WPC 2; BK ZCG Times3|P (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (TT)@^17MSS777S7777SSSSSSSSSS77Jxhr{hbx{7@uh{x_xoYh{xxxl777SSSJSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS>@.SSxSSJJSJSSSSSSESSSxJxJxJxJxJorJhJhJhJhJ7.7.7.7.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S_SxSxSxSrJrSrShShShSxSxSxxSxS{S{SSSSSSSSuSh.hE{S{SxSxo>oEY@Y@NSSS7JDDSSSSSS:SSS:77VVS++SSf7V7:t7[[ee*S\-wSDDn[Cfx\xWkRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwhe1111111111111111111111111111111117MSS777S7777SSSSSSSSSS77Jxhr{hbx{7@uh{x_xoYh{xxxl777SSSJSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS>@.SSxSSJJSJS117SVSSSY+111177VVSSSf@+x11x17SSSSSSSSSD7SSS::S\SLS:SDJxxxxxxrhhhh7777{{xxxxxx{{{{x_SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSSSSSSSSSHP LaserJet 5L PCLHPLA5LPC.WRSX\  P6G;,,,&P2G m@R X4  Њ#X\  P6G;/P#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#Xj\  P6G;VXP#w P7ZXP#,"5@^*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ*7777BE7TTxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7/7/7/7/xTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxJxTxTxTxTxT\TxTxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxTxTxxTxTxTxTBT7T777TAxTf/fExTxTxTxo7oE\A\AN:*KT7JTTTTT.3}}T2T}277JJT77TT7J72t7[[[[^ee*B`^-wSTTn[Cfx`xWkRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwhe*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZT7TJTT7\777JJ:T7A7xx*7TTTT!T7.T^7TB[227`K*723T}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx\TJJJJJJoJJJJJ////TTTTTTT[TTTTTTTTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)z)7PC2,VXP\  P6QXP*7UC2,XU4  pQXz2J=.,gE&J\  P6Q&P2By @ Z y#3|P "5@^2BRdd$BBdq2B28dddddddddd88qqqYzoBNzoozzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`l2BB!BBPRBddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdBdBBBdNdz8zRdddBRoNoNNF2ZdBYddddd7>d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddHP LaserJet 5L PCLHPLA5LPC.WRSX\  P6G;,,,&mPTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)Copperplate Gothic Light (Light) (TT) ÍX01Í Í#Xj\  P6G;VXP#2@t vp,"5@^2Boddȧ8BBdr2B28ddddddddddBBrrrdzNdzoȐB8BtdBdoYoYBdo8Bo8odooYNBodddYO,Oh2BB!BBPRBdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNBNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldBdddddd>a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  2!@N  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   2I$!{"=##a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . 2*3{$%e)*Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:iKheader;Ax 4 <D  #FxX  Pg9CXP# reference<;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1=&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2>I ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# 2Q?^;M@ONA OBPheading 3?F` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# footer!@!!#d\  PCP#CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileAW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded DocumentBiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#2TCrQDZRErRF^Sa2AgendaCa1AgendaAgenda ItemsD7D yP ) I. a3AgendaEHeadingChapter HeadingFJ d  ) I. ׃  2VGDTHTIdxUJURight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersG>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheadingH0\ E A.  HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and BoldldeddI+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and DateJ X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟ2N[K#WL1WM1XN1ZDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style offK@@    LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5L 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5Mf 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11NL 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   2^O1[Pn\Q]Rd]LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14O 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a DocumentPK\ * ăBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedQN X HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold LargeRB*d. 21cSj6^T^UE`V-bHIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and UnderscoredS V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/marginsTu 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   INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math InvoiceU ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatVD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   2gW8ccX8dYeZXtgINVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math InvoiceW:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math MacroXz 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math InvoiceY+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal TypestyleZ2ji[[g\[Yh][h^[iSMALLSmall Typestyle[FINEFine Typestyle\LARGELarge Typestyle]EXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle^2rl_[i`iaXzkbkVERY LARGEVery Large Typestyle_ENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header`+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   1adfStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Marginsb$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO 2+tcldDmel#rfsStyle 12Dutch Italics 11.5c$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIdJ )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/Tabse )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsfDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  2vg]th|tieujvStyle 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Fontg4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5h$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Pointi$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5j$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO 2kvlwwm~|nStyle 6Dutch Roman 14 Pointk$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for Advancedl 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 Beginninggmi )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 Intermediaten )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 2%opqҋqqCrqUpdateInitial Codes for Update Moduleo )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 a4AgendaFE+&Bß-Agenda Items``0/K&(=(&2*&0pa5AgendaFE+&Bß-Agenda Items``0/K&(=(&2*&0qa6AgendaFE+&Bß-Agenda Items``0/K&(=(&2*&0r2fsqWtqȍu9vˎa7AgendaFE+&Bß-Agenda Items``0/K&(=(&2*&0sa8AgendaFE+&Bß-Agenda Items``0/K&(=(&2*&0ta127 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0u8@   a227 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0vA@` `  ` ` ` 2^wx<yza327 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0wJ` ` @  ` `  a427 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0xS` `  @  a527 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0y\` `  @hh# hhh a627 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0ze` `  hh#@( hh# 2.{|X}})~a727 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0{n` `  hh#(@- ( a827 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0|w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp a1Paragraph+&Bß-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)&"=(&8oY 2*&0}$ a2Paragraph+&Bß-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)&"=(&8oY 2*&0~/` ` ` 2`:a3Paragraph+&Bß-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)&"=(&8oY 2*&0:` ` `  a4Paragraph+&Bß-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)&"=(&8oY 2*&0E` ` `  a5Paragraph+&Bß-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)&"=(&8oY 2*&0P` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph+&Bß-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)&"=(&8oY 2*&0[ 2Қ ߘ9a7Paragraph+&Bß-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)&"=(&8oY 2*&0f a8Paragraph+&Bß-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)&"=(&8oY 2*&0q a1Order8X X-I.xa2OrderAp X-xA.` ` 2n Ɯa3OrderJ* X-x` ` 1. a4Order4 X- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. 1.(1)(a) i) a)I.xannotation rK&7>annotation referenceGw. "7>NGI "OaOb#Xv P7XP##Xv P7XP#annotation tK&7>annotation textGw/ "7>NGI "2c(d2xvvvvheading 4heading 4 heading 5heading 5 heading 6heading 6 heading 7heading 7 2tvl vrheading 8heading 8 Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font endnote textendnote text endnote referenceendnote reference 2vefootnote textfootnote text footnote referencefootnote reference toc 1toc 1` hp x (#(#`(#`` hp x (#toc 2toc 2` hp x (#` (#`` (#`` hp x (#2g +Itoc 3toc 3` hp x (#` (#` (#` hp x (#toc 4toc 4` hp x (# (# (#` hp x (#toc 5toc 5` hp x (#h(#h(#` hp x (#toc 6toc 6` hp x (#(# (# ` hp x (#2iv-Ktoc 7toc 7 toc 8toc 8` hp x (#(# (# ` hp x (#toc 9toc 9` hp x (#(#`(#`` hp x (#index 1index 1` hp x (#` (#` (#` hp x (#2v׻lMindex 2index 2` hp x (#` (#`` (#`` hp x (#toa headingtoa heading` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#captioncaption _Equation Caption_Equation Caption 2ZdE)1, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.E1.A, B,t ?@65Uppercase Letters1 ?*1÷$t ?.E .Default Para6w]Default Paragraph Font8׏ C*g7ȇ׏E;<endnote refe6w]endnote referenceg78׏ E*g7ȇ׏E?@2oP пYfootnote ref6w]footnote reference78׏ G*g7ȇ׏ECD_Equation Ca6w]_Equation Captiong78׏ U*g7ȇ׏E_`MACDocument[     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<     #:}D4P XP# T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<     #:}D4P XP# ,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#footerinfo'3, '4'46$16c61_$'461L14 <DL!T$#<2PP# 4 <DL!(##XN\  PXP#24/sNORMAL INDEN؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4"    4` hp x (##A\  P'P#   ,JR Z bj ##XN\  P(XP#heading 1 (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4&!"  4 <DL!T$#XN\  P)XP#   4 <DL!(##XN\  P*XP#  heading 2 (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4##$ , 4 <DL!T$#XN\  P+XP#  4 <DL!(##XN\  P,XP# body text(n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4%& 4 <DL!T$ X #XN\  P-XP# 4 <DL!(##XN\  P.XP#2sfygyheading 3 (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4#'(  , 4 <DL!T$#XN\  P/XP#  4 <DL!(##XN\  P0XP# List 4 3 (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4)*  `  ` hp x (##XN\  P1XP#  `  R Z bj ##XN\  P2XP#List 1 3 (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4/+,    ` hp x (# #XN\  P3XP#   ,JR Z bj ##XN\  P4XP#List 5 3 (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4-.    ` hp x (##XN\  P5XP#   ` hp x (##XN\  P6XP#2_eheading 4 (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4/04 <DL!T$#XN\  P7XP# 4 <DL!(##XN\  P8XP#List 2 4 (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4/12    ` hp x (# #XN\  P9XP#   R Z bj ##XN\  P:XP#heading 5 (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4 344 <DL!T$#XN\  P;XP#  4 <DL!(##XN\  P<XP# List 1.d (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4/56    ` hp x (# #XN\  P=XP#   R Z bj ##XN\  P>XP#2T`List 2.d (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4/78  `   4 hp x (# #XN\  P?XP#  `  4` hp x (##XN\  P@XP#List 3.d (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4"9:    ` 0 hp x (#0 #XN\  PAXP#   ` hp x (##XN\  PBXP#List 4.d (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '42QcList 3d (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4/=>7 4  4` hp x (# #XN\  PEXP#  4 #XN\  PFXP#List 5.d (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4"?@  h ` <p x (#0 #XN\  PGXP#  h 4 hp x (##XN\  PHXP#Quote.d (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4"AB  ` `   hp x (##XN\  PIXP#  ` `  ,JR Z bj ##XN\  PJXP#Page#.d (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4CD4 <DL!T$#XN\  PKXP# 4 <DL!(##XN\  PLXP#2 fbbody no inde؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4GH 4 <DL!T$#XN\  POXP# 4 <DL!(##XN\  PPXP#para numnumbered indented paragraphs' Y- 1.(i) 1) 1.3pʇ-8=@6I>w&P=(&"9=B@`*&^ʇ-8=tE'=>#d6X@ C@#PLEADING37LA - Pleading Format - 37-Line w/out Firm Name8g#x6X@`7X@# X  X |0 Xh X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:k "PLEADNAMELA - Pleading Format - 28-Line w/ Firm Name k3#x6X@8;X@# X  X \u: Xh X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:t@BXhp x (#X01ÍÍX81Í Í227$-'7E)|+PLDFORMATNY Pleading Format - No Numbered Paperr6#Xw PE37WXP#   X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:9---  -->ԯ XX   9ddddKdd@ ddddKdd@9X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:#Tps7ѐ#101 PARK AVENUE #x6X@`7X@#  `D%;#Tps7ѐ#NEW YORK, NY 10178 #x6X@`7X@#  ` D%?#Tps7ѐ#(212) 8087800 #x6X@`7X@#  `yD%;#Tps7ѐ#FAX (212) 8087897 #x6X@`7X@#  t" `!D%E#Tps7ѐ#NEW YORK #x6X@`7X@# `!D%B#Tps7ѐ#LOS ANGELES #x6X@`7X@# `D%?#Tps7ѐ#WASHINGTON, DC #x6X@`7X@#  `4"D%F#Tps7ѐ#CHICAGO #x6X@`7X@#  `#D%H#Tps7ѐ#MIAMI #x6X@`7X@#  ` D%A#Tps7ѐ#STAMFORD, CT #x6X@`7X@#  `a D%?#Tps7ѐ#PARSIPPANY, NJ #x6X@`7X@#  `d#D%K `k!D%D#Tps7ѐ#HONG KONG #x6X@`7X@#  `"D%E#Tps7ѐ#BRUSSELS #x6X@`7X@#  `$D%N   ({ ` D%<#TGxP7ۜTP#AFFILIATE OFFICES #x6X@`7X@#  `!D%D#Tps7ѐ#NEW DELHI #x6X@`7X@#  `"D%H#Tps7ѐ#TOKYO #x6X@`7X@#  * T XX X 9ddddKdd@ ddddKdd@9MARKETLETTERAll- Marketing Letterhead FormatAZAjFAXNEWDC - New "Letterhead" for Fax Transmittal+##x6X@`7CX@# X   X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersu -2( -Ct )J` ` ` @  ` ` ` 11S&C?C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )S` ` `  @  2vh݋12S&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 2@@(@h"5@^.=K\\!==\h.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33hhhRzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=R\R\R=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\RX%Xc.====IL=\\RRRRRzzRpRpRpRpR=3=3=3=3\\\\\\\\\\R\\\\\f\\RRzRzRzRpRpRpR\\\\\\I\=\===\G\p3pL\\\z=zLfGfGN@.S\=R\\\\\39\7\7==RR\==\\=R=7t=ddddhoo.Iih2[\\ydCpi`vZdfdloPpPi`d}}tro.