WPC!; 2BFT 3|m)Arrus Blk BT (TT)Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Arrus Blk BT (TT)cript_230_1HPLAS4.WRSSx  @,, @[X@21@ ZP)X3|jHP LaserJet 4/4MScript_230_1HPLAS4.WRSSXwLP  P7,, @[P}``S-%-=C-;C;C;-CC%%C%hCCCC-3%CC`CC;@@H-#H=---#------C-C%`;`;`;`;`;uWX;S;S;S;S;-%-%-%-%`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`;`C`A`C`C`CKC`;`;`;X;X;XHX;`TS;S;S;S;`C`C`C`H`C`H`C-%-C---C]KHH`CS%S5S-S-S%`CO`C`C`C`Cu`X-X-X-K3K3K3KHS8S%S=`C`C`C`C`C`C}``HS;S;S;`CS-`CK3S-`CT#CC,,W]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN0PP0=C-;CCCCC%+eeC(+eeCe(--;;C..PCCPe0PP0OmmKK-;Cp("XXXXee{CePMHCKPPCArrus Blk BT (TT)Times New Roman (TT)S$$$5<$5555555555<<:5<.<<<<R>CxxxxxxxxxxCCjݭR[ӭ⭭RCRnxRjxjxjRxxCCxCxxxxR[Cxxxxjs0sR>nRRR>RRRRRRxRxCjjjjjӜjjjjjRCRCRCRCxxxxxxxxxxjxvxxxxjjjjjjjjjjxxxxxRCRxRRRxxC`RRCxxxxxӭRRR[[[eCnxxxxxx⭭jjjxRx[Rx>xxP+PWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNVVnxRjxxxxxCMxHMxHRRjjxRRxx됶VVņRjxH"x𐋂x됐x("H^BCF$TTdBJB7FFcZZT7Tdd|krRxLJJblWwvrdddBddddBdd|||||krrrrZLZLZLZLv|v|||kkrrrxxxZdddZdlNvBdmCckk]cWyWFFvvd==ddFvJWNJBxkkxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxBCF$TTdBJB7FFcZZT7Tdd|krRxLJJblWwvrdddxxxFvddd=xxxxFFvvvddl=xxBCydmd]kJdBWWdxdBdWckcZZZZ||||||krrrrLLLLvdYYCCCCx~oxoY~NYdYC8YooYdYxsdxdd~YYxoxxx~CdxYxxxxCCdddddddxCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2vJpk0footnote tex#']#d6X@C@#a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2k8vtSa5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2"   6! !a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers :`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 2% "p#/$$a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers_o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2))%&'(a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2+[))*7+a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2/,,W-3-a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg24B/eF33 +4PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:3l@4gARight Par 1Right Par 11` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 2Right Par 22` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Document 3Document 33 Right Par 3Right Par 34` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#2/L5C6E7G8JRight Par 4Right Par 45` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 5Right Par 56` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 6Right Par 67` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 7Right Par 78` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#2T9aL:(N;$P<$RRight Par 8Right Par 89` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Document 1Document 1:` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 5Technical 5;` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 6Technical 6<` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2X=l!U>lU?$U@lXTechnical 2Technical 2= Technical 3Technical 3> Technical 4Technical 4?` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 1@ 2?aA$XB$ZC]D!_Technical 7Technical 7A` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 8Technical 8B` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#toc 1toc 1C` hp x (#(#`(#`` hp x (#toc 2toc 2D` hp x (#` (#`` (#`` hp x (#2iEqaFcGeHgtoc 3toc 3E` hp x (#` (#` (#` hp x (#toc 4toc 4F` hp x (# (# (#` hp x (#toc 5toc 5G` hp x (#h(#h(#` hp x (#toc 6toc 6H` hp x (#(# (# ` hp x (#2pIvjJjKlLntoc 7toc 7I toc 8toc 8J` hp x (#(# (# ` hp x (#toc 9toc 9K` hp x (#(#`(#`` hp x (#index 1index 1L` hp x (#` (#` (#` hp x (#2;vMqN;sOvYuPluindex 2index 2M` hp x (#` (#`` (#`` hp x (#toa headingtoa headingN` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#captioncaptionO _Equation Caption_Equation CaptionP 2{QmvRxS yTzfooterfooterQ` hp x (# (#  (# ` hp x (#heading 3heading 3RNPpara numnumbered indented paragraphsS' Y- 1.(i) 1) 1.#Xw P7[hXP# 1. 1.ҲHeadingChapter HeadingTJ d  ) I. ׃  2}U{V[|W^|XdO}Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersU>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheadingV0\ E A.  FOOTNOTEFootnote - AppearanceWPHIGHLIGHT 1Italics and BoldldeddX+. 2Y}Z~[X\1DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and DateY X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style offZ@@    HEADERHeader A - Appearance[LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5\ 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   2N]1M^1~_1`nLEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5]f 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11^L 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14_ 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a Document`K\ * ă2abdcjedφBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedaN X HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold LargebB*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscoredc V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/marginsdu H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   2eE f-eg8h8ʌINVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math Invoicee ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatfD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoiceg:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macrohz 4p, $0$002i4jXՏk[-l[INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoicei+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal TypestylejSMALLSmall TypestylekFINEFine Typestylel2m[n[po[ˑp&LARGELarge TypestylemEXTRA LARGEExtra Large TypestylenVERY LARGEVery Large TypestyleoENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Headerp+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   2˕qXۓrX3st+MACNormalq,.1rdfStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Marginss$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5t$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO 2puvlܚwHxStyle 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIuJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabsv )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginswDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Fontx4h )a [ PfQO  dddn 2y|z{|^Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5y$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Pointz$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5{$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Point|$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO 2Y}0~7>CStyle 10oInitial Codes for Advanced} U )a [ PfQK  dddn  ##  [[ b, oT9 !b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  QN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8PfInitial Codes for Beginningg~i )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9Initial Codes for Intermediate )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 Њ [ e )^ `> XifQ ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   3 )^ `> XifQ Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jf )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`+ >Page  jX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 UpdateInitial Codes for Update Module )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`7 CPage  jN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2} head1 #'d#2p}wC@ #a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf$ a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf:` ` `  2Զrϸa4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfE` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfP  ` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrff  2лpqeka8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfq Document[8]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CC -2( -Ct )B` ` ` Document[4]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CCW -2( -Ct )B  . Document[6]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CCe -2( -Ct )B  2egpjDocument[5]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CCs -2( -Ct )B  Document[2]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CC -2( -Ct )B*    Document[7]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CC -2( -Ct )B  ` ` ` Right Par[1]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )B8@  2.ɾ^Right Par[2]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )BA@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CC -2( -Ct )B0     Right Par[3]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )BJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )BS` ` `  @  2VRight Par[5]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )B\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )Be` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers  -2( -Ct )Bn` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )Bw ` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 2!`Document[1]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CCE -2( -Ct )BF34   ׃  Technical[5]C^iTechnical Document StyleCCS -2( -Ct )B&56  . Technical[6]C^iTechnical Document StyleCCa -2( -Ct )B&78  . Technical[2]C^iTechnical Document StyleCCo -2( -Ct )B*9:    2HTechnical[3]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC} -2( -Ct )B';<   Technical[4]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )B&=>   Technical[1]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )B4?$@     Technical[7]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )B&AB  . 2`C}ETechnical[8]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )B&CD  . Paragraph[1]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B$ab Paragraph[2]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B/cd` ` ` Paragraph[3]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B:ef` ` `  2L0Paragraph[4]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BEgh` ` `  Paragraph[5]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BPij` ` ` hhh Paragraph[6]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B[kl Paragraph[7]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bfmn 2<~HqfeParagraph[8]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bqop toatoa` hp x (#` hp x (#2S&C6C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )s t . 