WPC 2BJ Z Courier#|x2x6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\oe@26FZj#|xCourierCourier BoldCourier ItalicHP LaserJet 4M (PCL)iptHPLA4MPC.PRSx  @\}[@2vpnkkIa8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# 2vtua2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# 2 A   7a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# 2N    u a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2^  PTech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 2M>a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   23a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<ԍ A study area is a geographical segment of a carrier's   h<telephone operation. Generally, a study area represents a carrier's   <entire area of operation within a state. Carriers perform their   <jurisdictional separations at the study area level. The Appendix  <Glossary of Part 36 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 36   h<AppendixGlossary, freezes the study area boundaries as of November   <15, 1984. Carriers wishing to change their study area boundaries must request a waiver of the rule.  US West lists eight examples of prior Commission   <decisions to grant Part 36 study area waivers for transfers of  ?<  n<exchanges.x ? <  .<ԍ See Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rd 2453 (1990);  ? <  <Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rd 4570 (1990): Memorandum  ? <  <Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rd 7100 (1990); Memorandum Opinion and  ?H <  h<Order, 6 FCC Rd 5123 (1991); Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rd  ?<  <2081 (1992); Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rd 3321 (1992);  ?<  <Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rd 6081 (1992); Memorandum  ?<Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rd 6382 (1992). In each case US West claims no Section 214   <authorization was applied for or obtained. US West further claims  ? <  <that the language from the AT&T Transfer Order cited by Ronan is  ?<  <dictum and that Section 221(a) of the Act is inapplicable to its   <request. US West asserts that Section 221(a) is to be invoked when   <a proposed merger or acquisition may violate federal law because   <this Section empowers the Commission to immunize mergers and   x<acquisition from "any Act or Acts of Congress making the proposed  ?<  <transaction unlawful."hx ?p<  <ԍ Reply Comments of US West at 4 quoting 47 U.S.C.  221(a)  ?8<  h<and Pacific Northwest Bell, ENF8552 para. 6 (May 2, 1986)(Section   <221 is primarily designed to permit the Commission to confer   <immunity from the antitrust laws in the context of telephone   <company acquisitions and mergers where the Commission finds that   x<such acquisitions or mergers would be advantageous to the persons to be served and otherwise in the public interest).h US West declares that its Petition does not   h<involve any such merger or acquisition and that there is no need to   h<request immunity under Section 221. US West asks the Commission to   h<deny Ronan's request for a hearing, noting that even if Section 221   h<were applicable, the Commission has previously held that the public   <hearing requirement of Section 221(a) is satisfied by the  ? <Commission's comment and reply procedures. P ?`"<  <ԍ Reply Comments of US West at 13, citing Memorandum Opinion  ?(#<and Order, ENF8552, at paragraphs 59 (May 2, 1986).  ?<  @<9.` ` In its Reply Comments, Ronan responds to US West's claim   <that some carriers have failed to apply for Section 214   h<authorizations in similar circumstances after being granted Part 36   <study area waivers. Ronan cites the Commission's conclusion that a  ?0<  <carrier's "failure to consistently file, and our failure to"00*(("   h<consistently require formal applications under Section 214 does not  ?<  ><restrict the scope of our 214 jurisdiction."X ? <  <ԍ In re Application of General Telephone and Electronics  ?<  h<Corporation to Acquire Control of Telnet Corporation, 72 FCC 2d 91,  ?<99 (June 4, 1979) (General Telephone).  Finally, Ronan   <asserts that the primary purpose of review of Part 36 study area   h<waiver requests is to determine the impact on the Universal Service  ? <  <Fund (USF or the "Fund")  ?<  <ԍ The USF is administered by the National Exchange Carrier   <Association (NECA) and is intended to assist local telephone   <companies with higher than average costs so as to ensure universal  ? <  h<service. See Universal Service: A Report on the Universal Telephone   <Service Programs administered by the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc., 10916500 (1991).  