Attorney General’s Position. The Attorney General (“AG”) stated that it is undisputed that SBC Illinois and Sage are required under Section 252(a)(1) of the 1996 Telecom Act to submit their Amendment to the Commission for approval. In this matter, implementation of the Amendment is conditional upon implementation of the LWC Agreement. By failing to submit the LWC Agreement, they have violated Section 252(a) requirements and the Amendment should be rejected as incomplete and contrary to the public interest. The AG also relied upon Part 763.120(b) to support its contention that SBC Illinois and Sage are required to submit all relevant documents for Commission consideration. Since the LWC Agreement is not included in the filing, it does not conform to Commission requirements and precludes effective review. The Commission should reject the Amendment since it is not in the public interest to approve an Amendment without knowing its contents. The AG noted the action of the Indiana Commission in declaring that the 90-day period for approval was not triggered until the entire Amendment was filed. It also cited the conduct of state commissions in Ohio and Michigan, each of which found that the filing by SBC Illinois and Sage was incomplete and therefore prevented a determination of whether the Amendment was discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. The Michigan Commission required disclosure of the full content of any understandings, oral agreements, or side agreements that bear on the Amendment. The AG further stated that the Texas state commission reviewed the entire agreement in camera and ordered SBC Illinois and Sage to file the complete agreement for public review. The AG argued that Staff’s recommendation to allow the Amendment to go into effect by letting the 90-day period run would constitute an unlawful abdication of the Commission’s duty to enforce Section 252. The better course would be to reject the filing as incomplete and therefore contrary to the public interest. This would prevent the Amendment from becoming effective until all related documents are before the Commission for proper review of Section 252(e) criteria. The AG further argued that at no time did the FCC suggest that private commercial agreements were immune from Section 252 requirements. By encouraging parties to arrive at commercially negotiated rates for access, the FCC recommended nothing more than that parties continue to function under the 1996 Telecom Act. Section 251(a)(1) authorizes voluntary negot...