3S&C7C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct ) uv 2henpf4S&C8C^fDocument StyleNF2CC! -2( -Ct ) wx 5S&C9C^fDocument StyleNF2CC/ -2( -Ct )*yz   6S&C:C^fDocument StyleNF2CC= -2( -Ct ){|` ` ` 7S&C;C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK -2( -Ct )8}~@  25n8S&C<C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersY -2( -Ct )A@` ` `  ` ` ` 9S&C=C^fDocument StyleNF2CCg -2( -Ct )0    10S&C>C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersu -2( -Ct )J` ` ` @  ` ` ` 11S&C?C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )S` ` `  @  2[M12S&C@C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )\` ` `  @hhh hhh 13S&CAC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )e` ` `  hhh@ hhh 14S&CBC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )n` ` `  hhh@  15S&CCC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )w` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 2GQ16S&CDC^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )F   ׃  17S&CEC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&  . 18S&CFC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&  . 19S&CGC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )*    2}H20S&CHC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )'   21S&CIC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&   22S&CJC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )4$     23S&CKC^fTechnical Document StyleCC+ -2( -Ct )&  . 2}4924S&CLC^fTechnical Document StyleCC9 -2( -Ct )&  . 25S&CMC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CG -2( -Ct )$ 26S&CNC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CU -2( -Ct )/` ` ` 27S&COC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cc -2( -Ct ):` ` `  2E28S&CPC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cq -2( -Ct )E` ` `  29S&CQC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )P` ` ` hhh 30S&CRC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )[ 31S&CSC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )f 2$P32S&CTC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )q Default ParaC^fDefault Paragraph Font2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#_Equation CaC^f_Equation CaptionF2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#endnote refeC^fendnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>>#PP##PP#2VZdFpfootnote refC^ffootnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>#PP#1, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.E1.A, B,t ?@65Uppercase Letters1 ?*1÷$t ?.E .33`O5hT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5h.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 2qLee"34`O5iT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5i.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  . 35`O5jT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5j.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  36`O5kT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5k.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  37`O5lT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5l.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>*   2~pLN38`O5mT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5m.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 39`O5nT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>8@   40`O5oT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>A@` `  ` ` ` 41`O5pT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5p.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>0    2vT42`O5qT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>J` ` @  ` `  43`O5rT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>S` `  @  44`O5sT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>\` `  @hh# hhh 45`O5tT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>e` `  hh#@( hh# 2pA46`O5uT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>n` `  hh#(@- ( 47`O5vT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 48`O5wT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5w.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>F *  ׃  49`O5xT(G2PTechnical Document Stylex.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 27h50`O5yT(G2PTechnical Document Styley.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 51`O5zT(G2PTechnical Document Stylez.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>*    52`O5{T(G2PTechnical Document Style{.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>'   53`O5|T(G2PTechnical Document Style|.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&   2e.c}54`O5}T(G2PTechnical Document Style}.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>4$     55`O5~T(G2PTechnical Document Style~.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 56`O5T(G2PTechnical Document Style.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 57`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>$ 2P58`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>/` ` ` 59`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>:` ` `  60`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>E` ` `  61`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>P` ` ` hhh 2^+h62`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>[ 63`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>f 64`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>q 65`O5T(G2PDefault Paragraph Font5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>OO#P P##P P#2.,66`O5T(G2P_Equation Caption^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>OO#PP##PP#67`O5T(G2Pendnote reference^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>RR#PP##PP#68`O5T(G2Pfootnote reference^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>R#PP#69 _5(_>7footnote text _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tZP2 p`qeAe70 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t` ` ` 71 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  . 72 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  73 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  2m=p@74 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t*   75 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t` ` ` 76 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+t8@   77 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tA@` `  ` ` ` 2n 4KK# 78 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t0     79 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tJ` ` @  ` `  "i~'^FRxxRRRx>R>CxxxxxxxxxxRRx⭞[x⭻𭭞RCRxRxjjRxCRCʆxj[Rxxxj`5`}R>}RRR>RRRRRRxRCxxxxxjjjjjYCYCYCYCxxxxxxxxxxxxxjj}jjjjjxxx}x[C[[R[†}}ClR`Cxxjjj[[[}zR}jjjR[Rx>xxPAPWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNVVxRxxxxxxHRxHRxHRRxxxRRxxVVņRxxH"x𐎂x됐x"i~'^#)0<8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d"">E,!E;,,,!,,,,,,@,@$\8\8\8\8\8qSU8P8P8P8P8,$,$,$,$\@\@\@\@\@\@\@\@\@\@\8\@\?\@\@\@H@\8\8\8U8U8UEU8\QP8P8P8P8\@\@\@\E\@\E\@,$,@,,,@ZHEE\@P$P3P,P,P$\@L\@\@\@\@q\U,U,U,H1H1H1HEP6P$P;\@\@\@\@\@\@y\\EP8P8P8\@P,\@H1P,\@Q!@@++WZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN.MM.;@,8@@@@{@$)bb@')bb@b',,88@,,M@@~Ma.MM.LiiHH,8@l'"UUUUbbv@bMJE@H~MM@2.K\ K"K$@='"i~'^.6@PP}666PZ*6*-PPPPPPPPPP--ZZZFsjjscZss6=scssZsjZcssssc6-6JP6\UU\PH\\,1\Pq\\H\UHP\\y\\PM MV6*VJ666*666666P6P-sFsFsFsFsFhjFcFcFcFcF6-6-6-6-sPsPsPsPsPsPsPsPsPsPsFsPsNsPsPsPZPsFsFsFjFjFjVjFsecFcFcFcFsPsPsPsVsPsVsP6-6P666PpZVVsPc-c@c6c6c-sP^sPsPsPsPsj6j6j6Z=Z=Z=ZVcCc-cJsPsPsPsPsPsPssVcFcFcFsPc6sPZ=c6sPe*PP55WppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN:``:JP6FPPPPP-3zzP03zzPz066FFP77`PP`y:``:_ZZ6FP0"jjjjzzPz`]VPZ``P"i~'^:LpddDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppdLd||p|||D8DpdDddXdXDdp88d8pdddLL8pXdXLD,DpD4ppDDD4DDDDDDdDd8dddddXXXXXL8L8L8L8pddddpppp|Xdddd|Xd|ddddXXpXXXXXdddpdppL8LdLDLdpppd|8|h|D|L|8pppddLLLpLpLpLpp|l|8|ppppppp|p|L|L|Ld|DppL|D|d4ddC8CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxHddLdddddd4d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddt,U5., U\  P6G;P \v*S5.,.]S*f9 xr G;X 7jC:, ynXj\  P6G;XP   ]#D+%, ]D\  P6G;P t,U5., U\  P6G;P 6jC:,ẼXj9 xOG;X\X >(#,.Kh>*f9 xr G;hXa$G,', مG\  P6G;PN9$, @9\  P6G;@Pa$G,', مG\  P6G;P`7jC:, ynXj\  P6G;XP  a7nC:,Section 203(b)(2) to defer up to 120 days tariffs that LECs may file on seven or fifteen days' notice. We solicit comment on this tentative conclusion.  X - `  x7.` ` Section 204(a)(3) of the Act also provides that LEC tariffs filed on a streamlined  X- xbasis shall be "deemed lawful."*T Xk-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP# 47 U.S.C.  204(a)(3).#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ё The 1996 Act and the legislative history are silent regarding  Xy- xthe specific legal consequences of this provision.yT X-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#See para. 4, supra.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ё We tentatively conclude that, by specifying  xthat LEC tariffs shall be "deemed lawful," Congress intended to change the current regulatory treatment of LEC tariff filings.  X- ` x8.` ` We have identified at least two possible interpretations of "deemed lawful" that  xwould alter the current regulatory treatment of LEC tariff filings. First, this language could be  xxinterpreted to change the legal status of LEC tariffs that become effective without suspension and  xinvestigation. Under current practice, a rate that goes into effect without suspension and  X- xinvestigation is the "legal" rate, that is, the rate that the LEC is required to collect and the  X- x0customer to pay under the filed rate doctrine.;T X - xԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#Arizona Grocery Co. v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 284 U.S. 370, 384 (1932); Las Cruces TV Cable v. F.C.C.,  yO!-645 F.2d 1041, 1044 (D.C.Cir. 1981).#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#; Under that doctrine, the decision by the  X- xCommission not to suspend and investigate is not a determination of the lawfulness of the rate. T XI$- xԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#Because a decision not to suspend and investigate is not a final determination of a rate's lawfulness, it is  {O2%-generally not subject to judicial review. Direct Marketing Assoc., Inc. v. F.C.C., 772 F.2d 966, 969 (D.C. Cir. 1985).#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#у  xRather, it is merely a determination that the proposed rate does not raise questions of lawfulness"| 0*((P"  X- xsufficient to warrant institution of an investigation prior to the tariff's effective date.mT Xy- xJԍ Cf. 47 U.S.C. 204(a)(1) ("Whenever there is filed with the Commission any new or revised charge, classification,  vMb- x regulation, or practice, the Commission may either upon complaint or upon its own initiative . . . enter upon a hearing  tM%-concerning the lawfulness thereof.") (emphasis added).