network Services (Aureon) under Section 208 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended (Act).1 Five months later, the Commission issued a Liability Order that partially
granted AT&T s Complaint.2 Aureon subsequently filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Liability
Order.3 For the reasons explained below, we grant the Petition in part and otherwise deny it.
II. BACKGROUND4
2. As authorized by the Commission, Aureon provides Centralized Equal Access (CEA)
service in Iowa.5 With respect to AT&T an interexchange carrier (IXC) Aureon furnishes terminating
interstate access services under a federal tariff that Aureon files with the Commission.6 Beginning in
1 Formal Complaint of AT&T Corp., Proceeding Number 17-56, Bureau ID Number EB-17-MD-001 (filed June 8,
2017) (Complaint).
2 AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Network Services, Inc. d/b/a Aureon Network Services, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 32
FCC Rcd 9677 (Nov. 8, 2017) (Liability Order).
3 See Petition for Reconsideration, Proceeding Number 17-56, Bureau ID Number EB-17-MD-001 (filed Dec. 8,
2017) (Petition); 47 CFR 1.106.
4 This is an abridged description of the factual and legal background. The Liability Order contains a more complete
discussion, which we incorporate by reference. See Liability Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9677-9684, paras. 2 16.
5 Liability Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9678-79, paras. 4-6. See In re Applications of Iowa Network Access Div.,
Memorandum Opinion, Order and Certificate, 3 FCC Rcd 1468 (1988), para. 3.
6 Liability Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9678, 9679, 9681-82, paras. 3, 6, 11. See, e.g., Complaint, Exh. 3, INAD Tariff
F.C.C. No. 1 (filed Aug. 10, 1988).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-116
September 2013 and continuing through the present, AT&T has refused to pay the majority of Aureon s
charges.7
3. On May 30, 2014, Aureon sued AT&T in the United States District Court for New
Jersey, alleging that AT&T breached Aureon s federal and state tariffs.8 In response, AT&T filed
counterclaims against Aureon for various violations of the Act.9 The District Court stayed the case on
October 14, 2015, and referred certain issues to the Commission under the primary jurisdiction doctrine.10
4. To effectuate the Court s referral, on June 8, 2017, AT&T filed its Complaint with the
Commission.11 Counts I and II asserted that Aureon violated Sections 201 and 203 of the Act,
respectively.12 Specifically, AT&T argued that (1) Aureon s tariff applies only to CEA service, which
does not include access stimulation traffic; (2) Aureon violated the Commission s rate cap and rate parity
rules by raising its CEA tariffed rate in 2013 and by not lowering its intrastate CEA rate; (3) Aureon is
engaged in access stimulation but has not filed revised tariffs as the Commission requires; and (4) Aureon
has manipulated its CEA rates through a variety of improper accounting measures.13
5. The Commission rejected AT&T s assertions that Aureon is itself engaged in access
stimulation and that Aureon s tariff does not cover traffic bound for other carriers that are engaged in
access stimulation.14 The Liability Order further determined, however, that Aureon failed to comply with
the Commission s rate cap and rate parity rules when it raised its CEA rate in 2013.15 Finally, the
Commission declined to address AT&T s rate manipulation claim, reserving that issue for the damages
proceeding.16
III. DISCUSSION
A. The Liability Order Properly Applied an Existing Rule Against Aureon.
6. Aureon argues that the Commission failed to provide fair notice that it would apply its
rate cap and rate parity rules to Aureon and classify Aureon as a CLEC under those rules.17 As a result,
Aureon contends that any relief must be prospective only. We disagree. The plain text of the
Commission s rules and orders in existence at the time Aureon filed its tariff provided Aureon ample
notice of its regulatory status and obligations.18
7 Liability Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9683, para. 14. Between September 2013 and March 2017, Aureon billed AT&T
. AT&T has paid , less than a quarter of the billed amount. See Complaint, Exh. 80, AT&T
Billing Summary.