support program so as to prevent carriers   x<from subdividing study area boundaries to isolate areas with high  ?<  h<costs in order to increase the high cost support provided under the  ?x<  <Fund.x`  ?h<  <ԍ Reply Comments of Ronan at 18, citing In re Amendment of  ?0<Part 36, 5 FCC Rcd 5974 (1990). In contrast, the purpose of review under Section 214 is to   <regulate entry into and from the common carrier communications  ?<  <field.R  ?P<ԍ General Telephone, 72 FCC 2d at 99.R Therefore, Ronan asserts, review under Part 36 does not satisfy the need for Section 214 review. B. Declaratory Ruling Discussion  ? <  @< 10.` ` We agree with US West that the purpose of review under   h<Section 221 is to determine whether telecommunications acquisitions   <that may otherwise violate antitrust laws are of sufficient public   x<benefit to merit immunity. Section 221 was "intended under proper   <circumstances to relieve consolidated telephone interests from the   <...[applicable antitrust laws]. It authorizes ... after a hearing,   h<of which the proper state authorities have notice, ... a finding by   x<the Commission that the proposed consolidation will be ... in the   <public interest ... and thereupon the ...[antitrust provisions]  ?<  ><will not apply to such consolidated companies."nH  ?!<ԍ Id., quoting H. Rep. 109, 67th Cong. 1st Sess at 3.n None of the   <parties even allege an antitrust violation. Section 221's   <provisions allowing hearings are not applicable to Section 214 applications.  ?<  < 11.` ` We also agree with US West's contention that review for   @<the purpose of obtaining study area waivers may, in some   <circumstances, be adequate to serve the purposes of review under   <Section 214. The standard for reviewing petitions for waiver of"0*(("   <study area boundaries are well established and very specific:   <"first, that the change not adversely affect the universal service   <fund (USF) support program; second, that the state commission(s)   <having regulatory authority have no objection to the change; and   <finally, that there is strong public interest support for a  ?<  .<waiver."b  ?@<  <ԍ See, e.g., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 F.C.C.R. 3197  ?<  <(June 29, 1994), citing Joint Board Recommendation, 49 Federal  ?<  h<Register at 48337 and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 5 FCC Rcd 5974 (1990).b Only the first of these conditions is limited to USF   <concerns. All three taken together may satisfy the public interest   x<finding required by the Commission for Section 214 authorizations in many cases.  ?<  < 12.` ` Uninterrupted continuation of services, however, does not   <prevent a transfer of lines from being considered a discontinuance   <requiring Section 214 authorization. Clearly US West proposes to   <discontinue service, although that service will be continued by  ? <  <another carrier. The decision authorizing transfer in the AT&T  ? <  <Transfer Order was made "pursuant to Section 214 ... of the   <Communications Act," and specifically held that Section 214  ?H <  <discontinuance authority was necessary in cases like this.XH  ?<ԍ AT&T Transfer Order, 96 FCC 2d at 44, 91.X This   <conclusion is not refuted by examples of cases in which Part 36   h<waivers were granted to parties who may subsequently have failed to  ?<  <file Section 214 applications.A@ ?p<ԍ See note 18 above.A Moreover, the requested declaratory   <ruling cannot be justified by the fact that the findings necessary   x<for waiver of the Part 36 study area definition may be sufficient   <for a determination that discontinuance would serve the public  ?<necessity under Section 214.< ? <ԍ 47 U.S.C.  214.<  ?P<  @< 13.` ` There is no evidence that the exceptions to Section 214   <for local lines within a single state, local lines less than ten   <miles in length, and lines acquired under Sections 221 or 222 of   <the Act apply here. Even if we determined that these exceptions   <applied to discontinuances, we have been given no reason to   <conclude that everything that could fall within the scope of US   h<West's proposed declaratory ruling would also fall within the scope  ?<of one or another of these three exceptions.c`  ?