ě Thus, the  xlawfulness of the tariff subsequently may be challenged either in a complaint proceeding,  x=commenced pursuant to Section 208(a), or in an investigation commenced pursuant to Section  X- x205.T Xi- xԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. F.C.C., 561 F.2d 365, 375 (D.C. Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 980  yOR -(1978).#Xj\  P6G;ynXP# If a complaint is filed and the Commission determines that some element of the tariff is  X- x<unlawful, the carrier may be required to pay damages pursuant to Section 207.vT X -ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP# 47 U.S.C.  207.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ы An investigation  X- x]or complaint proceeding can also result in rate prescriptions for the future.l'T Xe- xYԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP# The Commission has authority to judge the reasonableness of, and to prescribe for future application, "practices,  {ON-classification, and regulations" as well as rates. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C.  201(b). #Xj\  P6G;ynXP#l We solicit  xcomments generally on the how Congress intended to revise this treatment of LEC tariffs that become effective without suspension and investigation.  X1- ` nx9.` ` Under our first possible interpretation, the "deemed lawful" language would mean  xthat the Commission is precluded from awarding damages for the period that a streamlined tariff  x=is in effect prior to a determination that the tariff is unlawful. The Supreme Court has held that  xonce an agency has determined a rate to be lawful, the agency may not retroactively subject a  xcarrier to reparations for charging that rate if the agency subsequently declares the rate to be  X - x/unreasonable.BE T X- xԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#Arizona Grocery, 284 U.S. at 390. Arizona Grocery construed the Interstate Commerce Act, which was the  {O- x,forerunner of the Communications Act and which provided for the same scheme of rate regulation. See Las Cruces  {O- xTV Cable v. F.C.C., supra; American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. F.C.C., 836 F.2d 1386, 1394 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (concurring  yO-opinion).#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#B This restriction is based on the adjudicative nature of an agency decision  xaddressing past rates; the decision determines whether the carrier has violated the rules that  xkgoverned its actions at the time the actions occurred. Ordering reparations where rates had  xpreviously been "deemed lawful" therefore would penalize a carrier for conforming its actions  x-to standards in effect at the time the rates took effect. Prescriptions for future rates, on the other  xhand, are legislative activities. Like a legislature, an agency may modify standards governing  X4-future actions, but may not legislate retroactively so as to penalize past activities.4T X"-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP# Arizona Grocery, 284 U.S. at 389.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѡ  X- ` #x 10.` ` The situation of LEC tariffs becoming effective with only a cursory, or no review,  x<is very different from the situation where the agency has made a determination of lawfulness, and"`0*(("  X- xis thus distinguishable from Arizona Grocery.nu  Xy-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#See n. 23, supra.n Nonetheless, under this possible interpretation  xof "deemed lawful," a tariff revision that becomes effective under the streamlined procedures  xwould be the lawful rate until the Commission concluded in a rate prescription under Section  X- x205,yT X-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#47 U.S.C.  205.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ы or a complaint proceeding under Section 208,*T X-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP# 47 U.S.C.  208.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ы that a different "charge, practice,  xclassification, or regulation" will be lawful for the future. Under this statutory interpretation a  xLEC would be liable for damages and other possible relief if it continued to apply the challenged  xrate or other term after the effective date of the Commission Order finding a tariff unlawful. This  xinterpretation appears to be consistent with the language of the 1996 Act. The ordinary starting  XJ- xMpoint for statutory interpretation is the text of the statute.JT X-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#United States v. Gunderson, 114 S. Ct. 1259, 1277 (1994).#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѷ Black's Law Dictionary defines  X3- x"deem" as "to hold; consider; adjudge; believe; condemn; determine; treat as if; construe."`3T Xp-ԍ Black's Law Dictionary 374 (5th ed. 1981).` Nothing in these definitions suggests that "deemed lawful" would be an immutable status.  X - ` `x 11.` ` This interpretation of the statutory language would treat tariffs that have been  x"deemed lawful" similar to the way that we currently treat tariffs found lawful by the  xLCommission after investigation in that, as noted, damages could not be awarded for the period  x=prior to the time the Commission determined in a Section 205 or 208 proceeding that a different  xrate, charge, classification, or practice would be lawful in the future. Under this interpretation  xof "deemed lawful," however, we would not view a decision not to suspend as completely  xequivalent to a finding of lawfulness based on a complete record. Unlike findings in tariff  xinvestigations, which are based on the record gathered during the course of the investigation, a  x/decision not to suspend a streamlined LEC tariff filing will be based on a much abbreviated  x\record and there will be no written decision. Thus, under this alternative, the Commission's  xreview of a complaint challenging a LEC tariff that had become effective without suspension and  xinvestigation would present a case of first impression and the Commission would not be limited  xin any respect by previous decisions concerning the tariff. This interpretation, however, absent  x a suspension and investigation within 7/15 days, would limit the remedies available to LEC  xjcustomers for rates, terms, and conditions that violate Section 201202 of the Act. Thus, LECs'  x.customers would not be able to obtain damages for inadequately supported tariffs prior to the  x?resolution of a subsequent Section 205 or 208 proceeding. We also note that LEC tariffs  xbecoming effective on 7 or 15 days notice without an agency determination of lawfulness would  XP- xbe distinguishable from Arizona Grocery. There, the agency could not award damages  xretroactively because the agency had previously declared the carrier's rate to be lawful. We  xsolicit comment on this interpretation of "deemed lawful" and whether Congress intended "deemed lawful" to have the effect of limiting customers' remedies." = 0*((y"Ԍ  X-  {x 12. As an alternative approach, "deemed lawful" could be interpreted, not to change the  xistatus of tariffs that become effective without suspension and investigation, but only to establish  xhigher burdens for suspensions and investigation, such as by "presuming" LEC tariffs "lawful."  xUnder this interpretation, the statutory language "unless the Commission [suspends and  xinvestigates] before the end of that 7day or 15day period," would not apply to the "deemed  xlawful" phrase, but only to the "shall be effective" phrase. Currently, price cap limits and  xjpricing bands form a "nosuspension zone," and LEC rate filings that conform with these limits  x=are "presumed lawful" after only limited review. If a LEC files rates outside the nosuspension  xzone, the presumption of lawfulness disappears, and the filing is subject to more rigorous scrutiny  X - xzin the preeffectivedate tariff review process.y T X - xԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#In the Matter of Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Dominant Carriers, 6 FCC Rcd. 2637, 2643 (1991).  xwTariffs within the nosuspension zone become effective on only 14 days' notice. More extensive documentation and longer notice periods are required for rates outside the nonsuspension zone.  Similarly, under Section 1.773 of the rules,f T X-ԍ#X\  P6G;ɒP# 47 C.F.R.  1.773.f  xnondominant carrier tariffs are considered "prima facie" lawful and will not be suspended unless  xya petitioner shows: (1) a high probability that the tariff would be found unlawful; (2) irreparable  X - xiinjury to the petitioner; and (3) that the suspension would not be contrary to the public interest.[  T X@- xԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#BellSouth has contended that "deemed lawful" extends to all LEC filings the presumptions of lawfulness  {O)-currently extended to nondominant carrier tariffs under Section 1.773. See BellSouth ex parte filing of June 6, 1996.[  xA tariff that is reviewed under these presumptions of lawfulness is still subject to complaint and  xinvestigation under Sections 208 and 205. Damages may also be awarded for any period the  xztariff was in effect. We solicit comment on whether we should interpret "deemed lawful" to create a presumption of lawfulness in the preeffective tariff review process.  XK-  x 13. Any interpretation of "deemed lawful," of course, must be consistent with other  xprovisions of the Communications Act. Section 402(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the 1996 Act adds new  xSection 204(a)(3) concerning LEC tariff streamlining, but does not otherwise amend the statutory  xkscheme for tariffing of interstate common carrier communications services. Thus, LECs and  xother carriers continue to be required to file tariffs pursuant to Section 203, and the rates, terms,  xand conditions of service must be just and reasonable under Section 201(b) of the Act, and not  X- x=unreasonably discriminatory under Section 202(a) of the Act.m!5T X - xԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#See  In the Matter of Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Competitive Common Carrier Services and Facilities  {O!