8 Liability Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9683, para. 15.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id. at 9684, para. 16.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 9684-88, 9692-94, paras. 17-22, 31-34.
15 Id. at 9688-92, paras. 23-29.
16 Id. at 9692, para. 30.
17 See Petition at 8-14.
18 See Gen. Elec. Co. v. EPA, 53 F.3d 1324, 1329 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
2
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-116
7. The Liability Order enforced rate cap and rate parity rules and policies that the
Commission adopted in 2011, well before Aureon s 2013 tariff filing.19
8. As the Liability Order explained and as Aureon itself conceded Aureon is a local
exchange carrier (LEC) providing switched access service.20 In 2011, the USF/ICC Transformation
Order stated unequivocally and without exception that, at the outset of the transition, all interstate
switched access and reciprocal compensation rates will be capped at rates in effect as of the effective date
of the rules. 21 Thus, there should have been no question that Aureon is subject to the Commission s
transition rules,22 including the rate cap and rate parity rules.23 Moreover, the Liability Order further
described why Aureon necessarily is a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) for purposes of
the transition rules.24 Those rules define a CLEC as any local exchange carrier that is not an incumbent
local exchange carrier (ILEC); Aureon is not an ILEC, nor does it claim to be one.25
9. Furthermore, retroactivity is the norm in agency adjudications no less than in judicial
adjudications. 26 In general, retroactive effect is appropriate for new applications of existing law,
clarifications, and additions. 27 Unless Aureon can point to a settled rule on which it reasonably relied
and that the Commission changed, 28 the Liability Order is properly presumed retroactive.29 The Petition
makes no such showing.
10. Aureon s fair notice claim fails because Aureon does not and indeed cannot point . . . to
a settled rule on which it reasonably relied in maintaining that it was not subject to the rate cap and rate
19 Liability Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9689-92, paras. 23-28.
20 See id., 32 FCC Rcd at 9689, para. 25; Answer at 53, para. 94.
21 Connect America Fund et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 17663,
17934 at para. 801 (2011) (USF/ICC Transformation Order), pets. for review denied, In re FCC 11-161, 753 F.3d
1015 (10th Cir. 2014) (emphasis added).
22 47 CFR 51.901-51.919.
23 See Liability Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9689-90, para. 25. The Commission s regulations are similarly broad and
unambiguous. Section 51.901(b) of the Commission s rules, which is entitled Purpose and scope of transitional
access service pricing rules, states that the Commission s transition rules apply to reciprocal compensation for
telecommunications traffic exchanged between telecommunications providers that is interstate or intrastate
exchange access, information access, or exchange services for such access, other than special access. 47 CFR
51.901(b) (emphasis added). This provision describes the scope of the transition rules in Subpart J and notified
Aureon, as well as other CEA providers, that they are subject to them. Indeed, at least one other CEA provider
correctly concluded that it was subject to the rate caps. See Liability Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9692, para. 28.
24 Liability Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9689-90, para. 25.
25 Id. (emphasis added); 47 CFR 51.903(a). Aureon does not satisfy the definition of an ILEC, because it neither
provided telephone exchange service on February 8, 1996, nor was it a member of NECA on February 8, 1996 (or
a successor to a member). In fact, Aureon admitted that, although it is a LEC, it is not a Price Cap LEC or a Rate
of Return Carrier under Subpart J. See Complaint at 12, para. 26; Iowa Network Services, Inc. d/b/a Aureon
Network Services Answer to the Formal Complaint of AT&T Corp, Proceeding Number 17-56, Bureau ID Number
EB-17-MD-001 (filed June 28, 2017) (Answer) at 16, para. 26; Answer, Exh. B, Declaration of Frank Hilton at 9,
para. 17-18; Answer, Proposed Findings of Facts at 113, paras. 37-38.