$<  ><ԍ The exceptions, on their face apply to "construction,   0<acquisition or operation ...." Whether a group of lines is   0<sufficiently "local" to fall under either of the first two  ?'<  x<exceptions is often a question of fact. See, e.g., In the Matter   <of the Application of New Jersey Bell Telephone Company for"'0*((x("  ?<  <Authority pursuant to Section 214, 9 FCC Rcd 3677 (1994), paragraphs 4564. c " 0*(("Ԍ ?<  P<ԙ 14.` ` On the other hand, by its plain language, the fourth   <exception to Section 214, the one for changes in plant that will   <not impair the adequacy or quality of service, is clearly   <applicable to discontinuance of service. Furthermore, when the  ? <  h<Commission said in General Telephone that the exception for changes   @<that do not impair service was intended to reach routine   <improvements, the Commission did not state that that was its  ?x<  <exclusive purpose.`x  ?( <  <ԍ See also In the Matter of Chastain et al. v. AT&T from the  ? <  <U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 49 FCC 2d 749  ? <  <(1974), para. 13; remanded for evidentiary hearing on factual  ? <  x<issues American Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. FCC, 551 F.2d 1287  ?H <  <(1977); vacated to avoid unnecessary hearings where issue in  ?<controversy had ceased to exist, 65 FCC 2d 25 (1977).` Nevertheless, a finding that discontinuances   x<of the type covered by the proposed declaratory ruling fall under   h<the fourth exception would require a preliminary determination that   <such discontinuances are unlikely ever to impair the adequacy or   <quality of service. The record does not offer a sufficient basis   <for such a determination. Because the circumstances surrounding   h<discontinuances associated with sales and mergers of exchanges will   x<vary, so will the applicability of this and the other Section 214   @<exceptions. Therefore, we deny US West's Petition for a   <declaratory ruling declaring that Section 214 authorization is not   x<required when ownership of an exchange is transferred without any service interruption. C. Blanket Section 214 Authorization Comments  ?<  <15.` ` In the alternative, US West seeks blanket Section 214   <authorization for transfers when the following conditions are met:   <(1) the transfer will be to a carrier not affiliated with US West;   h<(2) the transaction involves fewer than 1,000 access lines; (3) the   h<new service provider will not discontinue or interrupt any existing   h<service; and (4) the state commission with authority over the local  ?<  <exchange does not oppose the transfer.7 ? <ԍ Petition at 6.7 US West asserts that review   x<of such transactions by state public service commissions is often   h<more thorough than review by the Federal Communications Commission,  ?<  <because the issues involved are local.<(  ?$<ԍ Id. at 8 n.9.< US West claims that 1,000   <lines represent such a small proportion of total access lines in   x<the United States that there is no risk that such transfers would   <affect the interstate telecommunications market or result in   h<unreasonable rates for the interstate services available from these"  0*((!"   0<lines. US West asserts that a requirement that there be no   <objection from the state commission with jurisdiction over the   <lines in question will provide further protection against  ?X<  <unreasonable rates.8 X ?<ԍ Id. at 7.8 US West also argues that issuance of such a   <blanket authorization will reduce the burden of filing fees and   <processing of numerous, separate Section 214 applications for very   <small transfers and will reduce the lengthy and costly delays   <associated with them. US West cites costs from $1.00 to over  ?@<  <$300.00 per subscriber for the filing fee alone in certain cases.:!@X ?( <ԍ Id. at 89.:   h<As authority for the requested blanket authorization, US West cites Section 63.62(g) of the Commission's Rules which states:   <X(g) An application may be filed requesting authority to make   <a type of reduction in service under specified standards and  P<conditions in lieu of individual applications for each  <instance coming within the type of reduction in service  ? <proposed.A"  ?<ԍ 47 C.F.R.  63.62(g).A(#  ?<  <16.` ` In support of US West's request, USTA argues that blanket   <Section 214 authorizations have previously been granted by the   h<Commission. Such an authorization is justified in the present case,   h<USTA believes, because small transactions, some involving as few as   <2050 lines, are increasing in number and are highly unlikely to   <implicate federal interests. USTA further argues that the   <Commission's Section 214 processes can become a bottleneck to  ?