-Authorizations Therefor, Second Report and Order, FCC 82350, 91 FCC 2d 59, 7071 (1982). #Xj\  P6G;ynXP#m Similarly, the 1996 Act did not  xamend Section 203(b)(2) of the Act, which permits the Commission to defer the notice period  X- x?for tariff filings to a maximum of 120 days.S"A T X$-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP# Section 203(b)(2) provides:   XxThe Commission may, in its discretion and for good cause shown, modify any requirement made by or"m'!0*((&"   /under the authority of this section either in particular instances or by general order applicable to special   circumstances or conditions except that the Commission may not require the notice period specified in paragraph (1) to be more than 120 days.(#  {Ox- xK47 U.S.C.  203(b)(2). As noted above, however, see para. 6, we believe that Congress intended to foreclose the  XB-exercise of deferral authority for LEC streamlined tariffs.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP# S Pursuant to Section 204(a) of the Act,#+T X-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#47 U.S.C.  204(a).#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ю the"#0*(("  xCommission may suspend and investigate proposed tariffs if they raise substantial questions of  xLlaw and fact and there is substantial risk that ratepayers or competitors would be harmed if the  X- xproposed tariff revisions were allowed to take effect.$ T X_ - xԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#See, e.g., 1995 Annual Access Tariff Filings of Price Cap Carriers, Memorandum Opinion and Order Suspending  {OH - xRates, DA 951631 (rel. July 21, 1995) (Price Cap Carriers' 1995 Access Order); Southwestern Bell Telephone  xCompany, Tariff F.C.C. No. 73, Transmittal Nos. 4233 and 2449, Order, DA 951445 (rel. June 26, 1995)  {O- x(Suspension Order); and Bell Atlantic, Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Transmittal No. 704, Memorandum Opinion and Order  yO-Suspending Rates, DA 95193, CC Docket No. 94139 (rel. February 9, 1995).#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#  The 1996 Act also does not alter the  X- xCommission's authority to reject tariff filings, which derives from Section 201 of the Act.V% T X- x;ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#47 U.S.C.  201. See Municipal Light Boards v. FPC, 450 F.2d 1341, 1345 (D.C. Cir. 1971). See also American  {O-Broadcasting Cos. v. FCC, 663 F.2d 133, 138 (D.C. Cir. 1980).#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#V  xAccordingly, the 1996 Act leaves in place the statutory scheme governing interstate common carrier tariff filings, but permits LECs to file tariffs on a streamlined basis.  X_- ` x 14.` ` We believe that both of our possible interpretations are consistent with this  xstatutory scheme. Thus, our interpretations would not appear to conflict with any of the statutory  xprovisions left in place by the 1996 Act. Further, as noted, the 1996 Act Congress sought to  x$establish "a procompetitive, deregulatory national policy framework" for the  X - xtelecommunications industry,& ,T X-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#Joint Explanatory Statement at 1.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#љ and Section 402 in particular was intended to speed up  X - ximplementation of LEC tariffs.' T Xz-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP# See para. 1 and note 11, supra.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѥ We believe that these interpretations balance faster tariff  xiimplementation with continued safeguards for customers of dominant companies by providing for posteffective tariff review.  X- ` $x15.` ` We additionally solicit comment on other possible interpretations of "deemed  xlawful." We will adopt the interpretation that will best meet the text and intent of the 1996 Act's  xtariff streamlining provisions. We also solicit comment on the impact of these interpretations of  x"deemed lawful" on small entities, both LECs and other small entities that might be customers  xof LEC tariffed services. We solicit comment on the relative burdens that would be imposed on small entities by possible interpretations of "deemed lawful." "'0*(("Ԍ X- IV. LEC TARIFFS ELIGIBLE FOR FILING ON A STREAMLINED BASIS  X- ` Qx16.` ` We next consider the types of LEC tariff filings that are eligible for streamlined  x[treatment. On the one hand, the first sentence of Section 204(a)(3) provides that LECs may file  X- xL"a new or revised charge, classification, regulation, or practice on a streamlined basis."(T X-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#47 U.S.C.  204(a)(3).#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ё This  xsuggests that any LEC tariff filings may be eligible for streamlined treatment. On the other hand,  xthe second sentence of Section 204(a)(3) refers only to tariffs proposing rate increases or decreases. This language raises several questions.  X1- ` x17.` ` First, the language of Section 204(a)(3) raises the possibility that only tariffs that  xinvolve rate increases or decreases are eligible for streamlined filing. Under a strict reading of  xthe statute, the 7/15 day streamlining provision applies to a new or revised charge, classification,  xregulation, or practice only when there is a rate reduction or increase. Under this reading, tariff  x?filings that do not involve a rate increase or decrease, such as where only the terms and  x.conditions change, would not be eligible for streamlined filing. Alternatively, as noted above,  xthe first sentence of Section 204(a)(3) could be interpreted more broadly to apply to any revision  xto terms and conditions including where there is no rate increase or decrease. We tentatively  xconclude that all LEC tariff filings that involve changes to the rates, terms and conditions of  xexisting service offerings are eligible for streamlined treatment. We believe that this would be  xmost consistent with the purposes of Section 204(a)(3), and would simplify the administration of the LEC tariffing process as a whole. We solicit comment on this tentative conclusion. x  X- ` x18.` ` Second, we solicit comment on the appropriate treatment of tariffs for new  xservices. Section 204(a)(3) provides that a "new or revised charge, classification, regulation, or  xpractice" shall be eligible for streamlined filing. That language could be read to apply only to  x"new or revised" charges, classifications, or practices associated with existing services. For  x\instance, a LEC could introduce a "new" charge for a formerly nonchargeable feature of an  X- x]existing service.7)yT X- xԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#Another example would be a revision of an existing individual case basis (ICB) tariff by adding one location and  yO-increasing rates on account of that addition. #Xj\  P6G;ynXP#7 Charges for new services have often been treated by the Commission  xdifferently than new or revised charges for existing services. Price cap carriers, for example, are  Xe- xrequired to make a special showing in order to establish the rate for a new service.*ieT X!- xJԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#When a price cap carrier introduces a new service, the Commission must review the proposed rate, and establish  xhistorical demand, before the service can be incorporated into the price cap formulas. Thus, new services are kept  xoutside of price cap baskets for a period of time (usually 618 months) in order to develop historical demand data  {O#- xneeded to compute the actual price index. Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Dominant Carriers, 5 FCC Rcd  {OK$- x6786, 682425, (1990), recon., 6 FCC Rcd 2637 (1991), aff'd, National Rural Telecom Assoc. v. FCC, 988 F.2d 174  {O%- x(1993). For a discussion of the LEC new services price cap test, see Telephone Company Cable Television Cross {O%- xOwnership Rules, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration and Third Further Notice of Proposed  yO&-Rulemaking, CC Docket 87266, FCC 94269 (rel. Nov. 7, 1994).#Xj\  P6G;ynXP# Under this  xreading of the statute, a charge associated with a new service would not receive the same"N # *0*(("  xregulatory treatment as a "new or revised charge" for an existing service. We solicit comment  xon whether Section 204(a)(3) applies to new or revised charges associated with existing services,  xNbut not to charges associated with new services. We believe that this approach may be  xpreferable, to the extent permissible under the statute, as a matter of policy because it would  xpermit the Commission and interested parties a fuller opportunity to review tariff changes that  xare more likely to raise sensitive pricing issues than revisions to services that have already been  xsubject to review. Parties that support this reading of the statute should explain how this would  xbe consistent with the plain language of the statute and should propose an administratively simple  x method for determining whether or not specific LEC tariff filings are eligible for streamlined filing.  X - ` x19.` ` Section 204(a)(3) states that LECs "may" file under streamlined provisions. We  xfurther tentatively conclude that LECs may elect to file on longer notice periods, but that if they  x.chose to do so, such tariffs would not be "deemed lawful." We also tentatively conclude that  xSection 204(a)(3) does not preclude the Commission from exercising its forbearance authority  xunder Section 10(a) of the Act to establish permissive or mandatory detariffing of LEC tariffs,  X- xshould the Commission choose to do so.a+T X - xԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#The Commission is currently considering issues concerning permissive and mandatory detariffing of interstate  {O-interexchange services. Interexchange NPRM, CC Docket 9661, 11 FCC Rcd 7141 (1996).#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#a We solicit comments on these tentative conclusions.  Xb-.  V. STREAMLINED ADMINISTRATION OF LEC TARIFFS TP  X4- ` x20.` ` In this portion of this NPRM, we discuss additional measures that could more fully  x/achieve a streamlined and deregulatory environment for administration of LEC tariff filings,  xywithout undermining the statutory requirement that LEC tariffs contain reasonable rates, terms, and conditions.  X- ` x21.