=K\\!==\h.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33hhhRzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=R\R\R=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\RX%Xc\=\R\\=f===RR@\=G=.=\\\\%\=3\h=\Id77=iS.=79\Rzpppp====hf\RRRRRRzRRRRR3333\\\\\\\d\\\\\\\"5@^.=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=k\=\fRfR=\f3=f3f\ffRG=f\\\RH(H`.====IL=\f\\\\\RzRzRzRzRG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffff\\f\\\\pf\\\RRRzRzRzR\\\\ffIfGfG=Gf\fz3zLff\RRfGfGN@.c\=\\\\\\7<\7\7==\\\==\\=\=7t=ddddioo.Iii2[\\ydCpi`vZdfdloPpPi`d}}tro.=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=k\=\fRfR=\f3=f3f\ffRG=f\\\RH(H`\=\\\\=f===\\@\=G=.=\\\\(\=7\i=\Id77=ic.=7<\\zzzzGGGGipf\\\\\\RRRRR3333\f\\\\\d\ffff\fTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)Copperplate Gothic Light (Light) (TT)Times New Roman (Bold Italic) (TT)*7UC2,XU4  pQXz,2J=.,gE&J\  P6Q&P+2N=.,&N4  pQ&-y.G8*,uG4  pQzP,%,נJ,\  P6QJP.=K\\!==\h.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33hhhRzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=R\R\R=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\RX%Xc\=\R\\=f===RR@\=G=.=\\\\%\=3\h=\Id77=iS.=79\Rzpppp====hf\RRRRRRzRRRRR3333\\\\\\\d\\\\\\\"5@^*7\TT/77T_*7*/TTTTTTTTTT77___TxoxxofAToxfx\oxxxxo7/7aT7T\J\J7T\/7\/\T\\JA7\TxTTJB%BW*7777BE7T\xTxTxTxTxTxxJoJoJoJoJA/A/A/A/x\TTTTx\x\x\x\xTxTx\TTxTxTf\xTxTxTxJxJxJoJoJoJTTTT\\B\A\A7A\T\o/oEx\x\TxxJxJ\A\AN:*ZT7TTTTTT27}}T2}}T}277TTT77TT7T72t7[[[[_ee*B`_-wSTTn[Cfx`xWkRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwhe*7\TT/77T_*7*/TTTTTTTTTT77___TxoxxofAToxfx\oxxxxo7/7aT7T\J\J7T\/7\/\T\\JA7\TxTTJB%BWT7TTTT7\777TT:T7A7xx*7TTTT%T7}2T_7}TB[227`Z*727T}}}TxxxxxxxooooAAAAxx_xxxxxf\TTTTTTxJJJJJ////T\TTTTT[T\\\\T\2ڧ@ښ@@Z @"5@^%-77\V%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155<%%%%,-%77O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1I1C1C1C1O7O7OO7O7O7O7,7%7%%%7+O7CC-O7O7O7bOI%I-=+=+N&27%177777"SS7!TT7S!%%117n%%77ln%1n%!t%<<<<>mCCs,?>[O6Wms[77TTTH_%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155%T7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<7777777"5@^!)22SN!!28!2222222222888-\HCCH=7HH!'H=YHH7HC7=HH^HH=!!/2!-2-2-!222N2222!'22H22-006!!!!()!22H-H-H-H-H-YCC-=-=-=-=-!!!!H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H-H2H2H2H2H272H2H-H-C-C-C-=-=-=-H2H2HH2H2H2H2(2!2!!!2'H2==)H2H2H2YHC!C)7'7'N#-2!-22222KK2LL2K!!--2d!!22bd!-d!t!77778c<%:%N!::::70::VHVHVHVHVHtecRTFTFTFTF!!!!bRjXjXjXjX\M\M\M\ML?VH`PjXjXL?`PPBVHVHVHcRcRcRTFTFTFbRbRbbRbR`O`O7:::!DWHOAOAbRbRjX|cZKZKWHWHNN!JH(<::TTT<%:%N!T7bFF:W&|!!77NYE:mH&cL(TTRT:H:j<::j:7Y55:4J!:5<:d<d<BBYYdBBddBYB<BnnnnyBBnnyy2Psn6cyyXddyycnnnndC~nyRzczXzcyhBBnnshbnnonvyXzXshn~|yxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx2BdnXBBdn2n28dddddddddd88nnnYnzzyB~ovzXzBBdd~nncXhRyBynnshnnhnyXsbc`(`nxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx|1n!dyyPnRnnc\nnnnyȄřn2yyyycBMMMMMMccccxB6MMMMMMccc"5nu^*7DTT77T[*[*/TTTTTTTTTT//[[[Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!P[*77)7BE7TTxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7/7/7/7/xTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxJxTxTxTxTxT\TxTxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxTxTxxTxTxTxTBT7T777TAxTf/fExTxTxTxo7oE\A\ANL*KT7JTTTTT.3}}T2T}277JJT77TT7J72~~~~n7[[[w[e77[[wwwwee*B`[-wSreewwwwITTeenS[[[www[TCxio[eEfSfIfSxe{W77x[r[`xWkRx[[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwhedddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd*7wT[I77T[*[*/TTTTTTTTTT//[[[J[xoxffex7ixrxx{\cfsIkf77nTTi[[SIWEe7e[[`W[[W[eI`wrRrSP!P[ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddh)[wT~~~~eeB[E[[wSL[[[[enrwwwwwwww[*weeeeS7w@@@@@@SSSSd7-rrr@@@@@@SSS8*,yE9 xyQX:'!,i^:qP5Q^Pr 7xC2,OXx\  P[AXPr y.d8*,"d\  P[AP1L=.,F&L9 xyQ&"5@^.Gf\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzzzzG\zppzfpzzpp=3=i\=\\R\R=\f33\3f\\\GG3fRz\RG@(@i.====IL=\\z\z\z\z\z\zRzRzRzRzRG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffffpRz\\\\pR\p\z\z\z\zRzRzRzRzRzR\\\\ffI\G\G=G\\z\p3pLff\zGzLfGfGN@.\\G\\\\\\17\7\7==\\\==\\=\=7t=ddddooo.Iii2[\\ydCpi`vZdfdloPpPi`d}}tro.Gf\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzzzzG\zppzfpzzpp=3=i\=\\R\R=\f33\3f\\\GG3fRz\RG@(@i\=\\\\=f===\\@\=G=p.G\\\\(\=1\o=\Id77=i\.=77\\zzzzzzzzzzzGGGGipp\\\\\\\RRRRR3333\f\\\\\d\ffffR\2k` @#[z(y.C8*,/C\  P6QPz)7PC2,VXP\  P6QXP*7UC2,XU4  pQXz,2J=.,gE&J\  P6Q&P +2N=.,&N4  pQ&-y.G8*,uG4  pQz.P,%,נJ,\  P6QJPz/I(!,Ϻ,(\  P6Q,P4 0{,C8*,3VC*f9 xQX 4 10J=.,3&J*f9 xQ&X X2ZA',RV^Az0rQ^0 3z-E8*,yE9 xyQ4X:'!,i^:qP5Q^P51L=.,yF&L9 xyQ&r y.d8*,"d\  P[AP1 (TT)OchR22MMMBV7C2 S') X4 #&a\  P6G;gE&P#Federal Communications Commission`j(#bFCC 99107 ă   yxdddy )#&a\  P6G;gE&P#Zd #X\  P6G;/P#Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  yO'`7Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  Sh'#&a\  P6G;gE&P# In the Matters of)  S')  S'1998 Biennial Regulatory Review )CC Docket No. 98117 Review of ARMIS Reporting Requirements) ) Petition for Forbearance of the Independent)  SP'Telephone and Telecommunications )AAD File No. 9843 Alliance)  S 'm  REPORT AND ORDER IN CC DOCKET NO. 98117  S 'FIFTH MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER IN AAD FILE NO. 9843 ă  S` '` `  Adopted: May 18, 1999 Released: June 30, 1999 By the Commission: Commissioner Ness issuing a statement, Commissioner FurchtgottRoth dissenting in part and concurring in part and issuing a statement, Commissioner Powell concurring and issuing a statement. 5ATABLE OF CONTENTS  SH'`(#eParagraph no.  S 'I.INTRODUCTIONp"(#1  S'II.BACKGROUNDp"(#7  S'III.DISCUSSIONpp"(#11  S'A.` ` Reduced Reporting Requirements for Eligible Reporting Carrierspp"(#11  S'B.` ` Modification of the Filing Requirements for Equal Access, Payphone, Inside Wire, and Other Reports for All Carriers(#` pp"(#14  S0'C.` ` Elimination of the Paper Filing Requirementpp"(#18  S'D.` ` Maintaining ARMIS Reporting Requirementspp"(#21  S'E.` ` ARMIS Reporting Requirements at the Class A Level for Large Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers(#` pp"(#27  S'F.` ` Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance Petition for Forbearancepp"(#29  Sh'IV.CONCLUSIONpp"(#40  S@'V.PROCEDURAL ISSUESpp"(#41  S'VI.ORDERING CLAUSESpp"(#44 APPENDIX A List of Commenters APPENDIX B Rows, Columns, and Tables Eliminated"!0*''II "  S' Ã  S'AI. INTRODUCTION ă  S'1.` ` In this Order, as part of our biennial review under section 11 of the Communications  S`'Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act),D`c yO'ԍ47 U.S.C.  161.D we adopt the proposals set forth in our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to reduce the Automated Reporting Management Information System (ARMIS)  S'reporting requirements with one minor modification."Xc yO 'ԍ1998 Biennial Regulatory Review Review of ARMIS Reporting Requirements, CC Docket No. 98 {O '117, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 13695 (1998) (ARMIS Notice). Twelve parties filed comments and thirteen parties filed reply comments in this proceeding. A list of the parties filing comments and reply comments is in Appendix A. Our adoption of the proposal in the ARMIS  S'Notice to reduce reporting requirements for midsized incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs)  S'i.e., ILECs or affiliated ILECs with aggregate revenues of less than $7 billion corresponds to  S'accounting changes addressed in the Accounting Reductions Report and Order adopted concurrently in  Sx'CC Docket No. 9881.xBc {OZ'ԍSee 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review Review of Accounting and Cost Allocation Requirements, Petition for Forbearance of the Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance, CC Docket No. 9881  {O'and AAD File No. 9843, Report and Order in CC Docket 9881, Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket 96 {O'150, Fourth Memorandum and Opinion in AAD File No. 9843, FCC 99106#C\  P6Q/P# (rel. June 30, 1999)#^Az0rQ V^0# # C\  P6Q/P#(Accounting  {M'Reductions Report and Order )#^Az0rQ V^0#. In the Accounting Reductions Report and Order, we raise the revenue threshold for carriers that are allowed to use Class B accounts, allowing midsized ILECs currently required to use Class A accounts to use the more streamlined Class B accounts. In this Order, we also  S 'adopt the proposal in the ARMIS Notice to reduce the filing burden on midsized ILECs by eliminating the requirement to file 21 tables from the ARMIS 4302 USOA Report. In addition, we eliminate tables C1, C2, C4, C5, and I3 through I7.  Sd'2.` ` In this Order, we eliminate the requirement that carriers report data pertaining to inside wire and payphone investment, and most of the currently reported equal access information. We also eliminate from ARMIS reports 4301 and 4304 an additional 48 rows unrelated to equal access, payphone, and inside wire. The elimination of these rows, together with the elimination of the equal access and payphone rows, reduce the number of ARMIS 4304 rows by approximately 15 percent.  St'3.` ` In addition, we revise the ARMIS reporting requirements for ILECs by eliminating paper filing and diskette filing requirements. This change will become effective as soon as the  S$'electronic filing procedures and improved software discussed in the ARMIS Notice are developed and  S'implemented.  c yO"'ԍWe direct the Accounting Safeguards Division (the Division) of the Common Carrier Bureau to advise the public when the new filing system is finalized. Once the new system is in place, it will be unnecessary to file ARMIS reports on paper copies or diskettes. Companies must continue to file ARMIS reports under current procedures including paper filing and diskettes until the new procedures are implemented.  "0*&&IIT"Ԍ S'ԙ4.` ` Our actions today go a long way toward granting the relief requested by the  S'Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance (ITTA) in its petition for forbearance.~c yO@'ԍITTA lists nine issues for which they request forbearance. Petition for Forbearance of the Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance, filed February 17, 1998 (Petition). The deadline for the  {O'Commission's action on ITTA's petition was extended by 90 days to May 18, 1999. See Petition for  {O'Forbearance of the Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance, AAD File No. 9843, Order, 14 FCC Rcd 1018 (1999). In this Order, we address the second and third issues raised in the petition. The first  {O,'issue in the forbearance petition is addressed in the Accounting Reductions Report and Order adopted concurrently in CC Docket No. 9881.  Although we do not agree to forbear from applying the seven ARMIS financial and operating reports to midsized ILECs and requiring midsized price cap ILECs to file the ARMIS 4305 Service Quality Report as requested by ITTA, our actions today significantly reduce the reporting requirements for midsized ILECs by allowing these carriers to report at the Class B level rather than Class A and eliminating the requirement to file 21 tables. Thus, through the modifications to our reporting  S'requirements in this Order, and the rule changes in the Accounting Reductions Report and Order, a significant amount of the relief sought by ITTA is realized. We discuss additional forbearance issues  S'raised by ITTA in separate proceedings.c yOH'ԍAmendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Competitive Service Safeguards for Local Exchange Carrier Provision of Commercial Mobile Radio Services, Implementation of Section 601(d) of the  {O'Telecommunications Act of 1996, WT Docket No. 96162, First Order on Reconsideration, Petition for  {O'Forbearance of the Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance, AAD File No. 9843,  First  {Ol'Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 99102 (rel. June 30, 1999)#C\  P6Q/P#; Petition for Forbearance of the Independent  {O6'Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance, AAD File No. 9843, Second, Third, Sixth Memorandum  {O'Opinions and Orders, FCC 99102, 99104, 99105, 99108 (rel. June 30, 1999); #C\  P6Q/P#1998 Biennial Regulatory Review Review of Accounting and Cost Allocation Requirements, Petition for Forbearance of the Independent  {O'Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance, CC Docket No. 9881 and AAD File No. 9843, Report and  {M\'Order in CC Docket 9881, Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket 96150, Fourth Memorandum and Opinion  {O$'in AAD File No. 9843, FCC 99106#C\  P6Q/P# (rel. June 30, 1999)#^Az0rQ V^0#.   SJ '5.