26 AT&T v. FCC, 454 F.3d 329, 332 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
27 Verizon v. FCC, 269 F.3d 1098, 1109 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
28 AT&T v. FCC, 454 F.3d at 332.
29 Qwest Servs. Corp. v. FCC, 509 F.3d 531, 540 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ( Clarifying the law and applying that
clarification to past behavior are routine functions of adjudication. ).
3
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-116
parity rules.30 Stated differently, nothing in the past precedent Aureon identifies made it reasonably
clear that Aureon was exempt from those rules.31 Specifically, although Aureon cites to certain
Commission statements in the 2001 Seventh Report and Order,32 they have no bearing on the issue of
whether Aureon received fair notice from the 2011 USF/ICC Transformation Order that it was subject to
the Commission s transitional access rules.33 Moreover, although Aureon correctly notes that the
Commission has held it to be a dominant carrier,34 that in no way precludes a finding that Aureon also is
subject to the Commission s rate cap and rate parity rules. Aureon s dominant carrier status does not
excuse it from complying with the additional duties imposed by more general regulations governing
LECs providing switched access service.35
B. Because Aureon Filed Its 2013 Tariff in Violation of the Rate Caps the Commission
Established Through Its Ratemaking Authority, the Tariff Is Void Ab Initio.
11. Aureon does not seek reconsideration of the Liability Order s finding that the 2013 tariff
rates exceeded their 2011 levels, in violation of the Commission s rate cap and rate parity rules.
Nevertheless, Aureon takes issue with the Commission s decision that the 2013 tariff was, as a result,
void ab initio and thus not deemed lawful. According to Aureon, the Liability Order is inconsistent
with precedent and renders Section 204(a)(3) of the Act impotent and meaningless. 36 That is incorrect.
30 AT&T v. FCC, 454 F.3d at 332.
31 Petition at 5-20 (citations omitted); see Verizon v. FCC, 269 F.3d at 1109.
32 See Petition at 9-10 (citing Access Charge Reform, Reform of Access Charges Imposed by Competitive Local
Exchange Carriers, Seventh Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 16 FCC Rcd 9923
(2001) (Seventh Report and Order).
33 Compare Seventh Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 9936-49, with USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd
at 17932-38. Aureon claims that, based upon comments made by a Commission staff member during an April 2017
ex parte meeting, it believed it was no type of LEC (i.e., neither an ILEC nor a CLEC) and that non-dominant
CLEC regulations did not apply to it. Petition at 12-13. Even assuming that Aureon correctly understood the staff
member s statements, informal staff guidance does not bind the Commission. See, e.g., Petition for Waiver of
Section 61.45(d), Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 14293, 14299, para. 15 (2006) (finding informal
staff letters non-binding on the Commission); C.F. Communications Corp. v. Century Telephone of Wisconsin, Inc..
Memorandum Opinion and Order on Remand, 15 FCC Rcd 8759, 8768-8769, para. 28 (2000) (finding unpublished
letter rulings non-binding on the Commission when no party had actual knowledge of the letters); Kojo Worldwide
Corp. San Diego, California, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 14890, 14894, para. 8 (2009)
(rejecting argument that staff had promised nonenforcement of provisions of the Act); Applications of Hinton Tel.
Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 11625, 11637, para. 42 (1995) (noting that
when staff advice is contrary to the Commission's rules, the Commission may enforce its rules despite reliance by
the public).
34 Petition at 10, 13.
35 See Liability Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9690, para. 26 (although a dominant carrier, like all LECs, Aureon is
subject to additional obligations such as the rate cap and rate parity rules). Contrary to Aureon s contention, its
regulatory status under the Commission s 2011 transition rules and its tariff filing obligations under Part 61 of the
Commission s rules are two different things. Aureon is a CLEC with regard to the transitional access service
pricing rules (see Liability Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9689-90, para. 25), which means that Aureon must cap its rates
based on the appropriate benchmark rate of the competing ILEC. 47 CFR 51.911. At the same time, Aureon also
is a dominant carrier and remains subject to the rules for dominant carriers, including Section 61.38. Liability Order,
32 FCC Rcd at 9690, para. 26. Thus, Aureon s rates under Section 61.38 control, if they are lower under cost-of-
service rate making principles.