<  .<completing transactions that serve the public interest.5#x ?<ԍ USTA at 25.5 Idaho   h<states that it has no objection to the blanket application if it is   h<considered under Section 221 and conditioned upon the carrier's not   @<consummating the transaction without the approval of the  ?<appropriate state commission.4$ ?@<ԍ Idaho at 4.4  ?8<  <17.` ` Ronan, in its Petition to Deny, claims Section 63.62(f)   <requires US West to submit an application that includes all   <information specified in Section 63.505 in order to receive a  ?<  <blanket authorization under Section 63.62(g).A% ?$<ԍ Petition to Deny at 11. A Citing US West's   x<transfer of 60 rural exchanges in Montana, Ronan also argues that   h<blanket authorization will only facilitate a "massive selloff by US   x<West of rural exchanges" in an attempt to evade its obligation to   <upgrade service in those exchanges, in violation of Commission" ( %0*((#"  ?<policy.D&  ?X<  <ԍ Id. at 67. On October 27, 1993, the Montana Public Service   <Commission held that sales of the Montana US West exchanges,   @<including the allocation of gain on the sales to US West   <Communications shareholders, was in the public interest. On   h<December 28, 1993, after the Accounting and Audits Division, Common   <Carrier Bureau, granted Part 36 study area waivers for all but one   <of these exchanges, the Domestic Facilities Division, Common   <Carrier Bureau, granted Section 214 authorization for   x<discontinuances for all the exchanges granted study area waivers.   <The exchange not granted a study area waiver was also granted   <Section 214 discontinuance authorization, conditioned upon receipt   x<of its pending study area waiver. Issues raised specifically with regard to the discontinuances in Montana, therefore, are moot. D  " ?X< <"18. In its Reply, US West argues that Section 63.62(g)   h<expressly allows application for blanket Section 214 authorizations   <"in lieu of individual applications." US West denies that it is   <avoiding improving rural markets, citing $270 million spent on   <improvements in rural areas in 1992 and 311 rural switches it   <installed in that year, twice the number of switches in AT&T's  ?<entire network.H'  ?<ԍ US West's Reply Comments at 16.H  ?<  <19.` ` Ronan claims in its Reply that review of requests for   <waiver of Part 36 study areas would not serve the purpose of   h<Section 214 review because Part 36 waiver requests could take place  ? <  <after discontinuance.F(  ?<ԍ Ronan's Reply Comments at 21.F Ronan notes that US West paid $2.5 billion   <dollars for an interest in Time Warner Cable and states that US   <West is far more able to upgrade rural services than the small  ?H <  <carriers to which it is selling its rural exchanges.8)H  ?x<ԍ Id. at 9.8 Ronan asks   <the Commission to condition blanket Section 214 authorization on  ?<  <carriers' obtaining affirmative approval from, not just an absence   <of objection after consultation with, state regulators with  ?h<jurisdiction.9*h0 ?(#<ԍ Id. at 26.9  ?< 0<20. In its supplemental pleadings, US West asserts that a   <different subsidiary of US West,Inc., purchased Time Warner and   <that that transaction in no way reflects the assets of US West" *0*((p"  ?<(that is, US West Communications, the Petitioner)._+ ?X<ԍ US West's Supplemental Memorandum, Attachment A, at 3._ D. Blanket Section 214 Authorization Discussion  ?<  <21.` ` We grant US West the blanket authorization it seeks   <subject to additional conditions designed to ensure that transfers   <occur only after: (1) adequate FCC review of the effect of such   <transfers on the Universal Service Fund, those who contribute to   <it, and those who draw from it; and (2) adequate opportunity for comment by state commissions.  ?` <  <22.` ` We have found review of the cumulative impact of   x<transfers on the USF, a concern routinely addressed in Commission  ? <  <review of study area waiver requests,,H X ?