` ` As we discuss in the Accounting Reductions Report and Order, further review of our  S$ 'accounting and cost allocation regulations, including our ARMIS reporting requirements, is warranted.l$ |c {O@'ԍSee Accounting Reductions Report and Order at  6.l We recognize that our accounting rules need to be streamlined and we believe such changes should be carefully determined after the views of all parties affected by the changes have been considered. As  S 'the Common Carrier Bureau announced recently,H c {OZ 'ԍSee "Common Carrier Bureau Announces Initiative to Undertake Comprehensive Review of Part 32 and  {O$!'ARMIS Requirements," Public Notice, DA 99695 (rel. Apr. 12, 1999); "Common Carrier Bureau Announces Agenda for Initial Workshop for Phase I of the Comprehensive Review of Accounting and Reporting  {O"'Requirements and Treatment of Ex Parte Presentations in Related Proceedings," Public Notice, DA 99758 (rel. Apr. 19, 1999). The first workshop was held on Wednesday, April 21, 1999.H it has initiated a broad and comprehensive review of our accounting and reporting requirements. The comprehensive review will be undertaken in two phases. Phase 1, which has already begun and will conclude by the end of the year, will address"\0*&&II" current accounting and reporting requirements that can be eliminated or streamlined in order to minimize the burdens on the industry while retaining sufficient information needed for the Commission and state agencies to meet their responsibilities. Phase 2, which will begin in the last quarter of 1999, will examine the current accounting and reporting structure and address longterm changes needed as local exchange markets become competitive, and will assess what, if any, interim measures should be made as competitive milestones are reached. During this process, the Common Carrier Bureau will continue to work closely with the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) and state commissioners so that, in addition to eliminating unnecessary reporting requirements, the Commission and states will focus on further steps necessary to eliminate  S'unnecessary overlap of Federal and state reporting requirements. c yO 'ԍWe note that in a recently adopted resolution, NARUC recommended improving the monitoring of  {O 'telecommunications service quality by requiring standardized reports. See NARUC Resolution Adopting NARUC State Staff Service Quality White Paper, Adopted in Convention, November 11, 1998. The resolution recommended that ILECs and competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) collect service quality data on a monthly basis and report such data to Federal and state regulatory commissions on a quarterly basis. This would make the service quality information accessible to the states to facilitate comparisons between jurisdictions. NARUC also urged the Commission to ensure that its program imposes only reasonably necessary reporting obligations on industry participants in order to effectively monitor retail telecommunications service quality.   SH '6.` ` The reporting modifications that we adopt herein shall become effective for the 1999 ARMIS filings due April 1, 2000. Each year we revise the ARMIS reports to reflect changes to the accounting and cost allocation rules that the Commission adopted during the year. That order contains all the detailed computer specifications and instructions for the carriers to submit the necessary ARMIS filings. The 1999 Annual ARMIS Order, which will be released by the Division, will contain the new instructions pertaining to the modifications discussed in this Order. The 1999 Annual ARMIS Order will include detailed instructions for the modifications that become effective for the 2000  S0'ARMIS filings, e.g., reporting modifications resulting from allowing midsized ILECs to use Class B accounts.  S'C II. BACKGROUND ă  Sj'7.` ` The Communications Act seeks to develop efficient competition by opening all  SB'telecommunications markets through a procompetitive, deregulatory national policy framework. Bc {O|'ԍSee Joint Statement of Managers, S. Conf. Rep. No. 104230, 104th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1996). In furtherance of that goal, section 11 of the Communications Act, requires the Commission to review its regulations applicable to providers of telecommunications services to determine whether the regulations are no longer in the public interest due to meaningful competition between providers of", 0*&&II"  S'such service and whether such regulations should be repealed or modified.> Xc yOh'ԍ47 U.S.C.  161. On February 5, 1998 the Commission released a list of 31 proposed proceedings as part of the 1998 biennial regulatory review. "FCC Staff Proposes 31 Proceedings as Part of 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review," Report No. GN 981 (rel. Feb. 5, 1998). > Pursuant to section 11,  S'we released the ARMIS Notice in which we proposed to reduce certain ARMIS reporting requirements.  S'8.` ` ARMIS is an automated system developed by the Commission in 1987 for collecting  Sb'financial and operating information from certain carriers. ^bc {O'ԍSee Automated Reporting Requirements for Certain Class A and Tier 1 Telephone Companies (Parts 31,  {O '43, 67, and 69 of the FCC's Rules), CC Docket No. 86182, Order, 2 FCC Rcd 5770 (1987) (ARMIS Order),  {O~ 'modified on recon., Order on Reconsideration, 3 FCC Rcd 6375 (1988) (ARMIS Recon). Additional ARMIS reports were added in 1991 for the collection of service quality and network infrastructure information from ILECs subject to  S'price cap regulation, and in 1992 for the collection of statistical data formerly included in Form M.; Xc yO 'ԍThe Form M for local exchange companies, now discontinued, required the reporting of a series of financial reports which showed the details of various accounts. Some of these reports were eliminated. The rest were incorporated in the ARMIS 4302 and 4308 reports.;  S'Currently, there are ten ARMIS reports. . c yO'ԍARMIS 4301, the Annual Summary Report, contains a highly aggregated comprehensive view of carriers' financial and cost allocation processes; ARMIS 4302, the USOA Report, contains the financial operating results of the carriers' telecommunications operations for every account in the Uniform System of Accounts; ARMIS 4303, the Joint Cost Report, contains the allocation of the carriers' revenues, expenses, and investments between regulated and nonregulated activities; ARMIS 4304, the Access Report, contains data regarding the separation of the carriers' regulated revenues and costs between the state and interstate jurisdictions, and allocation of interstate amounts among the access charge categories; ARMIS 4305, the Service Quality Report, contains data on the quality of the carriers' customer service; ARMIS 4306, the Customer Satisfaction Report, contains the results of surveys of customer satisfaction conducted by the LECs; ARMIS 4307, the Infrastructure Report, contains data regarding the carriers' telecommunications infrastructure; ARMIS 4308, the Operating Data Report, contains operational information regarding network plant, lines, and telephone calls; ARMIS 495A, the Forecast of Investment Usage Report, displays the forecasts of expected regulated and nonregulated investment usage; and ARMIS Report 495B, the Actual Usage of Investment Report, displays the actual usage of regulated and nonregulated investment. Our rules require ILECs whose revenues surpass the  S'necessary threshold to file ARMIS reports 4301, 4302, 4303, 4304, 4308, 495A, and 495B.Jc {OH'ԍSee Reform of Filing Requirements and Carrier Classifications, CC Docket No. 96193, Report and  {O'Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8071, 809596,  5354 (1997) (Filing Requirements Order). Class A LECs are companies having annual revenues from regulated telecommunications operations that are equal to or above the indexed revenue threshold. The indexed revenue threshold for a given year means $100 million, adjusted for inflation, as measured by the Department of Commerce Gross Domestic Product Chaintype Price Index, for the period  {O4"'from October 19, 1992 to the given year. 47 C.F.R.  32.11(a)(1), 32.9000. See "Annual Adjustment of  {O"'Revenue Threshold," Public Notice, DA 98785 (rel. Apr. 24, 1998) (adjusting annual indexed revenue threshold  {O#'to $112 million). See also Accounting Reductions Report and Order at  1114 In addition, all ILECs for whom price cap regulation is mandatory must file ARMIS Reports 4305, 43"0*&&II"ԫ S'06, and 4307.c yOh'ԍThis is required for all mandatory price cap ILECs even if their revenues do not surpass the necessary threshold. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, c yO'ԍTelecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104104, Stat. 56 (1996) (1996 Act). The 1996 Act amended the Communications Act of 1934. Congress required the Commission to  S'permit ILECs to file ARMIS reports annually.Vxc yO'ԍ1996 Act,  402(b)(2)(B), (c).V We revised our rules governing the filing of ARMIS  S'reports consistent with the 1996 Act.$c {OX 'ԍSee Reform of Filing Requirements and Carrier Classifications, CC Docket No. 96193, Order and  {O" 'Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 11716, 11718,  4 (1996) (amending our rules to specify that carriers must file ARMIS quarterly report, 4301, and the ARMIS semiannual service quality report, 4306, once a year). In addition, eight ARMIS reports were recently revised to  S'improve definitions, descriptions, and instructions.* c {O'ԍSee Revision of ARMIS Annual Summary Report (FCC Report 4301), ARMIS USOA Report (FCC Report 4302), ARMIS Joint Cost Report (FCC Report 4303) ARMIS Access Report (FCC Report 4304), ARMIS Service Quality Report (FCC Report 4305), ARMIS Customer Satisfaction Report (FCC Report 4306), ARMIS Infrastructure Report (FCC Report 4307), and ARMIS Operating Data Report (FCC Report 4308) for  {O>'Certain Class A and Tier 1 Telephone Companies, Order, 12 FCC Rcd 21831 (1997). *  S8'9.` ` ARMIS plays an important role in assisting the Commission to administer accounting, cost allocation, jurisdictional separations, and access charge rules. ARMIS data is used for various regulatory functions and also permits the Commission to determine whether joint costs incurred in providing regulated and nonregulated services are properly allocated, which is useful and necessary for monitoring the application of our joint cost rules. ARMIS reports permit the Commission to monitor industry developments and to quantify the effects of alternative regulatory proposals. In addition, ARMIS data are relied upon by many state commissions and used by the public. ARMIS data include information for almost ten years and are indispensable for analyzing service quality and infrastructure, as well as economic and financial trends, for the largest ILECs. Recently, the Commission has made the ARMIS information available through the Internet so that an even greater segment of the public  S 'can access this information. c {O'ԍSee "Automated Reporting Management Information System (ARMIS) Data Now Available on the  {O'Commission's Internet Web Site," Public Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 18829 (1998).  SX' 10.` ` On February 17, 1998, ITTA filed a petition for forbearance requesting that the Commission forbear from applying certain ARMIS reporting regulations to midsized ILECs serving  S'fewer than two percent of the nation's access lines.Zc yO#'ԍPetition for Forbearance of the Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance, filed February 17, 1998 (Petition). The deadline for the Commission's action on ITTA's petition was extended by 90 days to  {O<%'May 18, 1999. See Petition for Forbearance of the Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance,"<%0*&&L%"  {O'AAD File No. 9843, Order, 14 FCC Rcd 1018 (1999). Two of the issues raised by ITTA are that the"Z0*&&II" seven ARMIS financial and operating reports are no longer necessary for administering the Commission's rules and that the Commission should forbear from requiring midsized LECs to file the ARMIS 4305 Annual Service Quality Report. We address the ITTA petition in section III.F below.   S`'F III. DISCUSSION ă  S' A.XReduced Reporting Requirements for Eligible Reporting Carriers (#  S' 11.` ` In the ARMIS Notice, we proposed to streamline the ARMIS reporting requirements for certain midsized ILECs. Under this proposal, ILECs that were required to file ARMIS reports  Sr'(i.e., ILECs with annual revenues in excess of $112 million) would be eligible for streamlined reporting if the ILEC, together with its ILEC affiliates, had aggregate annual revenues of less than $7  S$ 'billion.k$ Zc {O'ԍSee ARMIS Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 13698,  67.k We hereby adopt the proposal in the ARMIS Notice. Streamlined reporting will result from allowing these carriers to account at the Class B level rather than the Class A. This change is  S 'consistent with the accounting changes for midsized ILECs addressed in our Accounting Reductions  S 'Report and Order in CC Docket No. 9881. c {O<'ԍSee Accounting Reductions Report and Order at  1114. The $7 billion threshold will not be indexed  {O'for inflation, but will be monitored by the Commission on a regular basis. Id. at  18.  Sb' 12.` ` In addition, we adopt the proposal in the ARMIS Notice to reduce the filing burden on midsized ILECs by eliminating the requirement to file 21 tables from the ARMIS 4302 USOA Report. The balance sheet information contained in tables B3 and B5 through B15 may not be crucial for these carriers to report on a regular basis. We also eliminate tables C1, C2, C4, C5, and I3 through I7. This reduction in reporting requirements is based on a balancing of our regulatory needs for information from midsized ILECs against our desire not to impose unreasonable or unnecessary reporting requirements on telephone companies. We do not believe that retaining these 21 tables for midsized ILECs is needed to provide us with information relative to the regulation of those carriers or the industry as a whole. We note that over the years staff analysis and usage of the data provided in these tables has been mostly limited to the largest ILECs because they have the greatest opportunities and incentives for shifting costs between services, as explained below. Therefore, continued regular collection of this information from midsized carriers no longer appears necessary. We conclude that midsized ILECs are no longer required to file these 21 tables. The midsized ILECs will continue to file the following six tables in the ARMIS 4302 report: B1, Balance Sheet Accounts; B2, Statement of Cash Flows; B4, Analysis of Assets Purchased from or Sold to an Affiliate; C3, Board of Directors and General Officers; I1, Income Statement Accounts; I2, Analysis of Services Provided to or Sold to an Affiliate. "H0*&&II"Ԍ S' 13.