36 Petition at 22.
4
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-116
12. Section 204(a)(3) provides that a LEC may file with the Commission a new or revised
charge & on a streamlined basis and that any such charge . . . shall be deemed lawful. 37 The provision
limits a customer s right to assert in a complaint proceeding that a carrier s filed rate is unreasonably
high.38 It does nothing, however, to restrict the Commission s authority to fix rates or rate limits for the
future, and those rates necessarily place per se limits on carriers filed rates.39
13. In this case, the Commission set maximum rate caps in a notice-and-comment
rulemaking.40 In doing so, the Commission acted in its ratemaking capacity; consequently, the rate caps
took the place of the legal tariff rates that carriers had previously set. The rate caps represent the
Commission s judgment that higher rates would be per se unreasonable and would encourage arbitrage.41
Once the Commission issued the rate caps, its pronouncement has the force of a statute, and carriers
were bound to conform. 42 Moreover, the courts have found that the Commission cannot in a
subsequent proceeding, acting in its quasi-judicial capacity, ignore its own pronouncement promulgated
in its quasi-legislative capacity and retroactively repeal its own enactment as to the reasonableness of the
rate it has prescribed. 43 Thus, once the Commission determined in 2011 that Aureon and every other
carrier providing interstate switched access was subject to the rate caps, the Commission was obligated
to enforce them in complaint proceedings like this one. The cases Aureon cites applying Section
204(a)(3) and the deemed lawful doctrine are inapposite.44 They involved complaints challenging rates
that neither customers nor the Commission could determine were unlawful at the time the tariff was filed
but that ultimately resulted in rate-of-return violations.45 In contrast, the rates in this case clearly
exceeded the established rate cap at the time Aureon filed its tariff.
14. We find that nothing in the language of Section 204(a)(3) suggests that a rate that was
prohibited by the Commission s rules could be one that a carrier may file under Section 204(a)(3). To
the extent that Aureon believes that Section 204(a)(3) permits it to file any rate on a streamlined basis,
including an unlawful one, we disagree. We find that the reading of Section 204(a)(3) that Aureon
advances would transform the statutory deemed lawful protection for streamlined filings into a safe
37 47 U.S.C. 204(a)(3). The statute provides for certain waiting periods 7 days for a reduction in rates and 15
days for an increase in rates before such a rate filed on a streamlined basis shall be effective. See id.
38 Such a right first arose under the common law and was carried forward in Section 201(b) of the Act. See Ariz.
Grocery v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 284 U.S. 370, 383-85 (1932) (Arizona Grocery).
39 Arizona Grocery, 284 U.S. at 387 ( Specific rates prescribed for the future take the place of the legal tariff rates
theretofore in force by the voluntary action of the carriers, and themselves become the legal rate. ).
40 See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17934, para. 801.
41 Id., 26 FCC Rcd at 17933-34, paras. 800-01, n.1494, 17937-38, para. 808.
42 Arizona Grocery, 284 U.S. at 386-87.
43 Id. at 389. Unlike Congress, administrative agencies do not enact legislation, but courts at times have used the
term quasi-legislative to refer to an agency s power to establish standards (such as rates) that have future effect
and general applicability usually through notice-and-comment rulemaking. See, e.g., Black s Law Dictionary
1040 (10th ed. 2014) (defining quasi-legislative power as [a]n administrative agency s power to engage in
rulemaking ); Verizon v. FCC, 269 F.3d at 1108 ( there is an important distinction between rules resulting from
quasi-adjudication and rules resulting from quasi-legislation ); Ariz. Grocery, 284 U.S. at 388-89 ( the system now
administered by the Commission is dual in nature. As respects a rate made by the carrier, its adjudication finds the
facts, and may involve a liability to pay reparation; the Commission has also been delegated undoubted power to
set rates for the future).