<  <ԍ See, e.g., In the Matter of US West Communications, Inc.,   <Range Telephone Cooperative, Inc., RT Communications, Inc., Tri  x<County Telephone Association, Inc., TCT West, and Union Telephone  ?0<  <Company, AAD 9395 (1994)(Range Tel.) at 6. More recently, the   <Commission established a more definitive criterion for determining   <if granting a waiver request would harm the USF support program:   h<"no waiver should cause an annual aggregate shift in USF assistance   h<in an amount equal to or greater than one percent of the total USF,   <unless the parties can demonstrate extraordinary public interest   <benefit. In order to prevent carriers from evading this limitation   <by desegregating a single large sale of exchanges into a series of   <smaller transactions that in the aggregate have the same effect on   <the USF, the onepercent condition must apply to all study area  ?<  x<waivers granted to either carrier, as a purchaser or seller." US   x<West Communications, Inc. and Eagle Communications Joint Petition  ?<  <for Waiver, AAD 9427, FCC 954 (Released Jan. 5, 1995) at para. 14. to be essential to assuring   <this program's continued integrity. US West's proposal fails to   <address the need for such review. In another action before the   h<Commission, US West has asked us to dispense with requiring certain  ?<  <study area waivers altogether.-h ? <  N<ԍ See Jeffrey S. Bork's July 7, 1993 letter to Chief,  ? <Accounting and Audits Division. ĩ If this request and blanket Section   <214 authorization were both granted, there would be no federal   <review of the impact on the USF for any of the transactions at issue here.  <23. US West would make absence of objection to proposed   h<transfers by the state regulatory authority exercising jurisdiction   @<a precondition for blanket authorization. Notice and the   x<opportunity to object, however, might not exist in the absence of" -0*((P"   <individual Section 214 applications or study area waiver requests,   <both of which provide public notice and opportunity for comment.   0<Under US West's proposal, states without jurisdiction over   <transfers of lines might have no notice at all of a transfer in   <their area. US West "pledges" that it will not consummate a  ?<  <transfer without first consulting the appropriate state authority.E. ?@<ԍ US West reply comments at 3.E It not clear, however, what consultation this pledge would assure.  ?@<  <24.` ` Although US West has not provided a sufficient basis upon   x<which to grant the blanket Section 214 authorization as proposed,   h<the record before us leads us to conclude that, for small transfers   x<of local exchanges, the public interest issues to be resolved for   <individual Section 214 authorizations will usually be either local   h<in nature, and therefore most suitable for resolution by the state,   <or matters involving the Universal Service Fund. The latter issues   <are most effectively reviewed under the study area waiver process.   <A Part 36 waiver not only requires that there be no objection by  ?H <  <the appropriate state authority/XH X ?0<  <ԍ See para. 11 above, where a condition of Part 36 study area   <waivers is that there be no objection from the state commission exercising jurisdiction over the lines to be transferred. and that the USF not be adversely   <affected, but also that there be a separate public interest   <finding. This is essentially the same public interest finding  ?<  <required by Section 214 of the Act and Part 63 of our rules.0Xx ?<  <ԍ See, e.g., In the Matter of Policy to be Followed in Future  ?p<  h<Licensing of Facilities for Overseas Communications, 67 FCC 2d 358, para. 32 (1977). When   <study area waivers are required, review of the impact of transfers   x<on the USF, the costs of rural services and prospects for upgrade   <of rural services may be more thorough than the review of these  ?<  ><matters normally made pursuant to Section 214 applications.{1 ?<ԍ See, e.g., Range Tel ; see also note 42 above.{   x<Review of these issues for purposes of Section 214 authorization   <is usually limited to acceptance and incorporation of, or   <conditioned upon, prior grant of Part 36 study area waivers when  ?<  <such grants are required.2(  ?!<  <ԍ See, e.g., Order and Authorization, WPD378 (December 28,  ?`"<1993) and Order and Authorization, WPD379 (September 8, 1994). We agree with US West that in cases for   x<which the transfer involves no more than 1000 lines and for which   <Part 36 study area waivers must be obtained, requiring separate,   @<individual Section 214 authorizations is duplicative and   <burdensome. Since extremely small and increasingly frequent   x<transfers are being made subject to these duplicative procedures," 20*(("  ?<relief is warranted.3@ ?X<  <ԍ See Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd. 2161 (1992);  ? <  <Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd. 6076 (1992); Memorandum  ?<  x<Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd. 4449 (1993); Memorandum Opinion and  ?<  <Order, 8 FCC Rcd 6229 (1993); Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9  ?x<  x<F.C.C.R. 194 (1994); Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 F.C.C.R. 198  ?@<  <(1994); Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 F.C.C.R. 202 (1994);  ?<Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 F.C.C.R. 721 (1994).   ?<  P<25.` ` Therefore, we will grant US West blanket authorization   <under Section 63.62(g) of our rules for discontinuances arising in   <the course of transfers to carriers with whom US West has no   <affiliation, if: 1) the transfers involve no more than 1000 lines;   h<2) there is no termination or interruption of existing services; 3)  ?x<  <the relevant state commission does not object to the transferL4 x ?<  <ԍ Because Part 36 study area waiver procedures offer ample   h<notice and opportunity for objections from states, we see no reason   x<to require an affirmative finding by states that waiver is in the public interest before authorization is granted.L; and   <4) waiver of the definition of study area under Part 36 has been   <granted for all areas involved in the transfer under the Part 36  ?<  <study area waiver standards stated in US West Communications, Inc.  ?<  <and Eagle Communications Joint Petition for Waiver, AAD 9427, FCC 954 (Released Jan. 5, 1995). E. Legal Requirements for Blanket Authorization Discussion  ?H <  @<26.` ` There remains the question of whether the Commission can   x<grant blanket Section 214 certification under Section 63.62(g) of   <its rules. Ronan's objection that subsection 63.62(g) requires a   <formal application is incorrect, because, while an inadvertent   h<typographical change made in 1963 makes Ronan's reading of the rule   x<possible, the Commission never intended that result. The language   <of Section 63.62(g) first appeared as a provision creating an   <exception to the formal application requirement otherwise mandated   <for the kinds of discontinuance listed in Section 63.62.62. It stated in full:  ?< <XProvided, however, That an application may be filed requesting  P<authority to make a type of reduction in service under  <specific standards and conditions in lieu of individual  @<applications for each instance coming within the type of  ?<reduction in service proposed.H5  ?H&<ԍ 18 Federal Register 318 (1953).H(#  ?<  <27.` ` In November of 1963, the provision was revised to its" H 50*(("   x<present form. The change was made as part of a general "editorial   <revision of ...[the Commission's] rules and regulations, and the   x<opportunity for such revision afforded by the reprinting of Title   <47 of the code of Federal Regulations." The revisions were made to  ? <  <facilitate crossreferencing.J6  ?x<ԍ 28 Federal Register 13002 (1963).J The changes were "editorial in   x<nature, and hence ... compliance with the notice, procedural, and   <effective date provisions of section 4 of the Administrative  ?x<  <Procedures Act ...[was] unnecessary."27xX ?` <ԍ Id.2 The changes were not   <intended to alter the substance of the rule and, indeed, could not   <have altered it without violating the Administrative Procedures   @<Act. Therefore, the language of Section 63.62(g) must be   x<interpreted as originally intended. It is a provision for blanket   <discontinuance authorizations, not requiring formal application   <under Section 63.505 or any of the other application content  ? <requirements crossreferenced in Section 63.62.8@  ?h<  <ԍ This conclusion is further justified by the fact that   <Section 63.505 and the other application formats referenced in the   <first clause of Section 63.62 require information particular to   h<individual transactions. Section 63.62(g), which under any reading   <provides only for authorizations by "type," would be rendered   <meaningless if applications pursuant to it had to contain the   x<information required under Section 63.505 or those other formats.  ?<See 47 C.F.R.  63.62, 63.505.  ? <  <28.` ` Of course, even where a duly adopted regulation allows   <an agency to grant blanket authorizations, the APA may still   <require notice and comment rule making proceedings for any blanket   <authorization the agency grants if that authorization falls within  ?<  .