` ` In the ARMIS Notice, we sought comment on whether Class B level reporting would  S'provide sufficient data for calculating pole attachment rates,|c yOB'ԍ The Commission reviews complaints about pole attachment rates under section 224 of the Communications Act. 47 U.S.C.  224. In reviewing the rates charged by ILEC owners of poles, ducts, conduit and rightsofway, the Commission applies data taken from ARMIS reports. Amendment of Rules and Policies  {O'Governing the Attachment of Cable Television Hardware to Utility Poles, CC Docket No. 86212, Report and  {Od'Order, 2 FCC Rcd 4387 (1987), recon. denied, 4 FCC Rcd 468 (1989); see also Letter from Kenneth P. Moran, Chief, Accounting and Audits Division, Common Carrier Bureau, to Paul Glist, Esq., Cole, Raywid &  yO'Braverman, 5 FCC Rcd 3898 (1990). because our pole attachment formulas  S'are based on Class A level of accounting detail.e c {O^ 'ԍARMIS Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 1370001,  10.e We disagree with those commenters that argue that  S'Class A level of detail is not needed to calculate pole attachment fees.uc {O 'ԍSee, e.g., Bell Atlantic Comments at 910; SBC Comments at 29.u As The National Cable Television Association (NCTA) explains, pole rents are currently determined by isolating the costs of a bare pole, currently booked to Class A account 2411; the Class B account 2410 also includes aerial cable, undersea cable, buried cable, intrabuilding network wiring, and conduit systems, none of which  S'is included in the rental for attachment to a bare pole.J0 c yO'ԍNCTA Reply Comments at 4.J Without further Commission action, the midsized ILECs would no longer provide the level of detail in their ARMIS reports under Class B  S'accounting to calculate the pole attachment fees.m c {O'ԍSee Accounting Reductions Report and Order at  15.m Pursuant to our Accounting Reductions Report and  St'Order, we are, therefore, requiring these carriers to continue to maintain subsidiary records to provide  SN 'the information needed for the pole attachment formulas.@N R c {O@'ԍId.@ Detailed instructions for filing this  S& 'information will be provided in the 1999 Annual ARMIS Order.&& c {O'ԍThe Commission is currently considering issues regarding the pole attachment formulas. See  {Ot'Amendment of Rules and Policies Governing Pole Attachments, CS Docket No. 9798, Notice of Proposed  {O>'Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 7449 (1997). When a report and order is released, we will specify the subsidiary record categories carriers must maintain in order to provide data for the pole attachment formulas.  S ' B.XModification of the Filing Requirements for Equal Access, Payphone, Inside Wire, and  S 'Other Reports for All Carriers (#  S^' 14.` ` Equal access. Under equal access provisions, all local exchange carriers must permit  S6'access to all long distance carriers by dialing "1" plus the called party's number.$ 6c {O#'ԍSee Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC  {Or$'Docket No. 9698, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15511,  17 (1996) (Local Competition Order).$ To assure proper"6. 0*&&II" accounting for equal access implementation, new cost categories were established following the AT&T  S'divesture. In the ARMIS Notice, we proposed to eliminate equal access information from the ARMIS 4304 Access Report because the nearly complete transition to equal access reduced our need to  S'monitor its deployment.!"c {O'ԍSee "Distribution of Equal Access Lines and Presubscribed Lines," Report, Industry Analysis Division, Common Carrier Bureau (Nov. 1997) (concluding that at the end of 1996, 99.4 percent of the nation's telephone lines had been converted to equal access; Bell operating companies had converted almost 100 percent of their lines to equal access and other companies had converted 97.6 percent of their lines). We proposed to eliminate the corresponding rows and columns from the ARMIS 4301 Annual Summary Report pertaining to equal access, for all carriers.  S'15.` ` We now conclude, however, that complete elimination of all equal access rows from the ARMIS 4304 Access Report would be inappropriate. Carriers continue to report significant amounts of equal access costs. For 1997, carriers reported $329 million in equal access investment  S'and $38 million in expenses."c yO 'ԍThese figures were derived from the ARMIS 4304 Access Reports filed by ILECs for 1997. We must continue to require the reporting of equal access data for the jurisdictional separations process because Part 36 of our rules requires that equal access costs be  SJ 'separately identified and allocated.J#J Bc yO,'ԍ47 C.F.R.  36.191(b).J We have determined, however, that we can effectively monitor the jurisdictional separation of these costs by retaining only seven of the 62 rows currently reported,  S 'and thus eliminating the remaining 55 rows, for all carriers.g$ c yOl'ԍWe will require carriers to continue to report information for the following seven rows in 4304: Row 30 Total Equal Access Investment; Row 40 Equal Access Accumulated Depreciation Reserve; Row 42 Equal Access Accumulated Amortization; Row 44 Equal Access Current Deferred Operating Income Taxes; Row 46 Equal Access NonCurrent Deferred Operating Income Taxes; Row 83 Equal Access Minutesof {O'Use; and Row 84 Total Equal Access Expenses. See Appendix B for a complete list of the rows, columns, and tables eliminated.g We note that the amount of equal access expenses are relatively small and have declined each year since 1993. We believe that the time has come for the Federal State Joint Board to consider eliminating the equal access separations provisions, but as long as these requirements remain in place, we cannot completely eliminate this reporting requirement.  S '16.` ` Payphone and Inside Wire Data. In the ARMIS Notice, we proposed to eliminate the  S'inside wire and payphone columns and rows from the ARMIS 4304 Access Report.%L c yO'ԍInstallation and maintenance of inside wire were deregulated in Detariffing the Installation and  {O 'Maintenance of Inside Wiring, Second Report and Order, 51 Fed. Reg. 8498 (Mar. 12, 1986); recon., 1 FCC  {Ob!'Rcd 1190 (1986); further recon., 3 FCC Rcd 1719 (1988). The Payphone Orders required ILECs to deregulate, detariff, and reclassify ILEC payphones as customer premises equipment for regulatory purposes effective April 15, 1997. Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the  {O#'Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96128, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 20541 (1996);  {O$'Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 2233 (1996); aff'd in part and remanded in part, sub nom. Illinois"$$0*&&|$"  {O'Public Telecommunications Ass'n v. FCC, 117 F.3d 555 (D.C.Cir. 1997); Order on Remand, 13 FCC Rcd 4998  {OZ'(1998); aff'd in part and remanded in part, MCI v. FCC, 143 F.3d 606 (D.C.Cir. 1998). We also" $%0*&&IIt" proposed to eliminate the corresponding columns from the ARMIS 4301 Annual Summary Report  S'pertaining to inside wire and payphone information. Many commenters support this proposal.&$c {O'ԍSee, e.g., AT&T Comments at 2; BellSouth Comments at 7; SBC Comments at 4; Sprint Comments at 3; USTA Comments at 7; US West Comments at 3. We conclude that the current data collected in ARMIS 4301 and 4304 no longer are necessary to be collected and thus we eliminate the inside wire and payphone columns and rows in the ARMIS 4301  S`'Annual Summary Report and the ARMIS 4304 Access Report.'`~c yO~ 'ԍSpecifically, we are eliminating rows 1422, 1423, 1424, 5032, and 5033 from report 43-04.  S'17.` ` Other ARMIS Report Rows Eliminated. In the ARMIS Notice, we proposed to eliminate from ARMIS reports 4301 and 4304 an additional 48 rows unrelated to equal access, payphone, and inside wire. None of the commenters opposed this proposal. We believe that the data collected in these rows are no longer needed to regulate ILECs or the industry as a whole for the reasons given above. Thus, we conclude that it is no longer necessary to require parties to submit  SJ 'data for these specific rows in ARMIS reports 4301 and 4304.k(J c yO'ԍWe are eliminating the following rows: X(1) row 1980 from report 4301, which is no longer necessary because the common line transition support has expired;(# X(2) rows 999, 1004, 1210, 1211, 1391, 1419, 1521, 5020, 5021, 5070, and 5071 from report 4304, which are in conflict with our order on direct assignment;(# X(3) rows 1214, 1215, 1217, and 1219 from report 4304, which are no longer necessary because our transition to relative dial equipment minutes allocator for central office equipment category 3 has been completed;(# X(4) rows 1241, 1242, 1243, 1281, 1282, 1283, 1334, 1340, 1341, 1351, 1352, and 1360 from report 4304 because teletypewriter exchange service is no longer a regulated service;(# X(5) rows 1427, 1456, 1457, and 1458 from report 4304 because the transition from subscriber plant factor to 25 percent Gross Allocator had been completed;(# X(6) rows 7240, 7241, 7242, 7243, 7244, 7247, 7251, 7252, 7253, 7254, 7255, 7256, 7257, and 7258 from report 4304 because the methodology reflected in these rows for Other Billing and Collection expense allocation no longer applies; and(# X(7) row 9000 from report 4304, which is no longer necessary since common line transitional support has expired.(#k We note that the elimination of"J (0*&&II " these rows, together with the elimination of the equal access and payphone rows discussed above, reduce the number of ARMIS 4304 rows by approximately 15 percent.  S' :C.Elimination of the Paper Filing Requirement  S8'18.` ` As we noted in the ARMIS Notice, the Commission relies increasingly on data filed electronically to maintain internal databases and generate reports. For example, we recently  S':implemented mandatory electronic filing of tariffs and associated documents,#)Zc {OR'ԍSee Electronic Tariff Filing System (ETFS), DA 98914, Order, 13 FCC Rcd 12335 (1998) (requiring ILECs to file tariffs and associated documents using the Common Carrier Bureau's electronic tariff filing system as of July 1, 1998).# permitted electronic  S'filing of comments and other pleadings,@*c {OL 'ԍSee Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, GC Docket No. 97113, Report and  {O 'Order, 13 FCC Rcd 11322 (1998) (permitting parties to file comments and other pleadings electronically via the Internet in informal notice and comment rulemaking proceedings (except in broadcast allotment proceedings), and the electronic filing of pleadings and comments in proceedings involving petitions for rulemaking (except in broadcast allotment proceedings) and Notice of Inquiry proceedings).@ and required electronic filing for certain wireless radio  S'applications.'+c {O'ԍSee Biennial Regulatory Review Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 13, 22, 24, 26, 27, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97, and 101 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Development of and Use of the Universal Licensing System in  {Oj'the Wireless Telecommunications Services, WT Docket No. 9820, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 21027  {O4'(1998) (ULS Order). In the ULS Order, the Commission mandated electronic filing for (1) applicants and licensees in services licensed by auction (even if the particular license was not acquired at auction) and for applications filed by frequency coordinators; (2) applicants and licensees in common carrier services which are not subject to auction because they operate on shared spectrum; and (3) volunteer examinercoordinators in the  {OV'Amateur service. See also Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules Competitive Bidding Procedures,  {O 'WT Docket No. 9782, Third Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 374, 412,  62 (1997) (requiring electronic filing of all shortform and longform applications beginning January 1, 1999, unless not feasible due to technical failure or other difficulties).' We also note that a principal way in which the Commission has increased the public's  Sr'access to the Commission's information and documents is through the Internet.,rc {O'ԍSee Section 257 Proceeding to Identify and Eliminate Market Entry Barriers for Small Business, GN  {O'Docket No. 96113, Report, 12 FCC Rcd 16802, 1684546,  7879 (1997).  S" '19.