44 See Petition at 20-22 (citing Virgin Islands Tel . Corp. v FCC, 444 F.3d 666 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (V.I. Tel. v. FCC),
ACS of Anchorage, 290 F.3d 403 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (ACS of Anchorage v FCC).
45 See ACS of Anchorage v. FCC, 290 F.3d at 413 ( it is virtually impossible to tell in advance just what rate of
return a given rate may yield ).
5
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-116
haven for carriers that file tariffs clearly containing unlawful rates. Such an outcome would allow carriers
to exploit the Commission s practical inability to review and, if necessary, suspend within 15 days, each
of the well over 6,000 tariff filings it receives annually. We disagree that this is what Congress intended
when it established a streamlined review process to speed the implementation of new or revised tariff
filings.46
15. We note that the D.C. Circuit has construed the term deemed lawful in Section
204(a)(3) in a manner that supports our interpretation. In Virgin Islands Telephone Corporation v. FCC,
the court described a lawful tariff as one that is not only legal, but also contains rates that are just and
reasonable within the meaning of 201(b). 47 The court also described a legal tariff as one that
contains the published rates the carrier is permitted to charge. 48 The court went on to describe two
ways for a merely legal tariff to become substantively lawful, one of which includes being deemed
lawful under Section 204(a)(3).49 A filing that contains rates that the carrier is not permitted to charge
does not even meet the preliminary standard for a legal tariff filing, and therefore cannot become a
deemed lawful tariff by operation of Section 204(a)(3). A contrary reading would have the effect of
immunizing from later attack rates that directly violate Commission rules prohibiting specific rate levels
at the time of filing. Nothing in the statute indicates that Congress intended such a result.
C. We Clarify That Aureon s 2012 Tariff Remains in Effect Unless and Until AT&T
Establishes in the Damages Phase That Aureon Furtively Employed Improper
Accounting Practices to Conceal Potential Rate of Return Violations.
16. Notwithstanding the above findings, we grant Aureon s Petition in one respect. The
Liability Order stated that the Commission will determine in the damages phase of this proceeding what
Aureon s rates should have been as of June 13, 2013.50 Aureon asks that, if the Commission upholds its
deemed lawful and void ab initio findings, it confirm that the rates in Aureon s 2012 tariff apply.51 We
do so now, subject to the caveat that AT&T will have the opportunity in the damages phase to
demonstrate that, in connection with the 2012 tariff, Aureon furtively employed improper accounting
practices to conceal potential rate of return violations.52
17. As discussed above, Aureon s 2013 tariff is void ab initio and therefore never went into
effect.53 Because the 2013 tariff did not cancel or supersede Aureon s 2012 tariff, the 2012 tariff retained
its legal status.54 Aureon s 2012 tariff rate was $0.00623 per minute, which is less than the 2011 capped
46 See Streamlined Tariff Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 2172, n.2 (quoting Sen. Robert Dole, sponsor of the streamlined
tariffing amendments to the Communications Act, as saying the provisions would [s]peed up FCC action for phone
companies ).
47 V.I. Tel. v. FCC, 444 F.3d at 669.
48 Id.
49 Id.; see also ACS of Anchorage v. FCC, 290 F.3d at 413 (noting in a section of the opinion construing the
deemed lawful provision that it was not addressing a situation involving misconduct ); Tariff Streamlining
Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 2175-84, paras. 7-24 (discussing whether a rate is conclusively presumed to be reasonable
under Section 204(a)(3) which the Commission might find the rate to be after hearing (204(a)(1)), complaint
(208), or investigation (205) but not whether the rate was prohibited by Commission order at the time of filing).
50 Liability Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9677, 9692, paras. 1, 30.
51 Petition at 3-5.
52 This clarification renders moot Aureon s argument that the appropriate benchmark rate is the NECA rate. See
Petition at 22-25.