` ` Electronic Filing. We believe that electronic filing of tariffs could significantly  x\further the Congressional purpose of streamlining the tariff process. Accordingly, we have  xdecided to establish a program for the electronic filing of tariffs and associated documents, and  xzpropose to require that carriers file tariffs electronically in accordance with rules that we will  xestablish in this proceeding. We envision that electronic filing would permit carriers to file, and  xthe public to obtain access to, tariffs, tariff transmittal letters, and tariff support by means of dial xup access or through the Internet. This should significantly reduce burdens on carriers and the  xyCommission, and facilitate access to tariffs and associated documents by the public, especially  xZby interested persons who do not have ready access to the Commission's public reference rooms.  x[Ready electronic access to carrier tariffs should also facilitate the Commission's ability to make  xtariff information available to state and other federal regulators. Finally, electronic filing should  xfacilitate compilation of aggregate carrier data for industry analysis purposes without imposing new reporting requirements on carriers.  X#- ` _x22.` ` We solicit comment on a number of issues that are important to ensuring that the"# C+0*((e""  xLelectronic filing of tariffs is implemented in a speedy, reliable, and costeffective manner. First,  x-we seek comment on whether the Commission should be responsible for organizing, posting, and  xsupervising the tariff electronic filing system, or, whether each carrier should be given the  x/responsibility for posting, managing, and maintaining its electronic file of tariffs, subject to  xCommission requirements. Under this latter approach, each carrier would be assigned a portion  x[of the space on the electronic filing system, with its own security access code for entry of new  x?or revised data, and would be responsible for the posting of pending and effective tariff  xtransmittals as well as other relevant documents. We tentatively conclude that carrier  xadministration of the electronic filing system, subject to Commission oversight, would lead to a  xLmore streamlined administration of tariffs. We envision that, under either alternative, the filing  x[system would provide "user friendly" guides and indexes so that the public could access each  xcarrier's tariffs easily. We also contemplate that our electronic filing system would permit parties  xZto file petitions, and responsive pleadings, electronically. System security, including the integrity  xof the electronic tariffs, is absolutely critical, and we solicit comments on how best to provide  x[for system security under each of these alternatives. We propose to require that tariffs as well  x.as tariff support material be submitted electronically in a specified database software program.  xWe invite parties to submit detailed proposals for implementing an electronic system for tariff filings, consistent with the criteria outlined in this paragraph.  XK- ` 3x23.` ` Exclusive Reliance on PostEffective Tariff Review. The Commission currently  xrelies primarily on preeffective review of tariffs to assure LEC compliance with Title II of the  x/Communications Act. We solicit comment on whether the Commission can, and should, in  x]implementing the tariff streamlining provisions of the 1996 Act, adopt a policy of relying  xexclusively on posteffective tariff review, at least for certain types of tariff filings, to police LEC  xcompliance with Title II of the Communications Act. Under this approach, instead of reviewing  x[LEC tariff filings before they become effective, the Commission would review these tariffs after  xtheir effective date and at that time determine whether it is necessary to initiate a tariff  X- xinvestigation pursuant to Section 205 of the Act.,T X -ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#Under 47 U.S.C.  205(a), the Commission may prescribe rates after investigation. #Xj\  P6G;ynXP# This approach would preserve the  xCommission's ability to review these tariffs to determine whether they comply with the  xCommission's rules and regulations, but LEC tariff revisions could become effective more  xquickly on a routine basis. Reliance on posteffective review for some categories of LEC tariff  xfilings could significantly streamline the tariff review process while continuing to provide for  xxposteffectivedate evaluation of the lawfulness of tariffs. On the other hand, this approach could  xlimit remedies available for redress of unlawful LEC tariffs especially if we adopt the view that  x"deemed lawful" means that damages may not be awarded retroactively with respect to a LEC  x/tariff that becomes effective without suspension and investigation. We solicit comment on  xLwhether we should establish a practice of relying on posteffective review. If parties conclude  xthat we should adopt this practice for certain classes of tariff transmittals, such as those filed  xyunder Section 204(a)(3), they should identify the classes and explain why posteffective review  xwould best serve the public interest. We also seek comment on whether under such a general  xpolicy, the Commission should retain the discretion to conduct a preeffective tariff review in"h$ y,0*((F#" individual cases.  X- ` ox24.` ` We also note that Section 204(a) of the Act provides that, when a tariff is filed,  xKthe Commission may either on its own initiative or "upon complaint" suspend and investigate the  X- xtariff.-T X-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP# 47 U.S.C. Sec. 204(a)(1).#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ђ We solicit comment on the extent to which Section 204(a) limits our ability to rely on  xposteffective tariff review. Finally, we also solicit comment on whether we should establish  xspecific rules and procedures governing requests to review effective tariffs if we decide to place greater emphasis on such reviews in administering LEC tariffs.  X1- ` Rx25.` ` PreEffective Tariff Review of Streamlined Tariff Filings. Assuming that we  xcontinue to undertake a preeffective review of tariffs filed on a streamlined basis under Section  xM204(a)(3), we solicit comment on what measures, if any, the Commission should establish in  xiorder to be able to decide whether to suspend and investigate a transmittal within seven or fifteen  xdays. We propose to require that LECs file summaries of the proposed tariff revisions with their  X - x.tariff filings that provide a more complete description than under current requirements.P. yT X- xԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#Section 61.33(b)(1) of the Commission's rules already requires that LEC tariff filings include a summary of the  yO-filing's basic rates, terms and conditions. 47 C.F.R.  61.33(b)(1).#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#P This  x<summary would, in addition to a summarizing basic terms and conditions, describe how proposed  xjchanges, if any, differ from current terms and conditions and also describe the expected impact  xon customers. We also propose to require that LEC tariffs filed on a streamlined basis be  xKaccompanied by an analysis showing that they are lawful under applicable rules. We believe that  xthe filing of a summary and legal analysis could expedite the review of LEC tariff filings by the  xCommission and interested parties. We solicit comment on whether the benefits of such a  xrequirement would outweigh the burden that it would impose on the filing carriers. We solicit  xcomment additionally on whether we may, consistent with the Act, and should, establish in our  xrules presumptions of unlawfulness for narrow categories of tariffs, such as tariffs facially not in  xcompliance with our price cap rules, that would permit suspension and designation of issues for  xyinvestigation through abbreviated orders or public notices. We solicit comment on what kinds of tariffs could be accorded this presumption.  X|- ` x26.` ` We request comment on the appropriate treatment of tariff transmittals that contain  x<both rate increases and decreases. We tentatively conclude that the 15day notice period should  xapply. Carriers wishing to take advantage of a 7day period may file rate decreases in separate  xtransmittals. Moreover, because of the short notice periods, we propose to require carriers to  xidentify specifically transmittals filed pursuant to Section 204(a)(3), and whether the transmittals  xcontain rate increases, rate decreases, or both. We propose to require either a label on the front  xof the tariff or a statement in the transmittal letter. We request comment on the best mechanism  x=for alerting Commission staff and interested parties about the contents of the tariff transmittal.  xjWe additionally solicit comment on whether we should, as a convenience to interested parties,  xmaintain a list of interested parties and provide affirmative notice to them by email when a LEC  xtariff is filed. We would envision that this affirmative notice would not constitute legal notice"" .0*((!"  xof filings, and that failure of the Commission to provide the affirmative notice for any reason  xLwould not extend the comment periods. Nonetheless, this could provide a convenient way for  xinterested parities to learn about LEC tariff filings. We solicit comment on whether we should  x.adopt this proposal before or, only when electronic filing of tariffs is implemented. Finally, we  x<tentatively conclude that the statutory notice periods of 7 and 15 days refer to calendar days, not working or week days.  X_- ` x27.` ` To the extent we rely on preeffective review, we will need to establish new filing  xperiods for petitions to suspend and reject LEC transmittals filed on 7/15 days' notice. Under  xySection 1.773(a)(2)(1) of our rules, petitions seeking investigation, suspension, or rejection of a  xnew or revised tariff filing made on less than fifteen days' notice must be filed and served within  X - x06 days after the date of the tariff filing./ T X| -ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#47 C.F.R.  1.773(a)(2)(i).#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#і Section 1.773(b)(1)(i) allows parties to file reply  xcomments to the above petitions within 3 days after the date the petition is filed. This pleading  xNcycle, although the most abbreviated available under the Commission's rules, would not  xaccommodate the filing of petitions and replies to LEC tariff changes made on seven days'  xnotice. The abbreviated schedule also would not allow for resolution of any issues raised in the  xpetitions before the effective date of such a tariff. Section 1.773(a)(2)(ii) of the Commission's  x.rules requires that petitions seeking investigation, suspension or rejection of a new or revised  xtariff filing made on more than 14 days' and less than 30 days' notice shall be filed and served  XK- xwithin seven days of the tariff filing.0KyT Xu-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#47 C.F.R.  1.773(a)(2)(ii).