` ` Currently, carriers are required to submit both paper copies of ARMIS reports and diskettes in American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) format to the Division. The  S 'Commission and some users of the ARMIS data utilize the ASCII (i.e., diskette) versions of the  S 'reports. Other users prefer accessing the ARMIS data through the paper filings. In the ARMIS Notice, we proposed to eliminate the paper filing requirement. We also proposed to develop Internetbased capabilities by which ARMIS users could obtain paper copies of the ARMIS reports. Commenters"^ d,0*&&II"  S'support our proposal to eliminate paper filing and to make ARMIS data available over the Internet.n-"c {Oh'ԍSee, e.g., Ameritech Comments at 4; AT&T Comments at 1; Bell Atlantic Comments at 6 n.5; BellSouth Comments at 6; GSA Comments at 2 & Reply Comments at 23; SBC Comments at 3 & n.9; Sprint Comments at 2 & Reply Comments at 4; MCI Comments at 12; USTA Comments at 6 & Reply Comments at 3; US West Comments at 3.n  S'Several commenters note the cost savings of our proposal.A.Zc {O*'ԍSee, e.g., Sprint Comments at 2 (estimating a cost savings of $6,800 annually); USTA Comments at 6 (estimating a cost savings of approximately $150,000 annually); GSA Comments at 2 (stating that access to ARMIS data on the Internet would greatly reduce GSA's costs).A  S'20.` ` On September 24, 1998, the Division released a Public Notice announcing that  S`'ARMIS information is available on the Commission's Internet web site.1/Z`c {O 'ԍSee note 21, supra. The database web site address is http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/armis/db/. Descriptions of the reports and carrier filing requirements are available on the database web site and the ARMIS web site at http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/armis/.1 The Commission plans to develop software enhancements that will permit parties to print out paper copies of ARMIS reports from the Internet and will require carriers to file ARMIS reports electronically over the Internet. The system will be designed to allow users to select only those reports they need for a particular year or company. In addition, we anticipate that Internet access to the original ASCII data will be available. We direct the Division to keep the public advised of such progress through Public Notices. Once the new system is finalized it will be unnecessary to file paper copies or diskettes. Companies must continue to file ARMIS reports under current procedures including paper filing and diskettes until  S 'the new procedures are implemented.  S ' D.XMaintaining ARMIS Reporting Requirements (#  S '21.` ` We next address several specific issues raised by commenters that are beyond those  SX'set forth in our ARMIS Notice. We agree with the ILECs' claims0X c {O'ԍSee, e.g., SBC Comments at 10 & Reply Comments at 17; CBT Reply Comments at 5. that effective competition in the  S2'local exchange market could warrant removing or greatly streamlining detailed ARMIS reporting,1"2 c {OZ'ԍSee AT&T Reply Comments at 3; MCI Reply Comments at 2 (noting that the ILECs have presented no evidence in this proceeding that would allow the Commission to conclude that meaningful competition exists; thus, there is no basis for removing the Commission's regulatory tools Class A accounting, detailed cost allocation manual filings, audits, and ARMIS reports which are all needed to protect consumers).  but we disagree that such competition has developed to the point today to justify radical changes in"  r10*&&II" ARMIS reporting requirements. We intend, however, to continue to monitor our needs for reporting  S'requirements from ILECs as competition develops.2c yO@'ԍThe most recent data submissions show that competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) and competitive access providers (CAPs) together account for only one percent of nationwide local exchange service  {O'revenues. (See Table 8.1, Trends in Telephone Service, Common Carrier Bureau, July 1998). In 1997, ILECs  {O'had 97.5 percent of the local telecommunications market (i.e., local exchange, local private line, and other local  {Od'services as well as interstate and intrastate access services) as measured by revenues. Telecommunications Industry Revenue: 1997, Table 4 (Industry Analysis Div., October 1998).  S'22.` ` In addition, we are not persuaded at this time by ILECs' claims that the requisite  S`'financial detail could be provided on an asneeded basis instead of an annual ARMIS filing.3`Fc {OF 'ԍSee, e.g., Ameritech Reply Comments at 4; SBC Reply Comments at 810; US West Reply Comments at 3; USTA Reply Comments at 4. One objective of the Uniform System of Accounts is to maintain a sufficiently detailed and current regulatory accountingbased system that facilitates recurrent regulatory decisionmaking without undue  S'delay or reliance on ad hoc information requests and special studies.d4^c {O('ԍSee Revision of the Uniform System of Accounts and Financial Reporting Requirements for Class A  {O'and Class B Telephone Companies Parts 31, 33, 42, and 43 of the FCC's Rules, CC Docket No. 78196, Report  {O'and Order, 60 Rad. Reg. 2d (P&F) 1111,  2 (1986).d Without annual filings, the Commission, state regulators, and the public would not have access to the information contained in the complete ARMIS database. In addition, maintaining the ARMIS database, accessible on the Internet, will increase the public's access to the Commission's information. Providing financial data on demand may suffice for a specific analysis, but it would not provide the financial and operating data needed to administer accounting, cost allocation, jurisdictional separations, and access charge rules, and it would not preserve the Commission's ability to monitor industry developments and quantify the effects of alternative regulatory proposals. Moreover, this proposal would not permit state regulators or other parties to use the ARMIS data for their purposes. We, thus, reject this proposal to eliminate our ARMIS reporting requirements.  S2'23.` ` We disagree with the commenters' argument that ARMIS data at the Class A reporting level are unnecessary for the Commission to enforce structural separation and nondiscrimination requirements under the Communications Act because the Commission has required the structurally separate affiliates to maintain separate books of account based on generally accepted accounting  S'principles, not Part 32 accounts reported in ARMIS.5 c {O'ԍSee, e.g., Bell Atlantic Comments at 7; Ameritech Comments at 7; BellSouth Comments at App. 4, p. 10; US West Comments at 5; USTA Comments at 5. Recently, in the Second BellSouth Louisiana  Sl'Order, the Commission used BellSouth's ARMIS filings and cost allocation manuals (CAMs)6XXl c yO,#'ԍPursuant to section 64.903 of our rules, carriers with operating revenues above a certain threshold must file a manual with the Commission on an annual basis that contains certain information regarding its allocation of costs between regulated and nonregulated activities. Among other things, this manual must include a"$50*&&$" description of each of the carrier's nonregulated activities and a statement "identifying each affiliate that engages in or will engage in transactions with the carrier and describing the nature, terms, and frequency of each transaction." 47 C.F.R.  64.903(a). to"l 60*&&II" determine that there were significant discrepancies between such filings and BellSouth's section 272(b)(5) Internet disclosures regarding transactions between the Bell operating company (BOC) and  S'its section 272 affiliate.7&c {O8'ԍSee Application of BellSouth Corporation, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., and BellSouth Long Distance, Inc. for Provision of InRegion, InterLATA Services in Louisiana, CC Docket No. 98121,  {O'Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 20599, 2079192,  335 & n.1046 (1998) (Second BellSouth  {O 'Louisiana Order). The Commission noted that BellSouth failed to disclose fully all transactions between BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. and BellSouth Long Distance, Inc. BellSouth Long Distance is a section 272 affiliate established to provide in region interLATA services once section 271 approval is obtained. Under section 272(b)(5), transactions between a BOC and its section 272 affiliate must be publicly disclosed and must be conducted on an arm's length basis; the Commission concluded that BellSouth had not shown that it would comply with either requirement of this section of the Communications Act. Without the Class A level of detail contained in ARMIS 4302, Table I2, the Commission might not have found the discrepancies in the filings which revealed that BellSouth failed to fully disclose all such transactions.  S '24.` ` In addition, the Commission's ARMIS data are relied upon by many state commissions. From January 1997 to July 1998, ARMIS data were used in a large number of state  S 'public utilities proceedings.D8j: c {OF'ԍSee ALLTEL Carolina, Inc., Docket No. P118, Sub 86, North Carolina Utilities Commission (July 8, 1998); Regulations for Competition in the Local Telecommunications Market, General Order, Louisiana Public Service Commission (June 18, 1998); TCG Delaware Valley, Inc., P00971256, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (June 16, 1998); Petition by Metropolitan Fiber Systems of Florida, Inc. for Arbitration with BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Docket No. 960757TP, Order No. PSC980604FOFTP, Florida Public Service Commission (April 29, 1998); Telecommunications Act of 1996, Cause No. 40618, Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (May 7, 1998); US West Communications, Inc., Docket No. RPU969, Iowa Utilities Board (April 23, 1998); Communications Infrastructure of the State of Hawaii, Docket No. 7702, Order No. 16272, Hawaii Public Utilities Commission (April 3, 1998); BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Order No. U22418, Louisiana Public Service Commission (March 26, 1998); Reciprocal Compensation Related to Internet Traffic, Case 97C1275, New York Public Service Commission (March 19, 1998); Telecommunications Act of 1996, Docket No. 975018, Nevada Public Service Commission (March 11, 1998); Bundled and Unbundled Telephone Services and Service Elements, Docket No. 960035, Nevada Public Service Commission (March 5, 1998); GTE North Incorporated, Case No. U11281, Michigan Public Service Commission (February 25, 1998); Avoided Cost for Development of Wholesale Discounts from Retail Rates, Docket No. 2518, Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (January 29, 1998); Petition for Approval of Resale, Interconnection, and Unbundling Agreement Between BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., and Business Telecom, Inc., Docket No. 971561TP, Order No. PSC980170FOFTP, Florida Public Service Commission (January 28, 1998); Ameritech Michigan, Case No. U11280, Michigan Public Service Commission (January 28, 1998); Local Resale, Docket No. 25677, Alabama Public Service Commission (December 22, 1997); Local Exchange Competition for Telecommunications Services, Docket No. TX95120631, New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (December 2,"$70*&&$" 1997); BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.'s Entry into InterLATA Services, Docket No. 960786TL, Order No. PSC971459FOFTL, Florida Public Service Commission (November 19, 1997); AT&T Communications of New York, et al., Cases 95C0657, 94C0095, 91C1174, New York Public Service Commission (September 22, 1997); US West Communications, Inc., Case No. USWS965, Order No. 27100, Idaho Public Utilities Commission (August 12, 1997); Interconnection Agreement Negotiated by BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. with FiberSouth of Florida, Inc., Docket No. 970376TP, Order No. PSC970789FOFTP, Florida Public Service Commission (July 2, 1997); Interconnection Agreement Negotiated by BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. with WinStar Wireless, Inc., Docket No. 970366TP, Order No. PSC970786FOFTP, Florida Public Service Commission (July 2, 1997); Petitions by AT&T Communications of the Southern States, Inc., et al., Concerning Interconnection and Resale, Docket Nos. 960847TP, 960980TP, Order No. PSC970064FOFTP, Florida Public Service Commission (January 27, 1997, as amended May 21, 1997); US West Communications, Inc., Docket Nos. 70000TF96319, 72000TF9695, Wyoming Public Service Commission (April 23, 1997); Sprint Communications Company, L.P., Docket No. P294, Sub 9, North Carolina Utilities Commission (April 7, 1997); General Order, Louisiana Public Service Commission (April 1, 1997); AT&T Communications of New  {O 'York, Inc., et al., Cases 95C0657, 94C0095, 91C1174, New York Public Service Commission (April 1, 1997); Pacific Telesis Group, Decision 9703067, Application 9604038, California Public Utilities Commission (March 31, 1997); 1996 Annual Reports, Case No. 97174AUUNC, Ohio Public Utilities Commission (March 6, 1997); Sprint Communications Company, L.P., Docket No. 961173TP, PSC970230FOFTP, Florida Public Service Commission (February 26, 1997); Local Exchange Competition, Case No. 95845TPCOI, Ohio Public Utilities Commission (February 20, 1997); MCI Telecommunications Corp., Docket No. P141, Sub 30, North Carolina Utilities Commission (February 4, 1997); AT&T Communications of the Southern States, Inc., Docket No. P140, Sub 51, North Carolina Utilities Commission (February 4, 1997); MCImetro Transmission Services, ARB 9, Order No. 97038, Oregon Public Utility Commission (February 3, 1997); Sprint Communications Company, L.P., Case No. 961021TPARB, Ohio Public Utilities Commission (January 30, 1997); AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc., Case Nos. TO9740, TO9767, Missouri Public Service Commission (January 22, 1997); Sprint Communications Company, L.P., Case No. TO97124, Missouri Public Service Commission (January 15, 1997); AT&T Communications of Ohio, Inc., Case No. 96752TPARB, Ohio Public Utilities Commission (January 15, 1997); Southwest, Inc., Case No. TO9763, Missouri Public Service Commission (January 15, 1997); AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc., ARB 5, Order No. 97021, Oregon Public Utility Commission (January 13, 1997); MCI Telecommunications Corp., Case No. 96888TPARB, Ohio Public Utilities Commission (January 9, 1997).D State regulators use ARMIS data to assess the reasonableness of price" 80*&&IIm "  S'cap or incentive regulation plans;S9c {Oj'ԍSee MCI Reply Comments at 5.S and 18 states and the District of Columbia employ rateofreturn  S'regulation and use ARMIS data in their regulatory processes.r:\c {O'ԍId. The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (Wisconsin Commission) states that it develops four measures for determining incentives and penalties for price regulated companies based on data from Table II of ARMIS 4305 report for all companies nationwide. Wisconsin Commission Reply Comments at 2. The Wisconsin Commission also uses the ARMIS 4307 report to develop price regulation incentive and penalty benchmarks for various technologies based on comparisons between Wisconsin companies and similar  {O!'companies nationwide. Id. at 23. r " :0*&&II"Ԍ S'25.