<the APA's broad definition of "rule."9`   ? <  N<ԍ 5 U.S.C.  551, 553. The Commission has previously   <established, through formal rule makings, blanket Section 214   <authorizations or authorization procedures for: (1) an annual  ?x<  <program of improvements, 47 C.F.R.  63.06; (2) construction of  ?@<  0<lines by nondominant carriers, 47 C.F.R.  63.07; and (3)   <provision of lines by a carrier outside its service area for its   x<own cable television service, for noncommon carrier services, or  ?!<  x<for sale to an unaffiliated party, 47 C.F.R.  63.08. These rules   <establishing blanket authorizations refer to construction or   `<extension of lines. Section 63.62(g) applies only to discontinuances.  Rule making is required   <where an order is primarily concerned with policy considerations   <leading to concrete proposals that will apply prospectively and"090*(("  ?<  <generally rather than with evaluation of past events.1:X ?X<  <ԍ See American Exp. Co. v. U.S., 472 F.2d 1050 (1973) and PBW  ? <  <Stock Exchange, Inc. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 485  ?<F.2d 718, cert. denied, 94 S. Ct. 1992 (1974).1 There is,   <however, an exception to the APA notice and comment rule making  ?<  N<requirements for "interpretive rules."D; ?<ԍ 5 U.S.C.  553(b)(3)(A).D Interpretive rules  ?X<  <interpret an existing statute or existing legislative regulation.<Xx ?` <  <ԍ Energy Consumers and Producers Ass'n, Inc v. Department of  ?( <Energy, 632 F.2d 129 (1980), cert. denied 101 S. Ct. 102 (1980).   h<We have determined above that, for a class of cases, our rule under   <Section 63.62(g) allows us to suspend casebycase review under  ?<  <Section 63.62(a) through (f) only. We do not propose to suspend   P<casebycase review for purposes of Section 214 of the   <Communications Act. Rather, we have determined that individual   <review for purposes of Part 36 study area waiver requests, under   x<the conditions specified for blanket authorization, satisfies the   <certification requirements of Section 214 of the Act. This is an   <interpretation of Section 214 and our regulations implementing it.   <The present blanket authorization does not require amendment of   x<Part 63 of our rules, nor does it in any way exempt an unexamined   x<class of cases from Part 63 of our rules. It preserves individual   x<review pursuant to Section 214, which requires certification that   <neither the present nor future public necessity and convenience   h<will be affected by discontinuance, a finding also required by Part   <36 study area waivers. Therefore, insofar as the present blanket   <authorization under 63.62(g) may constitute a "rule" under 5   <U.S.C.  551, we find that it is "interpretive" and the procedures specified under 5 U.S.C.  553 are not required.  ?< h( III. Conclusion ă  ?<  <29.` ` For the reasons stated above, US West is authorized under   <Section 214 to discontinue services on lines transferred to   h<carriers with no mutual affiliation if: (1) no more than 1000 lines   <are included in the transfer; (2) there is no termination or   <interruption of existing services; (3) the state commission   x<exercising jurisdiction over telecommunications carriers does not  ?<  x<object to the transfer; and (4) waiver of the definition of study   x<area under Part 36 has been granted for all areas involved in the  ?X<  h<transfer under the Part 36 study area waiver standards stated in US   <West Communications, Inc., and Eagle Communications Joint Petition  ?<for Waiver, AAD 9427, FCC 954 (Released Jan. 5, 1995).  ? <` ` hh, IV. Ordering Clause s " <0*((&"Ԍ ?<  <ԙ30.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition of US West  ?<  w<Communications under Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934,   <as amended, for blanket authority under Section 63.62(g) of the   <Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  63.62(g), and Section 214 of the  ? <  .<Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  214, to discontinue service IS  ?<GRANTED, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS STATED HEREIN.  ?x<  #<31.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that US West's petition for a  ?@<declaratory ruling IS DENIED.  ?<  #<32.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  1.103(a), this order is effective upon adoption. ` ` hh,FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  ?< hh,Kathleen M.H. Wallman ` `  hh,Chief, Common Carrier Bureau ` `  hh,  ?< hh,