#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ї Section 1.773(b)(1)(ii) of the rules allows parties to file  X4-replies to such petitions within 4 days after service of the petition.14*T X-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#47 C.F.R.  1.773(b)(1)(ii).#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ї  X- ` x28.` ` We propose to require that petitions against those LEC tariff filings that are  xyeffective within 7 or 15 days of filing must be filed within 3 days after the date of the tariff filing  xand replies 2 days after service of the petition. We propose that determinations of due dates will  xbe made under Section 1.4(j) of the rules, which provides that when a due date falls on a holiday  X- xor weekend, the document shall be filed on the next business day.g2T X6-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#47 C.F.R.  1.4(j).g We also propose to require  xZthat all such petitions and replies be handdelivered to all affected parties, at least where the filing  xparty is a commercial entity. In addition, we propose that in computing time periods, parties  x-should be required to include intermediate holidays and weekends. We solicit comment on these  XN- xproposals.3NT X$-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#See 47 C.F.R.  1.773(b).#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ћ Tariff filings by carriers other than LECs would continue to be governed by existing  xrules. We seek comment on whether we should not provide a public comment period during the  x/7/15 days' notice period. Instead, we would provide for comment only where a LEC tariff is  x-suspended or investigated. We solicit comment on whether Section 204(a) establishes a right for"  = 30*(("  X- xinterested persons to request suspension and investigation of tariffs that may not be foreclosed.-4T Xy- xzԍ#X\  P6G;ɒP# As noted, Section 204(a) of the 1934 Act, 47 U.S.C.  204(a), provides that, when a tariff is filed, the Commission may either on its own initiative or "upon complaint" suspend and investigate the tariff. -  X- ` Ax29.` ` The Commission regularly receives requests by carriers for confidential treatment  xof cost data filed with tariff transmittals. In many cases, we additionally receive requests under  xthe Freedom of Information Act for cost data for which the carrier has requested confidential  xLtreatment. We believe that the Commission will be unable to resolve these controversies on a  xcasebycase basis within the seven and fifteen day tariff review periods established by the 1996  xAct. Thus, interested parties will be unable during the review period to assess the lawfulness of  xthe tariff based on any cost data held under a request for confidential treatment. We here solicit  xcomment on whether we should routinely impose a standard protective order whenever a carrier  x{claims in good faith that information qualifies as confidential under relevant Commission  X - xprecedent. We solicit comment on what terms such a standard protective order should include,Y5y AT X- xԍ#X\  P6G;ɒP# In re Examination of Current Policy Concerning the Treatment of Confidential Information Submitted to the  xCommission, GC Docket No. 9655, FCC 96-109 (rel. March 13, 1996) (notice of inquiry and notice of proposed rulemaking).Y  xwhether we should identify in our rules the types of data that would not be eligible for  xjconfidential treatment, and what those types of data would be. Should the tariff be suspended  xand investigated, the issue of confidentiality would, of course, be resolved during the course of the investigation.  Xb-  1x30. Annual Access Tariff Filings. Section 69.3(a) of the Commission's rules requires  xLECs and the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) to submit revisions to their annual  X4- x-access tariff on 90 days' notice to be effective on July 1.64T Xg-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP# 47 C.F.R.  69.3(a).#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#я These revisions are limited to changes  X- xin rate levels, and, therefore, are eligible for filing on a streamlined basis.73T X- xԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#Section 69.3(h) of the rules provides that with respect to the LECs subject to price cap regulations, the annual  xZfilings are limited to changes in the Price Cap Indices (PCIs), rate level changes (with corresponding adjustments  xto the affected Actual Price Indexes and Service Band Indexes), and the inclusion of new services into the affected  {Oz- xwindices. See 47 C.F.R.  69.3(h). Carriers not electing price cap regulation are required to file access tariffs pursuant  xto Section 61.38 of the Rules (rateofreturn companies), Section 61.39 of the Rules (small telephone companies),  yO !-and Section 61.50 of the Rules (optionalincentiveregulation companies). 47 C.F.R.  61.38, 61.39, 61.50.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѷ As part of the  xannual access tariff filings, LECs are encouraged to file certain summary material, known as tariff  xLreview plans (TRPs), to support the revisions to their rates in the interstate access tariffs. The  xMTRPs partially fulfill the requirements of Section 61.38, 61.39, and 61.41 through 61.50 of the  x=Commission Rules regarding the supporting information that the LECs must provide with their  X- xtariff filings.8 T X)'-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#47 C.F.R.  61.38, 61.39, and 61.41 61.50. #Xj\  P6G;ynXP#Ѭ The Commission uses the TRPs to monitor the LECs' implementation of Part 61"80*((R" of the rules.  X-  x31. We propose to modify the annual access filing process in light of requirements of the  x1996 Act. Because annual access tariffs involve rate increases and decreases, they appear to be  x=eligible for streamlined filing under Section 204(a)(3), and thus, at the carrier's option, could be  xfiled seven or fifteen days prior to July 1. With respect to carriers subject to price cap regulation,  xwe propose to require carriers to file a TRP prior to the filing of the annual tariff revisions absent  xany information on the carriers' proposed rates, and to make it available to the public. For price  x.cap carriers, the TRP will thus involve an annual updating of the various price cap constraints  x on the LECs' prices. Only in the subsequent tariff revision will a LEC file its rates, charges,  xclassifications, and practices, such as how far below the price cap it proposes to set its rates.  xkUnder this approach, the Commission and the public could examine the carriers' current and  xproposed price cap indices, exogenous cost adjustments, and supporting information in advance  xiof the LECs' submissions of their prospective rates and required supporting documents. We seek  xcomment on this approach and on whether we may under the 1996 Act require price cap LECs  xyto submit their TRP prior to the date that they file their annual access tariffs. Because the price  xcap TRP would not include information regarding a LEC's tariffed rates, charges, classifications,  xyor practice, we tentatively conclude that the TRP would not be subject to Section 204(a)(3) and  xthus that we may require its filing prior to its filing of the annual access tariffs. Since a price  xcap LEC's annual access tariff filing appears subject to the statutory streamlined procedures and  xcould be filed by the LEC fifteen days prior to the scheduled effective date of July 1, we also  xsolicit comment on the filing date we should establish for the related TRP if we adopt this  X- x[approach.x9AT X- xԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#Cincinnati Bell files its access tariff revisions biannually. Cincinnati Bell is an optional incentive regulation  x,company under Section 61.50 of the rules, 47 C.F.R.  61.50. Under our proposal for streamlining the access tariff  xJreview process, if it wished to file its annual access tariff on a streamlined basis, it would also file its TRP containing  yO-PCI adjustments and exogenous cost changes at the same time as price cap carriers.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#x With respect to carriers subject to rateofreturn regulation, we propose to require  xthem to file their TRPs and annual access filings that propose rate increases fifteen days prior to the scheduled effective date of July 1.  X- ` x32.` ` Investigations. As noted, Section 402 of the 1996 Act amends section 204(a) of  x=the Act, effective February 8, 1997, to provide that the Commission shall conclude all hearings  x-initiated under this section within five months after the date the charge, classification, regulation,  x=or practice subject to the hearing becomes effective. The Commission does not currently have  x=procedural rules governing tariff investigations; instead, the procedures are established in the orders designating issues for investigation.  X - ` x 33.` ` We solicit comment on whether we should establish procedural rules to expedite  xKthe hearing process in light of the shortened period in which the Commission must complete tariff  xinvestigations. For example, we seek comment on whether we should establish time periods for  xpleading cycles, and page limits for pleadings and exhibits. We seek comment on whether we  xshould require the filing of proposed orders. We also note that while Section 204 investigations  x.may be initiated by the Bureau, they must be terminated by the full Commission under Section""90*((!"  X- x/5(c) of the Communications Act.f:T Xy- x-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#Section 5(c)(1) provides that the Commission may delegate any of its functions to any employee except for  yOb-certain designated functions, including proceedings under Section 204(a)(2) (tariff investigations).