` ` We also observe that ARMIS data have been used in a variety of recent Commission  S'proceedings. For example, in our tariff investigation of access charges,; c yO@'ԍInterexchange carriers must purchase interstate access services from local exchange carriers in order to provide longdistance telephone service to business and residential telephone customers. The Commission regulates the manner in which ILECs provide access in order to prevent market power from being exercised to the detriment of consumers. the Commission used ARMIS data to allocate excess residential lines by state for each carrier in order to calculate the  S'excess residential loops for each price cap LEC.<c {O'ԍSee Tariffs Implementing Access Charge Reform, CC Docket No. 97250, Memorandum Opinion and  {O 'Order, 13 FCC Rcd 14683, 1469394,  17 (1998). ARMIS data were used to find that exogenous cost changes were miscalculated because the carriers' jurisdictional separations of Other Billing and  S8'Collection costs were not in compliance with our rules.=8 c {O 'ԍSee 1997 Annual Access Tariff Filings, CC Docket No. 97149, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 3815, 38673901,  125204 (1997). In that same Order, ARMIS data were also used to find that the base factor portion forecasts in the 1997 annual access tariff filings were  S'unreasonable.~>^f c {O'ԍSee 1997 Annual Access Tariff Filings, CC Docket No. 97149, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13  {O'FCC Rcd 3815, 382332,  1535 (1997). See also Tariffs Implementing Access Charge Reform, CC Docket  {O'No. 97250, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 14683 (1998).~ In our section 706 proceeding, ARMIS report 4308 provided the amount of spare or  S'"dark" fiber, as a percent of total fiber deployment.@? c yO'ԍThe ILECs' total dark fiber was approximately 66% in 1991, 63% in 1992, 70% in 1993, 65% in 1994,  {O'68% in 1995, 68% in 1996, and 67% in 1997. See Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to all Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No.  {O'98146, Notice of Inquiry, 13 FCC Rcd 15280, 15288,  23 & n.19 (1998).@ As discussed above, in the Second BellSouth  S'Louisiana Order, the Commission used ARMIS filings and CAMs to determine that there were significant discrepancies between such filings and BellSouth's section 272(b)(5) Internet disclosures.  S$ ' 26.` ` At this time we do not eliminate the carriers' obligations to file ARMIS reports, as  S 'suggested by some commenters;@ @c {O'ԍSee, e.g., Bell Atlantic Comments at 24; BellSouth Comments at 4; USTA Comments at 2 & Reply Comments at 1. however, as previously noted, the Common Carrier Bureau has  S 'initiated a broad and comprehensive review of its accounting and reporting requirements.BA c {O!'ԍSee "Common Carrier Bureau Announces Initiative to Undertake Comprehensive Review of Part 32 and  {O!'ARMIS Requirements," Public Notice, DA 99695 (rel. Apr. 12, 1999); "Common Carrier Bureau Announces Agenda for Initial Workshop for Phase I of the Comprehensive Review of Accounting and Reporting  {Oj#'Requirements and Treatment of Ex Parte Presentations in Related Proceedings," Public Notice, DA 99758 (rel. Apr. 19, 1999). The initial workshop was Wednesday, April 21, 1999.B As a result of that proceeding, we will have a more complete record upon which to determine which ARMIS" PA0*&&II " reporting requirements may be modified or reduced. Although we set no criteria for elimination of ARMIS reporting, we note that the Commission has previously reduced the reporting and accounting requirements imposed on interexchange carriers as competition in that market developed and we fully expect to provide similar regulatory relief in the local exchange and exchange access markets as circumstances warrant.  S' E.XARMIS Reporting Requirements at the Class A Level for Large ILECs (#  S'27.` ` In the ARMIS Notice, we tentatively concluded that we would maintain the Class A level of detail for the reporting requirements of the largest ILECs the BOCs and GTE to allow us to continue to uphold the statutory obligations to prevent crosssubsidization and discrimination under  SJ 'sections 254(k), 260, and 271276 of the Communications Act.iBJ c {O 'ԍSee ARMIS Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 1370202,  13.i  S '28.` ` The largest ILECs conduct a much greater transactional volume of nonregulated services than small and midsized carriers. This situation creates additional opportunities to shift costs from nonregulated services to regulated services, resulting in subsidization of nonregulated services with the revenues earned from the provision of regulated services and a greater risk of harm to  SZ'consumers and competitors from such crosssubsidization.CZZZc yOT'ԍAs AT&T observes, the large ILECs account for $5.6 billion in nonregulated expenses, as compared to $0.9 billion for all other LECs required to file the ARMIS 4303 Joint Cost Report, and thus the ratepayer  {O'impact of any costshifting would be greater for these largest carriers. See AT&T Reply Comments at 5 & n.10.  The Class A level of detail specified in the Part 32 accounting rules allows us to identify potential cost misallocations beyond those revealed by the Class B system of accounts. The information reported by the largest ILECs, at the Class A level, permits us to protect consumers and otherwise advance the public interest by assuring that new market entrants as well as established carriers are not adversely affected by potentially anticompetitive practices. We believe that we should retain the Class A level of reporting for the largest  Sj'ILECs, i.e., the BOCs and GTE, at this time.Dj|c yO'ԍAs discussed above, the Common Carrier Bureau is undertaking a comprehensive review of our current  {ON'accounting rules under Part 32 and the reporting requirements of ARMIS. See note 65, supra. This does not increase the reporting requirements for the largest ILECs; it simply does not extend to the largest ILECs the reporting reductions that we find appropriate for the midsized ILECs.  S'` F.XIndependent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance's Petition for Forbearance (#  S|'29.` ` On February 17, 1998, ITTA filed a petition for forbearance requesting that the Commission forbear from applying certain regulations to midsized ILECs serving fewer than two`  S,'percent of the nation's access lines.iEZ,c yO#'ԍPetition for Forbearance of the Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance, filed February 17, 1998 (Petition). The deadline for the Commission's action on ITTA's petition was extended by 90 days to  {O2%'May 18, 1999. See Petition for Forbearance of the Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance,"2%D0*&&B%"  {O'AAD File No. 9843, Order, 14 FCC Rcd 1018 (1999). Comments were filed by GTE Service Corporation (GTE), United States Telephone Association (USTA), the Telecommunications Resellers Association (TRA), General Communication, Inc. (GCI), Ameritech, SBC Communications, Inc. (SBC), AT&T, and Bell Atlantic. Reply Comments were filed by Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company (CBT), ITTA, and ATU Telecommunications (ATU).i ITTA argues (1) that the seven ARMIS financial and operating",zE0*&&IIq"  S'reports are no longer necessary for administering the Commission's rulesnFZzc {O'ԍSee Petition at 1922. ITTA supports the reductions in reporting burdens proposed in the ARMIS Notice and notes that the adoption of some of the proposals such as eliminating Class A accounting requirements for midsized LECs may moot some issues raised in the ITTA Petition. ITTA Comments at 24.n and (2) the Commission should forbear from requiring midsized ILECs to file the ARMIS 4305 Annual Service Quality  S'Report.FGc yO 'ԍPetition at 21.F Two commenters, CBT and ATU, support the ITTA petition;pH, c {O| 'ԍSee CBT Reply Comments at 511; ATU Reply Comments at 2. p five commenters would have  S'the relief sought by ITTA extended to all carriers.I c {O'ԍSee Ameritech Comments at 24; SBC Comments at 12; Bell Atlantic Comments at 25; USTA Comments at 1113; GTE Comments at 48.  S8'30.` ` The ITTA Petition is filed under section 10 of the Communications Act.DJ8c yO'ԍ47 U.S.C.  160.D Specifically, section 10 provides that the Commission shall forbear from applying any regulation or any provision of the Communications Act to a telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service, or class of telecommunications carriers or telecommunications services, in any or some of its or their geographic markets, if the Commission determines that: X(1) enforcement of such regulation or provision is not necessary to ensure that the charges, practices, classifications, or regulations by, for, or in connection with that telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service are just and reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory; (# X(2) enforcement of such regulation or provision is not necessary for the protection of consumers; and (# X(3) forbearance from applying such provision or regulation is consistent with the public  S'interest.GKc yO("'ԍ47 U.S.C.  160(a).G (#  S'31.` ` As an initial matter, we note that, under section 11 of the Communications Act, we are streamlining the ARMIS reporting requirements for certain midsized ILECs by changing the reporting"h8K0*&&II" for these carriers from the Class A accounting level to the Class B level. In addition, we are reducing the filing burden on midsized carriers by eliminating the requirement to file 21 tables from the ARMIS 4302 USOA Report. These actions taken today will significantly reduce the reporting requirements for the midsized ILECs. We believe that ARMIS reports, at the Class B level of reporting at least, still are necessary for midsized ILECs. ARMIS reports are needed to administer accounting, cost allocation, jurisdictional separations, and access charge rules, and to preserve the Commission's ability to monitor industry developments and quantify the effects of alternative regulatory proposals. In addition, the Commission's ARMIS data are relied upon by many state commissions to assess the reasonableness of price cap or incentive regulation plans and for rateofreturn regulation. For these reasons, and the reasons set forth below, we deny ITTA's petition for forbearance from applying the seven ARMIS financial and operating reports to midsized ILECs.  S '32.` ` ARMIS Financial and Operating Reports. We conclude that ITTA has not  S 'demonstrated that the three requirements of section 10 have been satisfied.*LZ c yO` 'ԍAT&T and GCI argue that ITTA has failed to show that the elimination of these reporting requirements  {O('meets the standards set forth in section 10(a) of the Communications Act. See AT&T Comments at 16; GCI Comments at 46.* With respect to the first prong of the section 10 standard for forbearance, we disagree with ITTA's claims that the seven ARMIS financial and operating reports are not necessary to ensure that midsized carriers charge just and reasonable rates, and that the information contained in these ARMIS reports is of little use to the  SX'Commission.FMXc yO'ԍPetition at 20.F As discussed above, these ARMIS reports are needed to administer our accounting, cost allocation, jurisdictional separations, and access charge rules and to preserve the Commission's ability to monitor industry developments and quantify the effects of alternative regulatory proposals. In addition, the Commission uses these ARMIS reports to monitor the ILECs' interstate earnings as part of its overall evaluation of the price cap regime, for lowend formula adjustments, rate increases that exceed the price cap indices, exogenous cost changes, base factor portion forecasts, and subscriber line charges. We cannot assume that, absent these seven ARMIS reports, market conditions or any other factor will adequately ensure that charges, practices, classifications, and services of the midsized ILECs are just and reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory. ITTA has not brought such evidence to our attention. Therefore, we conclude that the first prong of the section 10 forbearance test has not been satisfied.  