53 Void ab initio means [n]ull from the beginning. Black s Law Dictionary 1085 (10th ed. 2014).
54 See, e.g., V.I. Tel. v. FCC, 444 F.3d at 671-72 (finding that an order vacating the suspension of a streamlined filed
tariff restored the status quo ante status of it as a deemed lawful tariff).
6
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-116
rate of $0.00819 per minute.55 The FCC did not suspend the tariff. Nor did AT&T or any other carrier
challenge Aureon s 2012 tariff filing; accordingly, it was deemed lawful.
18. We are unpersuaded by AT&T s arguments that the 2012 tariff cannot be the currently
effective tariff rate. 56 To begin, AT&T contends that, as a dominant carrier, Aureon must refile its rates
periodically to insure that they properly reflect Aureon s costs of service.57 AT&T claims that Aureon
violated Rule 69.3 now that the Commission has determined the 2013 tariff to be void (i.e., no tariff was
on file).58 But, AT&T offers no support for its contention that a failure to comply with Rule 69.3 vitiates
an operative tariff. Indeed, Aureon s 2012 tariff did not expire by its own terms and it remains in effect
until it is amended or cancelled. Next, AT&T argues that Aureon s 2012 tariff rate might not be
accurate because of accounting discrepancies relating to uncollectible revenues and lease rates.59 This
narrow exception to the deemed lawful provision in Section 204(a)(3) of the Act may be triggered when
a carrier furtively employs improper accounting techniques that conceal[] potential rate of return
violations. 60 The Liability Order reserved resolution of this aspect of AT&T s Complaint for the
damages phase of the case, and AT&T will have the opportunity to present evidence on this claim then.61
Unless and until AT&T is able to demonstrate that Aureon s 2012 tariff rate should not be deemed
lawful, the 2012 tariff rate governs for the relevant period.
55 Liability Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9682, para. 11.
56 See Opposition of AT&T Corp. to Aureon s Petition for Reconsideration, Proceeding Number 17-56, Bureau ID
Number EB-17-MD-001 (filed Dec. 18, 2017) at 7-8 (AT&T Opposition). In accordance with the Liability Order,
Aureon filed a revised interstate tariff with rates that complied with the terms of the Order. Aureon did so on
February 22, 2018, and the Commission suspended the tariff for one day and launched an investigation. See In the
Matter of Iowa Network Access Division Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, WC Docket No. 18-60, Transmittal No. 36, Order, DA
18-199 (WCB/Pricing Feb. 28, 2018). Accordingly, our determination here pertains only to Aureon s rate from June
13, 2013, to February 22, 2018.
57 AT&T Opposition at 7 (citing 47 CFR 69.3(a), (f)(1) ( [a] tariff for access service provided by a telephone
company that is required to file an access tariff pursuant to 61.38 of this Chapter shall be filed for a biennial
period )).
58 AT&T Opposition at 7. AT&T also argues that Aureon s 2012 tariff rate cannot be the effective rate because it
does not accurately reflect Aureon s cost of service. Id. at 8. As discussed below, the Commission will address in
the damages phase of this case alleged improprieties in Aureon s 2012 tariff rate. Specifically, the Commission will
examine whether Aureon engaged in any improper conduct that would satisfy the high legal threshold necessary to
negate the deemed lawful status of its 2012 tariff.
59 AT&T Opposition at 8; see Complaint at 57-64, paras. 118-33; Complaint, Legal Analysis at 48-63; see also
Liability Order at para. 30.
60 ACS of Anchorage v FCC, 290 F.3d at 411-13 ( We do not, of course, address the case of a carrier that furtively
employs improper accounting techniques in a tariff filing, thereby concealing potential rate of return violations. The
Order here makes no claim of such misconduct. ). This language was dicta, and the Commission has never awarded
refunds on this basis.
61 See Liability Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9692, para. 30.
7
Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-116
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
19. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 203,
208, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201,
203, 208, 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission s Rules, 47 CFR 1.106, that Aureon s Petition for
Reconsideration is GRANTED IN PART, and otherwise DENIED as described herein.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
8