#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#f We solicit suggestions for reforms that will permit more  xexpeditious termination of tariff investigations, such as the use of abbreviated orders without  xextensive findings, especially where we find that the tariff under investigation is lawful. We also  xsolicit comment on whether the Commission can, consistent with Section 5(c) of the 1934 Act,  xas amended, terminate investigations by a pro forma order that adopts a decisional memorandum  xor order of the Common Carrier Bureau. We envision that under this approach, the Commission  xcould, at its discretion, issue its pro forma order without previous release or public comment on  xthe Bureau's decision. We solicit comments on this approach to terminating tariff investigations.  x[We also solicit comment on whether we should establish procedures for informal mediation of tariff investigation issues, and what those procedures should be.  X - ` x!34.` ` Notice Requirements. The existing rules specifying notice periods for LEC tariffs  xkmust be amended to conform to the streamlined notice periods for LEC tariffs established in  xySection 204(a)(3). For example, Section 61.58 of our rules specifies the notice requirements that  xdominant carriers must afford the Commission and the public before new tariff proposals can go  X - xLinto effect.; AT X-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#47 C.F.R.  61.58.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э In particular, Section 61.58 states that carriers subject to rateofreturn regulation  X- xmust, depending of the type of tariff at issue, file a tariff on either 15, 35, or 45 days' notice.<T X3-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#See id.  61.58(d). #Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѕ  xSection 61.58(e) states that carriers subject to optional incentive regulation pursuant to Section  x61.50 of our rules must, depending of the types of tariffs, file a tariff on either fifteen or 90 days'  XK- xMnotice.=KT X-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP# Id.  61.58(e).#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѐ Finally, Section 61.58(c)>KTT XP-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#Id.  61.58(c).#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѐ states that carriers subject to price cap regulation must,  X4- xdepending on the type of tariff change, file a tariff on either 14, 45 or 120 days' notice.?4 T X-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#Id. #Xj\  P6G;ynXP#т  xTherefore, we propose to change Section 61.58 of the Commission's existing rules governing  xnotice periods for LEC tariff filings to make this section consistent with the streamlined notice  xNperiods of seven and fifteen days required by the 1996 Act. We solicit comment on this  xkproposal. As discussed earlier, we believe that under the 1996 Act LECs may choose to file  X- x<tariffs on notice periods greater than seven or fifteen days' notice.@ T X($-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#See para. 19,  supra.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѓ We propose to permit LECs  xto file tariffs eligible for streamlined filing on any notice period greater than that permitted under the statute. We solicit comment on this proposal. "|g @0*((P"Ԍ X-ԙ  VI. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS  X-  X< xA. Ex Parte Presentations  X- ` x"35.` ` This is a nonrestricted notice and comment proceeding. Ex parte presentations  xare permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda Period, provided they are disclosed as provided  Xy- xin the Commission's Rules. See generally 47 C.F.R.  1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a). Written  Xd-submission, however, will be limited as discussed below.AdT X-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#See infra para. 51.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ђ  X - xB.` ` Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis  X - ` ~x#36. ` ` As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,cB yT X-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP# 5 U.S.C.  603.c the Commission  xlhas prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the expected significant  xeconomic impact on small entities of the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed  xLRulemaking (Notice) to implement Section 402(b)(1)(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,  xwhich provides for streamlined tariff filings by local exchange carriers. Written public comments  xare requested on the IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IFRA and must be filed by the deadline for comments on the Notice provided below in Section VI(D).  X9- ` x$37. ` ` Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rule: The Commission, in compliance  xwith Section 402 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, proposes to implement streamlined  x\tariff filing requirements for local exchange carriers (LECs) with the minimum regulatory and administrative burden on telecommunications carriers.  X- ` Ax%38. ` ` Legal Basis: The Commission's objective in issuing this Notice is to propose and  xyseek comment on rules streamlining the LEC tariff filing process, consistent with the overriding  xgoals of the 1996 Act. The legal basis for action as proposed in the Further Notice is contained  xin sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201205, 218, 251(b), 251(e), and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), 201205, 218, 251(b), 251(d), 251(e), 332.  X<- ` Ax&39. ` ` Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed  X%- xiRules Will Apply: For purposes of this Notice, the RFA defines a "small business" to be the same  xjas a "small business concern" under the Small Business Act (SBA), 15 U.S.C.  632, unless the  X- xCommission has developed one or more definitions that are appropriate to its activities.C*T X$-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP# See 5 U.S.C.  601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of "small business concern" in 15 U.S.C.  632). Under  xLthe SBA, a "small business concern" is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2)  xyis not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria established by the" C0*(( "  X- xjSBA.DT Xy- xxԍ#X\  P6G;ɒP# 15 U.S.C.  632. See, e.g., Brown Transport Truckload, Inc. v. Southern Wipers, Inc.,  176 B.R. 82 (N.D. Ga. 1994). SBA has defined a small business for Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) category  xj4813 (Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone) to be small entities when they have  X-fewer than 1500 employees.hEAT X-ԍ#X\  P6G;ɒP# 13 C.F.R.  121.201.h  X- ` x'40.` ` Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected. Many of the decisions and rules  x{adopted herein may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small  xtelephone companies identified by SBA. The United States Bureau of the Census ("the Census  xBureau") reports that, at the end of 1992, there were 3,497 firms engaged in providing telephone  XJ- xservice, as defined therein, for at least one year.=FJT X - xԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP# United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications,  {O-and Utilities: Establishment and Firm Size, at Firm Size 1123 (1995) (1992 Census). = This number contains a variety of different  xcategory of carriers, including local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers, competitive access  xproviders, cellular carriers, mobile service carriers, operator service providers, pay telephone  xoperators, PCS providers, covered SMR providers, and resellers. Its seems certain that some of  xthose 3,497 telephone service firms may not qualify as small entities or small incumbent LECs  X -because they are not "independently owned and operated.jG mT X-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#15 U.S.C.  632(a)(1).j  X - ` x(41.` ` Our rules governing the streamlining of the LEC tariff process apply to LECs.  xWe believe, however, that incumbent LECs are not small businesses for IRFA purposes because  x=they are dominant in their field of operation. In this regard, we have found incumbent LECs to  x-be "dominant in their field of operation" since the early 1980's, and we consistently have certified  XM- x[under the RFApHM T X-ԍ#X\  P6G;ɒP# See 5 U.S.C.  605(b).p that incumbent LECs are not subject to regulatory flexibility analysis because  X6- x[they are not small businesses.I}6 T X- xԍ#X\  P6G;ɒP# See, e.g., Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company Facilities, Supplemental Notice of Proposed  {O- xRulemaking, 6 FCC Rcd 5809 (1991); MTS and WATS Market Structure, Report and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 2953, 2959  {Oi -(1987) (citing MTS and WATS Market Structure, Third Report and Order, 93 F.C.C. 2d 241, 33839 (1983)). In order to remove any possible issue of RFA compliance, we  X- xnevertheless tentatively conclude that small incumbent LECs should be included in this IRFA.JyT X"- xԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#See Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Acto of 1996, CC Docket  xNo. 9698, First Report and Order, FCC 96325, at paras. 132730 (rel. Aug. 8, 1996) regarding the treatment of small LECs for purposes of the Commission's analysis of significant issues raised in response to the IRFA. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.  X- ` x)42.` ` Under the new competitive provisions of the 1996 Act, however, there could be"UJ0*(("  xa number of new LECs entering the local exchange market that would be considered small  xbusinesses. To the extent that such carriers file tariffs and would be considered nondominant,  xwe do not believe that our rules would create any additional burdens because under section  x/63.23(c), 47 C.F.R.  63.23(c), nondominant carriers are permitted to file tariffs on one day's  xLnotice. We solicit comment on this analysis. Further, our other proposals that would apply to  xKsuch carriers, such as streamlined filings, would reduce administrative burdens, to the extent they file tariffs.  XH- ` x*43.` ` Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a  xdefinition of small providers of local exchange service (LECs). The closest applicable definition  xiunder SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless)  X - xcompanies.K T X~ -ԍ#X\  P6G;ɒP# Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 4813. The most reliable source of information regarding the number of LECs nationwide  x{of which we are aware appears to be the data that we collect annually in connection with  xTelecommunications Relay Service (TRS). According to our most recent data, 1,347 companies  X - xreported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange service.L} yT X- x;ԍ#X\  P6G;ɒP# Federal Communications Commission, CCB, Industry Analysis Division, Telecommunications Industry Revenue:  {O- xTRS Fund Worksheet Data, Tbl. 21 (Average Total Telecommunications Revenue Reported by Class of Carrier) (Feb.  {O-1996 (TRS Worksheet). Although it seems  x<certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have fewer than  x 1500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of  xLECs that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Tentatively, we  xconclude that there are fewer than 1,347 small incumbent LECs that may be affected by the proposals in this Notice. We seek comment on this conclusion. x  X- ` x+44.` ` Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance  X- xRequirements: In Section V of this Notice, we request comment on whether LECs should be  xrequired to file with their tariffs a summary of the proposed tariff revisions and an analysis  xshowing that the revisions are lawful under applicable rules. These obligations would arise any  xztime a LEC files a tariff revision. We are unable to estimate the number of times LECs would  xfile tariffs annually, but it could vary from none to 20 or more, for a limited number of carriers.  xWe estimate, however, that, on average, it would take approximately three hours for the LECs  xto prepare the tariff summary and the analysis at a cost of $80 per hour in professional level and  xsupport staff salaries. In addition, LECs subject to price cap regulation would be required to file  xtheir tariff review plans (TRP) prior to the filing of their annual tariff revisions. This proposal  xjwould not impose a significant burden on the LECs because they currently file TRPs, although  xjat the time they file their annual access tariff. Adoption of this proposal would require that the  xcarriers allocate the resources needed to complete the TRPs prior to their filing of the annual  xkaccess tariffs. In order to comply with these proposed requirements, carriers would need to  xutilize tariff analysts and legal and accounting personnel. We believe that entities subject to these  xLrequirements have the personnel necessary to meet these requirements since LECs are already  x-required to utilize staff with skills necessary to establish tariffs that comply with Sections 201205"!L0*(( "  xof the Communications Act. If adopted, these proposals would constitute new reporting  xyrequirements, but we believe they are justified in order to assure compliance with Sections 201 x205 of the Communications Act. We seek comment on the impact of these proposals on small entities.  X- ` 2x,45.` ` Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and Small  Xv- xEntities and Small Incumbent LECs, and Alternatives Considered. We believe that our proposed  xactions to implement the specific streamlining requirements of Section 204(a)(3) of the  xCommunications Act as well as additional steps for streamlining the tariff process minimizes the  xLeconomic impact on all LEC carriers that are eligible for streamline regulation. For example, our  x!proposal to establish a program for the electronic filing of tariffs will reduce the existing economic burden on carriers who are now required to file paper tariffs with the Commission.  X - ` ax-46.` ` We have considered the alternative of not requiring the LECs to submit the  xinformation noted above. We believe, however, that these proposals would not impose a  x]significant burden on price cap carriers and that the minimal burden resulting from these  xproposals is outweighed by the Commission's need to fulfill its statutory duties. We seek  xcomment on this tentative conclusion and any other potential impact of these proposals on small business entities. x  X4-x.47. ` ` Federal Rules which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict with these Rules: None.  X-x C. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis  X- ` x/48.` ` This Notice contains either a proposed or modified information collection. As part  xof its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the Office  x\of Management and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the information  x[collections contained in this Notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub.  xL. No. 10413. Public and agency comments are due at the same time as other comments on this  xNPRM; OMB comments are due 60 days from date of publication of this NPRM in the Federal  xRegister. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is  xnecessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the  x[information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates;  x(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to  xminimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.  X"-x D. Comment Filing Dates  Xh$- ` x049.` ` Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.425 and 1.419 of the  xCommission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or  x before October 9, 1996, and reply comments on or before October 24, 1996. To file formally  x!in this proceeding, parties must file an original and twelve copies of all comments, reply"#'L0*((%"  xycomments, and supporting comments. If parties want each Commissioner to receive a personal  xcopy of their comments, parties must file an original plus 16 copies. Comments and reply  xLcomments should be sent to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,  xWashington D.C. 20554, with a copy to Jerry McKoy of the Common Carrier Bureau, 1919 M  xStreet, N.W. Room 518, Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties should also file one copy of any  xdocuments filed in this docket with the Commission's commercial copy contractor, International  x@Transcription Service, Inc., 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037.  xComments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 239, Washington, D.C. 20554.  X - ` 3x150.` ` Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information  xcollections are due October 9, 1996. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of  xManagement and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified information collections on or  x.before 60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register. In addition to filing comments  xzwith the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections contained herein  xshould be submitted to Dorothy Conway, Federal Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919  xlM Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to dconway@fcc.gov and to  xlTimothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to fain_t@al.eop.gov.  X4- ` Dx251.` ` Other requirements. In order to facilitate review of comments and reply  x.comments, by both parties and Commission staff, we require that comments be no longer than  x40 pages for comments and 20 pages for replies. Comments and reply comments must include  xia short and concise summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments and  x/reply comments must also comply with Section 1.49 and all other applicable sections of the  xLCommission's rules. We also direct all interested parties to include the name of the filing party  xLand the date of the filing on each page of their comments and reply comments. Comments and  x{reply comments also must clearly identify the specific portion of this Notice of Proposed  xRulemaking to which a particular comment or set of comments is responsive. If a portion of a  xLparty's comments does not fall under a particular topic listed in the outline of this Notice, such  xcomments must be included in a clearly labelled section at the beginning or end of the filing.  X9- xParties may not file more than a total of ten (10) pages of ex parte submissions, excluding cover  X$- xletters. This 10 page limit does not include: (1) written ex parte filings made solely to disclose  X- x>an oral ex parte contact; (2) written material submitted at the time of an oral presentation to  xCommission staff that provides a brief outline of the presentation; (3) written material filed in  X- xresponse to direct requests from commission staff, or (4) any proposed rule language. Ex parte filings in excess of this limit will not be considered as part of the record in this proceeding.  X"- ` Px352.` ` Parties are also asked to submit comments and reply comments on diskette. Such  x|diskette submissions would be in addition to and not a substitute for the formal filing  xrequirements addressed above. Parties submitting diskettes should submit them to Jerry McKoy  xof the Common Carrier Bureau, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 518, Washington, D.C. 20554.  x=Such submissions should be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in an IBM compatible form using  xMS DOS 5.0 and WordPerfect 5.1 software. The diskette should be submitted in "read only""-'L0*((%"  xmode. the diskette should be clearly labelled with the party's name, proceeding, type of pleading  x(comment or reply comments) and date of submission. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter.  X- VII. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  Xv- ` x453.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1 and 4 of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151 and 154, a NOTICE OF  xPROPOSED RULEMAKING IS HEREBY ADOPTED and that COMMENT IS SOUGHT on  xthe issues contained therein. Interested parties may file comments on or before October, 9, 1996, and reply comments on or before October 24, 1996.  X - ` `x554.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, the Secretary shall send a copy of this Notice  x!of Proposed Rulemaking, including the regulatory certification, to the Chief Counsel for  xAdvocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with Paragraph 605(b) and  xParagraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. No. 96354, 94 Stat. 114, 5 U.S.C.  X- 601 et seq (1981). ` ` ux` ` uu;uuuuuuFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` ` uu;uuuuuuWilliam F. Caton x` ` uu;uuActing Secretary