Sx' 33.` ` Second, we find that ITTA has not demonstrated that enforcement of such regulation  SP'or provision is not necessary for the protection of consumers.JNPzc yOj 'ԍ47 U.S.C.  160(a)(2).J We disagree with ITTA's claims that, without the seven ARMIS financial and operating reports, the Commission still can review a carrier's  S'rates in response to a complaint.@O c yO#'ԍPetition at 20.@ As discussed above, we are not persuaded that requisite financial detail could be provided on an asneeded basis instead of an annual ARMIS filing. One of the goals"O0*&&II" in implementing the Uniform System of Accounts (USOA) is to have an uptodate regulatory accounting system maintained in sufficient detail to facilitate recurrent regulatory decisionmaking  S'without undue delay or reliance on ad hoc information requests and special studies.dP^c {O'ԍSee Revision of the Uniform System of Accounts and Financial Reporting Requirements for Class A  {O'and Class B Telephone Companies Parts 31, 33, 42, and 43 of the FCC's Rules, CC Docket No. 78196, Report  {O'and Order, 60 Rad. Reg. 2d (P&F) 1111,  2 (1986).d Under the ITTA proposal, we would not have a complete ARMIS database available to the Commission and the public, including state regulators. We fail to see how this proposal would adequately protect consumers. Thus, we conclude that the second prong of the test has not been met.  S'!34.` ` We find that ITTA has not shown that any harm caused by requiring the seven ARMIS financial and operating reports outweighs the public interest benefits of these reporting requirements. In evaluating whether forbearance is consistent with the public interest, we must "consider whether forbearance from enforcing the provision or regulation will promote competitive market conditions, including the extent to which forbearance will enhance competition among  S" 'providers of telecommunications services."GQ" c yO'ԍ47 U.S.C.  160(b).G We reject ITTA's contentions that the expenses imposed by ARMIS reporting are significant on a persubscriber basis and that forbearance of these ARMIS reporting requirements would permit midsize ILECs to become more efficient and hence more  S 'competitive.CR ~c yO'ԍPetition at 2021.C The record also does not show that eliminating the requirement to file the seven ARMIS financial and operating reports will protect ratepayers and ensure that the midsized carriers' rates will be just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory. We believe that protecting ratepayers and ensuring that the midsized carriers' rates are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory are significant elements of our public interest analysis. We therefore conclude that ITTA has not satisfied the third prong of the section 10 forbearance standard.  S'"35.` ` ARMIS Service Quality Report. ITTA also contends that the Commission should  Sj'forbear from requiring midsized ILECs to file the ARMIS 4305 Annual Service Quality Report.ASjc {O'ԍId. at 21.A In support of the first and second prongs of the forbearance standard, ITTA argues that ARMIS 4305 is not necessary to protect consumers or to ensure against unreasonable pricing or practices, the quality of service offered by price cap carriers "has not been a particular concern," many states require service quality reports, and midsized ILECs have a strong economic incentive to keep their quality of service  S'high in order to retain customers.ATc {O!'ԍId. at 22.A We are unpersuaded by ITTA's arguments for the reasons set forth below. "R2 T0*&&II"Ԍ S'#36.` ` In the ARMIS 4305 Service Quality Report, price cap ILECs provide key service  S'quality information on a study area basis.Uc yO@'ԍA study area is a geographic segment of a carrier's telephone operations that generally corresponds to a carrier's entire service territory within a state. The ARMIS 4305 organizes the carrier's service quality information into five tables: (1) installation and repair intervals for interexchange carriers; (2) installation and repair intervals for local access customers; (3) common trunk blockage; (4) total switch downtime and occurrences of two minutes or more duration; and (5) federal and state service quality complaints. Through the ARMIS 4305, the Commission, state commissions, and the public monitor trends in the quality of service provided by price cap ILECs. This information on the quality of service offered by ILECs is used to protect consumers and to protect other carriers from unreasonable practices or discrimination.  Sp'$37.` ` We also find that ITTA's allegation that quality of service "has not been a particular concern" is without basis in fact. We note that the Common Carrier Bureau has a pending proceeding  S 'proposing modifications to ARMIS service quality reporting requirements.*V c {O'ԍSee "Common Carrier Bureau Solicits Comments on Proposed Modifications to ARMIS Service Quality  {O'Reporting Requirements," Public Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 5078 (1998). For example, in comments in that proceeding, the Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia states that it has historically relied on  {O<'the ARMIS service quality reports. See Reply Comment for the District of Columbia, in AAD File Nos. 9822, 9823, at 1 (filed May 15, 1998).* In addition, NARUC recently adopted a resolution regarding the service quality issue. NARUC specifically noted that ARMIS data and service quality investigations conducted in numerous states indicate preliminary  S 'trends in service quality that raise concern regarding the quality of the network.W c {O'ԍSee NARUC Resolution No. 2, Resolution Regarding a Federal Service Quality Reporting Program, Winter Meeting, March 1998. NARUC recommended that the Commission update the service quality monitoring program to account for technological and regulatory developments in the telecommunications industry, to collect service quality information on a more frequent basis than the current annual requirement, and to make service quality information easily accessible on the Internet. NARUC also requests that the Commission expand the collection of service quality information to include all LECs, both incumbent and competitive LECs.  Sh'%38.` ` We reject ITTA's argument that, because states require service quality reports, the Commission should forbear from requiring them. As discussed in paragraph 24, above, the Commission's ARMIS data are relied upon by many state commissions. The Wisconsin Commission states that it develops measures for determining incentives and penalties for price regulated companies  S'based on data from the ARMIS 4305 report.ZX0 c yO"'ԍWisconsin Commission Reply Comments at 2.Z ITTA also argues that midsized ILECs have an economic incentive to keep service quality high; however, many consumers have not experienced the benefits of growing competition and cannot change LECs in response to poor quality of service. We view the ARMIS 4305 as a critical tool for protecting the interests of consumers during the transition"P X0*&&II" to competition. In addition, we note that, despite ITTA's assertion to the contrary, the ARMIS data  S'suggests a decline in the quality of service provided by price cap ILECs.Yc yO@'ԍThe ARMIS reports of certain midsized carriers indicate some disturbing trends in the quality of service provided to interexchange carriers and local customers. For example, several midsized carriers reported increased duration for installing service. Southern New England Telephone (SNET) reported an average installation duration of 5.3 days for residential customers in 1997, which increased from 1.7 days in 1994. Similarly, Aliant reported an average installation interval of 2.3 days for residential customers in Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) areas in 1997, which increased from 1.9 days in 1994. SOURCE: ARMIS 4305 Service Quality Report, Table II. Other midsized carriers report an increased duration for repairing service provided to local residential and business customers. Aliant reported an average repair time for initial outofservice trouble reports for residential customers of 46 hours in 1997, which increased from 9.7 hours in 1994. CBT reported an average repair time for initial outofservice troubles of 22.2 hours in 1997, which increased from 16.5 hours in 1994. Similarly, SNET reported an average repair time of 27.1 hours in 1997, which increased from 17.2 hours in 1994. SOURCE: ARMIS 4305 Service Quality Report, Table II. Finally, some midsized carriers report increased installation and repair time for telecommunications services provided to interexchange carriers. In 1997, Aliant reported an average installation interval for all special access services of 15.4 days, which increased from 10.75 days in 1994. SNET reported an installation interval for all special access services of 14.9 days in 1997, which increased from 11.8 days in 1994. Rochester Telephone reported a repair interval of 51 hours for all special access services in 1997, which increased from 4.3 hours in 1994. For its repair interval for high speed special access services, Aliant reported a 4.2 hours repair time in 1997, which increased from 3.07 hours in 1994. CBT reported a 4 hour repair time for high speed special access services in 1997, which increased from 2.9 days in 1994. SOURCE: ARMIS 4305 Service Quality Report, Table I. Thus, we conclude that ITTA has failed to satisfy the first and second prongs of the forbearance standard.  S`'&39.` ` Finally, we find that ITTA has failed to meet the third prong of the section 10 forbearance standard. ITTA argues that the savings for each midsize ILEC by not filing ARMIS  S'service quality reports would benefit consumers through reinvestment in the LEC's infrastructure.@Z0c yO'ԍPetition at 23.@ We reject ITTA's argument. The record does not show that eliminating the requirement to file the ARMIS 4305 will protect ratepayers and ensure that the midsized carriers' rates will be just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory. We believe that protecting ratepayers and ensuring that the midsized carriers' rates are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory are significant parts of our public interest analysis. ITTA has not shown that any harm caused by requiring the ARMIS 4305 report outweighs the public interest benefits of these reporting requirements. We find that the ARMIS 4305 Service Quality Report is necessary for monitoring the quality of service provided by price cap ILECs, including midsized LECs. We believe that the existing service quality reports are the least burdensome method of monitoring the quality of telecommunications service during the transition to a competitive market. We therefore deny ITTA's petition to forbear from requiring midsized ILECs to file the ARMIS 4305 Service Quality Report. "0Z0*&&II"Ԍ S'8D IV. CONCLUSION ă  S''40.` ` In this Report and Order, we review our ARMIS reporting requirements as part of our biennial regulatory review under section 11 of the Communications Act and adopt changes to 8minimize the reporting burden on carriers. For midsized ILECs, we raise the revenue threshold, allowing midsized ILECs currently required to use Class A accounts to use Class B accounts and we eliminate the requirement to file 21 tables from the ARMIS 4302 report. We also eliminate the requirement that carriers report inside wire and payphone data as well as most of the currently required equal access information. In addition, we eliminate additional rows from ARMIS reports 43 S'01 and 4304 for all ILECs. We revise the ARMIS reporting requirements for ILECs by eliminating paper filing and diskette filing requirements; this change will become effective once electronic filing procedures are implemented. Finally, we deny the petition for forbearance filed by ITTA to the extent ITTA seeks forbearance from (1) applying the seven ARMIS financial and operating reports to midsized ILECs and (2) requiring midsized ILECs to file the ARMIS 4305 Service Quality Report.  S 'w) V. PROCEDURAL ISSUES ă  SX' A.Regulatory Flexibility Act  S'(41.` ` Regulatory Flexibility Certification. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).[Zc {Op'ԍThe RFA, 5 U.S.C.  601 et seq., has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (SBREFA).. requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that "the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant  S'economic impact on a substantial number of small entities."F\c yO'ԍ5 U.S.C.  605(b).F In the ARMIS Notice,]zc yO'ԍ1998 Biennial Regulatory Review Review of ARMIS Reporting Requirements, CC Docket No. 98 {Or'117, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 13695 (1998). the Commission certified that the proposed rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because such rules would reduce reporting requirements and the changes should be easy and inexpensive for incumbent local exchange carriers to implement. The Commission stated that the potential impact of the proposed rules, if adopted, would be beneficial and would not amount to a significant economic impact on affected entities. No comments were received concerning this certification. The Commission now reaffirms this certification with respect to the rules adopted in this Report and Order. The Commission anticipates that the rule changes adopted here will reduce regulatory and procedural burdens on small entities. The rule modifications do not impose any additional compliance burden on persons dealing with the Commission, including small entities. Accordingly, the Commission certifies, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, that the rules adopted herein will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities, as defined by the RFA."]0*&&II"Ԍ S'ԙ)42.` ` Report to Congress. The Office of Public Affairs, Reference Operations Division, shall provide a copy of this certification to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA, and include it  S'in the report to Congress pursuant to the SBREFA.V^c {O'ԍSee 5 U.S.C.  801(a)(1)(A).V This certification will also be published in the  S'Federal Register.P_Zc {O'ԍSee 5 U.S.C.  605(b).P  S8' B.Paperwork Reduction Act  S'*43.` ` Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. The decision herein has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, and has been approved in accordance with the provisions of that Act. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved  Sp'the requirements under OMB control number 3060-0845 which expires 10/31/2001.  S ' w)VI. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  S '+44.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the provisions of sections 1, 4, 11, 201205, 215, 218, 219, 220, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154, 161, 201205, 215, 218, 219, 220, and 403, that the requirements set forth herein ARE ADOPTED, and shall become effective upon approval from the Office of Management and Budget.  S',45.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau is delegated the authority to take the necessary steps to implement electronic filing of ARMIS data and to release a Public Notice advising the effective date of the new electronic filing procedures.  Sh'-46.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4, and 220 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154, and 220, and Section 1.401 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.401, the Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance's Petition for Forbearance is DENIED to the extent indicated herein. "_0*&&II$"Ԍ S' .47.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Office of Public Affairs, Reference Operations Division, shall send a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business  S'Administration.P`c {O'ԍSee 5 U.S.C.  605(b).P ` `  hhCqFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hhCqMagalie Roman Salas ` `  hhCqSecretary "pZ`0*&&II-" _APPENDIX A n Parties filing comments and reply comments in CC Docket No. 98117  S'Parties filing comments ALLTEL Communications Services Corporation (ALLTEL) Ameritech AT&T Corp. (AT&T) Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies (Bell Atlantic) BellSouth Corporation and BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BellSouth) General Services Administration (GSA) Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance (ITTA) MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI) Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Pacific Bell, Nevada Bell (SBC) Sprint Local Telephone Companies (Sprint) United States Telephone Association (USTA) US West, Inc. (US West)  S0'Parties filing reply comments Ameritech AT&T Bell Atlantic BellSouth Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company (CBT) GSA MCI National Cable Television Association (NCTA) Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (Wisconsin Commission) SBC Sprint USTA US West"`0*&&II" `APPENDIX B Rows, Columns, and Tables Eliminated  S'ARMIS 4301 Annual Summary Report (these rows and columns eliminated for all carriers) rows 1110,1610, and 1980 columns i, j, and o  Sp'ARMIS 4302 USOA Report (these tables eliminated for midsized ILECs only) tables B3 and B5 through B15 tables C1, C2, C4, and C5 tables I3 through I7  SX'ARMIS 4304 Access Report (these rows and columns eliminated for all carriers) rows 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 90, 91, 92, and 93 rows 1422, 1423, 1424, 5032, and 5033 rows 999, 1004, 1210, 1211, 1391, 1419, 1521, 5020, 5021, 5070, and 5071 rows 1214, 1215, 1217, and 1219 rows 1241, 1242, 1243, 1281, 1282, 1283, 1334, 1340, 1341, 1351, 1352, and 1360 rows 1427, 1456, 1457, and 1458 rows 7240, 7241, 7242, 7243, 7244, 7247, 7251, 7252, 7253, 7254, 7255, 7256, 7257, and 7258 row 9000 columns e, f, and k"(`0*&&II0"  S' #&J\  P6QgE&P# BSeparate Statement of +Commissioner Susan Ness    S'\ Re: ITTA Petition for Forbearance  S'We are in the middle of a turbulent period as we transition from monopoly to competition. Many rules and even statutory provisions that were put into place during a monopoly regime may no longer be necessary to effectuate their intended purpose. Recognizing that the marketplace is rapidly evolving, Congress wisely provided the Commission with a flexible tool to forbear from enforcement of provisions of law and regulations where the Commission finds it serves the public interest to do so. The forbearance petition filed by the Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance (ITTA) affords us an opportunity to review particular rules to determine whether they continue to be necessary to serve the public interest. The petition requests regulatory relief for midsized local exchange carriers that serve less than two percent of the nations access lines. Under a section 10 forbearance analysis, the Commission must forbear from applying any rule or regulation if the Commission determines that (1) enforcement is not necessary to ensure that charges and practices are just and reasonable, (2) enforcement is not necessary for the protection of consumers, and (3) forbearance is consistent with the public interest. In a series of orders, we grant the forbearance requested in some instances; we go beyond what was requested in some instances by providing relief to a broader class of carriers; and in a few limited instances we conclude that continued enforcement is necessary for the protection of consumers. One request that the majority does not grant is forbearance from the Commissions requirement that incumbent local exchange carriers offer certain services through separate affiliates. While our separate affiliate rules have served a very important purpose in the past, separation may be less essential as competition evolves. Based on the record in this proceeding, however, I am not convinced that competition has developed to the point where consumers will be adequately protected if we forbear from our rules. I look forward to working with the parties to develop a better record and to determine whether structural separation promotes competition or detracts from the competitive market place."b`0*&&II"  S'#&J\  P6QgE&P#  S'  CONSOLIDATED SEPARATE STATEMENT OF [ COMMISSIONER HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH \  Q`' Re:X Petition for Forbearance of the Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance; Regulatory Treatment of LEC Provision of Interexchange Services Originating in the LEC's Local Exchange Area(#  S' I support these items to the extent that they provide the relief requested by the Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliances (ITTA) petition. I object, however, to the extent that the regulatory relief requested is denied or some lesser regulatory relief is provided. Moreover, I question the overall approach that the Commission has taken to this forbearance petition. I start with the presumption that the ITTA petition has been "deemed granted" in full because of the Commission's failure either (i) to deny the petition within one year after receiving it, or (ii) to make an explicit finding that a 90 day extension was necessary to meet the statutory requirements. Section 10 of the Communications Act is very clear: "The Commission may extend the initial oneyear period by an additional 90 days if the Commission finds that an extension is necessary to meet the requirements of subsection (a)." The statute is thus specific that it is the "Commission" which must grant any extension and must do so upon a finding that the extension is necessary to meet the purposes of section 10(a). I do not believe that the bureau, acting on its own motion and without even prior consultation with the "Commission," can act to extend this statutory timeframe. I do not believe that the 90 day extension can be effectively used by the bureau without even briefing the Commission on the merits of the underlying petition, determining whether or not there are any new or novel questions of fact, law or policy, and receiving some signal from a majority of the "Commission" that an extension of time is warranted under these particular circumstances. In addition, I disagree with several aspects of the approach that the Commission has taken to this forbearance petition. In several instances, the Commission determines that ITTA has not met the criteria for forbearance to the extent that the petition requests relief beyond that which is granted in a  SP'contemporaneous rulemaking proceeding. See e.g., Petition for Forbearance of the Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance, Third Memorandum Opinion and Order in AAD File No. 9843, at para. 10 (denying relief to the extent that petition "extends beyond the relief granted in the  S'LEC Classification Second Order on Reconsideration.") See also, Petition for Forbearance of the Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance, Sixth Memorandum Opinion and Order in AAD File No. 9843, at para. 2 ("Although we do not grant forbearance from our rules regarding applications for special permission at this time, we are considering whether, and how, we should modify some of our rules that necessitate applications for special permission as part of our ongoing biennial review rulemaking and expect to make a final decision on the basis of that more complete record in the near future."). I am troubled that the Commission has decided to provide some lesser form of regulatory relief than that which was requested doing so in a separate rulemaking where the Commission has more discretion and then has used that proceeding as part of the justification for denying full regulatory forbearance as requested. In other words, the Commission has determined that the simplest method of dealing with these petitions is to deny the forbearance relief at issue while at the same time providing lesser relief in a separate rulemaking proceeding. But that is not the process"$%`0*&&II#" the statute requires. Moreover, under such an approach, the Commission is able to avoid the difficult question of why, when considering the same facts, particular regulatory relief is appropriate and other regulatory relief would contravene the statute. Such distinctions would frequently be difficult to justify as the forbearance criteria focus on general standards e.g. "protection of consumers," or "in the public interest." I object to the Commission's attempt to avoid the objective rigor of the section 10 forbearance test by providing regulatory relief in separate proceedings where the Commission has more discretion. In addition, this approach lends itself to eliminating one set of requirements and at the same time adopting new albeit lesser regulatory restrictions that would not be justified under section 10  Sp'alone. See e.g., Biennial Regulatory review of Accounting and Cost Allocation Requirements, Petition for Forbearance of the Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance, Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order in AAD File No. 9843, at par. 25 (reinterpreting ITTA petition as not asking to forbear from Class A accounting altogether but "[e]ssentially . . . asking us to change our rules, not to forbear from applying the current rules."). While section 10 provides that the Commission may be  S 'able to forbear "in whole or in part" from a particular provision or regulation, see section 10(c), it  S 'does not provide the Commission with any authority to adopt new regulations or to impose separate conditions in the context of a forbearance petition. Section 10's primary emphasis is on deregulation, and I will not support this provision, or any of the proceedings required by a section 10 petition, being used as an opportunity to authorize new regulatory restrictions or conditions. I fear that this type of expansive reading of the Commission's authority under the Act's forbearance provisions will lead the Commission astray from its clear statutory duties and limitations.  Finally, as I have stated previously, I am concerned that the Commission is placing too high a burden on the parties requesting forbearance relief. I believe that the Section 10 forbearance scheme requires the Commission to justify continued regulation in light of the competitive conditions in the marketplace. The Commission cannot meet their statutory obligations by simply shifting the burden to petitioners to justify forbearance. "`0*&&II"  S' #&J\  P6QgE&P#SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL K. POWELL   Q'\ Re:Petition for Forbearance of the Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance  S'(AAD File No. 9843), and related proceedings (CC Docket No. 9711, CC Docket No. 9881, CC Docket No. 96150, CC Docket No. 98117, WT Docket No. 96162, CC Docket No. 96149, CC Docket No. 9661)   X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: