WPC 2HBVX@Z3|P (TT)y.C8*XrxC\  P6QP"5@^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777CE7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSf.fExSxSxSxo7oE]A]AN:*LS7JSSSSS.4}}S2S}277JJS77SS7J72t7[[[[^ee*C`^.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7.S^7SC[227`L*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSSHP LaserJet 5P/5MPHPLAS5P.WRSC\  P6Q,,, acP2G#z@ Z  Њ3|P"5@^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777CE7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSf.fExSxSxSxo7oE]A]AN:*LS7JSSSSS.4}}S2S}277JJS77SS7J72t7[[[[^ee*C`^.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7.S^7SC[227`L*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSSHP LaserJet 5P/5MPHPLAS5P.WRSc PE37,,, acP2 yv @ @  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)Times New Roman (Bold Italic) (TT)"5@^*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BW*7777CE7S]xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxJxJxJoJoJoJSSSS]]C]A]A7A]S]o.oEx]x]SxxJxJ]A]AN:*ZS7SSSSSS27}}S2}}S}277SSS77SS7S72t7[[[[_ee*C`_.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BW7SSSS7]777SS:S7A7xx*7SSSS%S7}2S_7}SC[227`Z*727S}}}SxxxxxxxooooAAAAxx_xxxxxf]SSSSSSxJJJJJ....S]SSSSS[S]]]]S]"5@^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd2;@;@{@@"5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCddddddd<d<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYda8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2*$k0""v@#t#a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2&\$ $ % @&a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 2** ' '(Z)a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2-\*5+5,-a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2@0-E../a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2s3r04113@2a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg293e788PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheading"0\ E A.  FOOTNOTEFootnote - Appearance#P2*>$d;%%<&:='X=HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd$+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date% X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style off&@@    HEADERHeader A - Appearance'2 C(1\>)1?*1@+1ALETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5( 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5)f 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11*L 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14+ 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   2E,nRC-XC.D/iDTITLETitle of a Document,K\ * ăFOOTERFooter A - Appearanced-BLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indented.N X HEADING 33rd Heading Level/| X2fI0d4E1jE2F3E!HHIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold Large0B*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored1 V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/margins2u 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 Invoice3 ,, $0$0  2N4-I58J68K75MMEMORANDUMMemo Page Format4D.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice5:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macro6z 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice7+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX 2qP8XO9[`O:[O;[PNORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle8SMALLSmall Typestyle9FINEFine Typestyle:LARGELarge Typestyle;24S<[P=[P>YQ?XREXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle<VERY LARGEVery Large Typestyle=ENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header>+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   MACNormal?,.2Y@XfSASB^TCT1@dfStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without MarginsA$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5B$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IICJ )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 2]DlZE{[F\G|\Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/TabsD )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsEDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 FontF4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5G$ )^ `> XifQ 28dHQ]I]J^K1_Style 5Dutch Bold 18 PointH$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5I$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 PointJ$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for AdvancedK 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 2sLjdMqiNvnOpsStyle 8PfInitial Codes for BeginninggLi )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 IntermediateM )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 Њ [ e )^ `> XifQ ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   3 )^ `> XifQ Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jf )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`+ >Page  jX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 UpdateInitial Codes for Update ModuleN )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 Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O gO` ` ` 2uPq.tQetReuSiuDocument[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gP  . Document[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gQ  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gR  Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gS*    2`xTp.vUvV0wWwDocument[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gT  ` ` ` Right Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gU8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gVA@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gW0     2X{XxY6yZy[zRight Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gXJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gYS` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gZ\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g[e` ` `  hhh@ hhh 2b~\{]R|^#}_}Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g\n` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g]w` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g^F    ׃  Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g_&!"  . 2ހ`~abcJTechnical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g`&#$  . Technical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O ga*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gb''(   Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gc&)*   2׃defEg ʂTechnical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gd4+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O ge&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gf&/0  . CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FilegW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  B2Zh iʄjIk~܅Format DownloadFormat Downloaded Documenthiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#footnote tex#i'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#referencej;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1k&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#2lim}nroheader2lI ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# a1Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fm$ a2Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fn/ a3Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fo: 2ypq]rsa4Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FpE a5Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FqP   a6Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fr[   a7Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fsf  2utudu\َ@5a8Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Ftq 1, 2, 3, 6W6Numbers$1/$=('*'=d Eu .y.C8*XrxC\  P6QP.y.G8*X}G4  pQ7PC2XXP\  P6QXP.7UC2X>XU4  pQX W!0(XAh0\  P6QhP!I(!Xy,(\  P6Q,P"{,C8*X3C*f9 xQX#5PC2X3 XP*f9 xQXXl6RC2XR XR9 xyQX> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide "5@^2Nodd8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdNdzzozzzC8CrdCddYdYCdo88d8odddNN8oYdYNF,Fr2CC!CCPRCdddddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddoooozYddddzYdzddddYYYYYYddddooPdNdNCNdddz8zRoodNRoNoNNF2ddNdddddd5ԍx47 C.F.R. 36 app. (defining "study area"). See MTS and WATS Market Structure, Amendment of Part  {Oo- x,67 of the Commission's Rules and Establishment of a Joint Board, Recommended Decision and Order, 49 Fed. Reg.  {O9- x48325 (December 12, 1984) (1984 Joint Board Recommended Decision); id., Decision and Order, 50 Fed. Reg. 939  {O - x(January 8, 1985) (1985 Order Adopting Recommendation); see also Amendment of Part 36 of the Commission's  {O - x<Rules and Establishment of a Joint Board, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 5 FCC Rcd 5974 (October 10, 1990)  {O -("Study Area Notice").L The Commission took that action primarily to ensure that local exchange  xcarriers ("LECs") do not set up highcost exchanges within their existing service territories as  X- xseparate study areas to maximize interstate cost allocations.L {O -  [ԍxSee 1984 Joint Board Recommended Decision, supra note 7,  66; 1985 Order Adopting Recommendation,  {O-supra note 7,  1,5. A LEC must apply to the  xCommission for a waiver of the frozen study area rule if the LEC wishes to sell or purchase an  Xv-exchange.P v L yO)-ԍx47 C.F.R. 1.3, 36 app.P   x6. Waiver of Commission rules is appropriate only if special circumstances warrant  X1- x-deviation from the general rule and such a deviation will serve the public interest. 1 L {Ot-   ԍxNortheast Cellular Tel. Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990); see also WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969); 47 C.F.R.  1.3. In evaluating  x[petitions seeking a waiver of the rule freezing study area boundaries, the Commission employs  xa threeprong standard: first, the change in study area boundaries does not adversely affect the  X - xzUniversal Service Fund ("USF") support program; h L {O-  \ԍUSF PROCEDURE USF RULE xSee 1984 Joint Board Recommended Decision, supra note 7,  66. The Commission created the USF to  {OS- xpreserve and promote universal service. See Amendment of Part 67 of the Commission's rules and Establishment  {O- xof a Joint Board, Decision and Order, 96 FCC 2d 781 (1984). The USF allows LECs with high local loop plant  xcosts to allocate a portion of those costs to the interstate jurisdiction, thus enabling the states to establish lower local  xiexchange rates in study areas receiving such assistance. To determine which LEC study areas are eligible for USF  xsupport, the USF rules prescribe an eligibility threshold set at 115 percent of the national average unseparated loop  xcost per working loop. When loop cost in a particular study area exceeds that threshold, the study area is eligible  xfor support equal to a certain percentage of the loop cost in excess of that threshold. The study area becomes eligible  xfor higher levels of support as its loop cost rises above additional thresholds set farther above the national average  xLunseparated loop cost. Because USF assistance is targeted primarily at small study areas, the level of support  {O_#- xprovided at each threshold generally is greater if the study area has 200,000 or fewer working loops. See 47 C.F.R.  36.631. second, the state commission(s) having  x[regulatory authority over the exchange(s) to be transferred does not object to the change; and"  ,N(N(ZZ! "  X-third, the public interest supports such a change. ^L {Oy-  kԍxSee U S WEST Communications, Inc., and Eagle Telecommunications, Inc., Joint Petition for Waiver of  {OC- x,the Definition of "Study Area" Contained in Part 36, AppendixGlossary of the Commission's Rules, Memorandum  {O -Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 1771,  5 (1995) ("U S WESTEagle Study Area Order").   x7. The Commission's concern about adverse USF impacts was mitigated, in the short term  X- xat least, by its adoption of the Joint Board's recommendation for an indexed cap on the USF. L yOZ-  ԍxThe Joint Board recommended, and the Commission adopted, interim rules that limit the rate of growth of  {O" - xthe USF to the rate of growth in the total number of working loops nationwide. See generally Amendment of Part  {O - x36 of the Commission's Rules and Establishment of a Joint Board, Recommended Decision, 9 FCC Rcd 334 (1993)  {O - x("1993 Joint Board Recommended Decision"); id., Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 303 ("Interim Cap Order"). The  xCommission extended these interim rules through July 1, 1996. Amendment of Part 36 of the Commission's Rules  {OH -and Establishment of a Joint Board, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 1077 (1995), summarized in 60 Fed. Reg. 65011  yO - x(1995). Recently, the Joint Board recommended, and the Commission adopted, an extension of the interim cap rules  xon the USF until the final universal service rules become effective. FederalState Joint Board on Universal Service,  {O- xRecommended Decision, 11 FCC Rcd 7928 (1996) ("1996 Joint Board Recommended Decision"); id., Report and  {Ol-Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7920 (1996) ("Extension of Interim Cap Rules").  xKThe Commission nonetheless recognized that, even in the short term, the granting of a study area  xwaiver may adversely affect the fund's distribution, if not its size. Under the indexed USF cap  xrules, any study area reconfiguration that increases the USF draw of one USF recipient often  xreduces that of other USF recipients. Consequently, in evaluating whether a study area change  xwould have an adverse impact on the distribution or level of the USF, the Commission applies  X1- xa "onepercent" guideline to study area waiver requests filed after January 5, 1995.1 L {Ot-ԍxSee U S WESTEagle Study Area Order, supra note 12,  1417. Under this  x[guideline, no study area waiver is granted if it would result in an annual aggregate shift in USF  xassistance in an amount equal to or greater than one percent of the total USF, unless the parties  xzcan demonstrate extraordinary public interest benefit. To prevent carriers from evading this  xlimitation by disaggregating a single large sale of exchanges into a series of smaller transactions  xthat in the aggregate have the same effect on the USF, the Commission further requires that the  xguideline be applied to all study area waivers granted to either carrier, as a purchaser or seller,  X-pending completion of the current review of the USF program.\$L {Oe-  kԍxId. In this context, the Commission defines the term "carrier" to include all affiliated carriers (i.e., those  x,carriers that are in common control, as the term "control" is defined in Section 32.9000 of the Commission's rules,  {O-47 C.F.R.  32.9000). Id. note 34.  Xb- B. Pleadings x` `   X4-   x8. UnitedKansas currently serves 75,716 access lines and S&T Cooperative currently  xserves 1,603 access lines. UnitedKansas proposes to sell the Dighton exchange which contains  x>1,139 access lines to S&TDighton. Petitioners seek waivers of the rule freezing study area  xboundaries to reflect the transfer of the Dighton exchange out of the UnitedKansas study area and into the S&T Cooperative study area. "H,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ   |x9. Petitioners state that the proposed changes would serve the public interest. S&T xDighton states that it plans to replace the existing electromechanical switch with a digital  xsatellite serving office and replace the major portion of the existing Dighton local loop plant.  xS&TDighton states that the upgrade will enable it to offer oneparty service to all customers in  X- xthe Dighton exchange.NL yO-ԍxJoint Petition at 911.N Further, S&TDighton states that the upgrade will enable it to enhance  xithe quality of voice and data transmissions for Dighton residents and businesses, as well as make  xavailable for the first time, enhanced services such as call forwarding, SS7 capability, and  XH- xCLASS features.HXL yOQ -  ԍxCustom Local Area Signaling Services, or CLASS, includes automatic callback, automatic recall, call waiting, call forwarded and other similar services. S&TDighton estimates that its upgrades would require an investment outlay  X1-of $6.2 million.a1L {O-ԍxSee  S&T Letter, supra note 5.a   x10. Petitioners estimate that the transfer of the Dighton exchange from the UnitedKansas  X - xstudy area to the S&T Cooperative study area would result in a net USF increase of $53,502.^ BL yO-ԍxJoint Petition at 12, Exhibits E and F.^  x In addition, S&T Cooperative estimates that, after it facilities upgrade is complete, it would  X - xreceive an additional $1,545,382 in USF support.O L {OA-ԍxId. at Exhibits F and I.O Therefore, based on petitioners estimates, the  X -total net impact on the USF, after upgrades, would be an increase of $1,598,884.\ d L {O-ԍxId. at Exhibits E, F, and I.hh\  X-  Xy-C. Discussion  XK-  x11.    Request for waivers. We have reviewed the data the petitioners filed with NECAyK L yO-ԍxNECA USF 1995 Submission of 1994 Study Results filed September 29, 1995.y  xKand the estimates filed in this proceeding and have determined that the combined increase in USF  xdraws will not have a significant adverse impact on the USF total or on individual carrier draws.  xIn addition, the Kansas Corporation Commission ("Kansas CC") states that it does not object to  X- x/the requested waivers.D\ L {O(#-  ԍxSee Kansas CC Order and Certificate, Docket No. 192,323U 95GNBT432COC, dated December 14,  {O#- x1995. See also Kansas CC Order and Certificate, Docket No. 192,324U 95STDT433COC, dated December 13, 1995. D S&TDighton states that its planned upgrades would enable it to  ximprove customer services in the Dighton exchange. We believe the petitioners have",N(N(ZZ"  X- xdemonstrated that their customers will likely be well served by S&TDighton,KL {Oy-ԍxSee supra at  9.K and therefore,  xthe requested study area waivers are likely to serve the public interest. As a result, we find that  xMthe threeprong standard for granting a study area waiver has been met and that the waiver requests should be granted.  X-  mx12. Need for imposed limits on USF draws. Although we find no reason to question  xpetitioners' estimates of the USF impact, we nonetheless are concerned that those estimates may  xlater prove inaccurate when the planned upgrades are completed. We have found that, even in  XJ- xa period of a few years, the USF payments for some LECs have risen by unexpected amounts.~JZL {OU -  ԍxSee, e.g., Delta Telephone Company, Inc., Waiver of the Definition of "StudyArea" contained in Part 36,  {O - xAppendixGlossary, of the Commission's Rules, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 7100 (1990), whose  yO - xUSF payment grew from $82,500 in 1991 to approximately $445,700 in 1993; and U S WEST Communications and  xwGila River Telecommunications, Inc., Joint Petition for Waiver of the Definition of "Study Area" Contained in Part  {Oy- xK36, AppendixGlossary, of the Commission's Rules, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 2161 (1992),  x[whose projection of $169,155 for Gila River's 1992 USF payment was more than doubled by the actual 1992  yO -payment of $390,993, which has been nearly doubled again by the 1995 payment of approximately $750,000.(#(#X  xjThese LECs generally had undertaken substantial upgrades or expansions of the local network  xin difficulttoserve, sparsely populated exchanges that are similar to the exchanges being acquired by S&TDighton.  X -  x13.  We therefore find that the waivers should be subject to the condition that, absent  xexplicit approval from the Bureau, the annual USF support provided to S&T Cooperative's study  X - xarea shall not exceed the amount estimated in the joint petition. L yO-  MԍxS&T Cooperative estimates that its posttransfer, postupgrade USF amount would be $2,842,836. Joint Petition at Exhibit I. This limit ensures that the  xstudy area waivers will not, due to errors or unforeseen circumstances, result in adverse USF  ximpacts which substantially exceed petitioners' forecasts. We note that the Telecommunications  Xd- xAct of 1996, which became effective on February 8, 1996,zd L yO -ԍxTelecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).z requires the reform of many  xymechanisms the Commission uses to support its universal service goals, including the USF, by  X6- x/May 8, 1997.^6 L {Oo -  zԍxId. 47 U.S.C. 254(a)(2). To develop new USF rules, the Commission has initiated a proceeding to address  {O9!- xthis issue. See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order  {O"-Establishing Joint Board, 61 Fed. Reg. 10499 (March 14, 1996). Id.  39. It is likely that any new universal service rules will alter the method used to  xdetermine the distribution of USF support to highcost areas, thereby changing the projected level  xof support to the buyers' study area. This, in turn, may require us to revisit these issues, and the related waiver conditions that we have established herein.  X- ",N(N(ZZp"ԌxIII. PRICE CAPS WAIVER A. Background  X-  0x 14.  Section 61.41(c)(2) of the Commission's rules provides that, when a cost companyL yO-  ԍxCost companies are those LECs that receive compensation for the use of their facilities in originating and terminating interstate telecommunications services on the basis of their actual costs.  X- xacquires a price cap company,EX L yO^ -  ԍxPrice cap companies are those LECs that receive compensation for the use of their facilities in originating  xand terminating interstate telecommunication services on the basis of the Commission's price cap rules. 47 C.F.R.  61.4161.49.E the acquiring LEC, and any LEC with which it is affiliated, shall  Xv- x-become subject to price cap regulation within a year of the transaction.ev@L {Og -  \ԍx47 C.F.R.  61.41(c). See Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Dominant Carriers, Second Report and  {O1- xOrder, 5 FCC Rcd 6786, 6821 (1990), Erratum, 5 FCC Rcd 7664 (Com. Car. Bur. 1990) ("LEC Price Cap Order"),  {O- xmodified on recon., Order on Reconsideration, 6 FCC Rcd 2637 (1991) ("LEC Price Cap Reconsideration Order"),  {O- x-aff'd sub nom. National Rural Telecom Ass'n v. FCC, 988 F.2d 174 (D.C. Cir. 1993), petitions for further recon.  {O- xdismissed, 6 FCC Rcd 7482 (1991), further modification on recon., Amendments of Part 69 of the Commission's  xRules Relating to the Creation of Access Charge Subelements for Open Network Architecture, Policy and Rules  {O!- xConcerning Rates for Dominant Carriers, Report and Order and Order on Further Reconsideration and Supplemental  {O- x-Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 6 FCC Rcd 4524 (1991) ("ONA Part 69 Order"), further recon., Memorandum  {O-Opinion and Order on Second Further Reconsideration, 7 FCC Rcd 5235 (1992).e The Commission stated  xthat this "allornothing" rule applies not only to the acquisition of an entire LEC but also to the  XH- xacquisition of part of a study area. \H L {O-  ԍxSee LEC Price Cap Reconsideration Order, supra note 31,  149 note 207. The Commission explained that,  xYif these two types of acquisitions were not treated the same under the allornothing rule, a LEC could avoid the rule  {O-by selling all but one of its exchanges. Id.Ę UnitedKansas is a price cap LEC. Hence, under this rule,  xS&T Cooperative's acquisition of the Dighton exchange from UnitedKansas obligates S&T  x<Cooperative and S&T-Dighton to become subject to price cap regulation instead of rateofreturn regulation.!" DL yO-  ԍxAs shown earlier, it is proposed that the Dighton exchange, to be operated by S&TDighton, will be  {O- xconsolidated with the existing, single study area of its parent company, S&T Cooperative. See supra  8 and note  xx1. In this Price Caps section, the name S&T Cooperative includes both the parent and the subsidiary companies.  yOR-   ^x15. The Commission explained that the allornothing rule is intended to address two  xconcerns it has regarding mergers and acquisitions involving price cap LECs. The first concern  xis that, in the absence of the rule, a LEC might attempt to shift costs from its price cap affiliate  xto its nonprice cap affiliate, allowing the nonprice cap affiliate to earn more, due to its  Xy- x/increased revenue requirement, without affecting the earnings of the price cap affiliate, i.e.,  xwithout triggering the sharing mechanism. The second concern is that, absent the rule, a LEC  xmay attempt to "game the system" by switching back and forth between rateofreturn regulation  xand price cap regulation. The Commission cited, as an example, the incentive a price cap LEC"6.!,N(N(ZZ*"  x-may have to increase earnings by opting out of price cap regulation, building up a large rate base  xunder rateofreturn regulation so as to raise rates and, then, after returning to price cap, cutting  xcosts back to an efficient level. It would disserve the public interest, the Commission stated, to  xallow a LEC to alternately "fatten up" under rateofreturn regulation and "slim down" under  xprice cap regulation, because rates would not fall in the manner intended under price cap  X-regulation.n"L {O-ԍx LEC Price Cap Reconsideration Order at  148.n   x16. The Commission nonetheless recognized that a narrow waiver of the allornothing  x.rule might be justified if efficiencies created by the purchase and sale of a few exchanges were  X1- xto outweigh the threat that the system may be subject to gaming.M#1ZL {O< -ԍxId.  149 note 207.M Such a waiver would not be  xLgranted unconditionally, however. Rather, waivers of the allornothing rule would be granted  xsubject to the condition that the selling price cap LEC shall make a downward exogenous  X - xadjustment to its price cap index to reflect the change in its study area.$ L {O-  =ԍxSee Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers, First Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 8962,  {OS- xw 328, 330 (1995) ("LEC Price Cap Review Order"). Under that requirement, UnitedKansas must reduce the Price  xCap Indices for their Kansas study areas if the changes in study area boundaries reduce the cost bases for those  xindices. The price cap indices, which are the cost indices on which pricecapped rates are based, are calculated  {O-pursuant to a formula specified in the Commission's rules for price cap LECs. See 47 C.F.R.  yOw- 61.45.` `  That adjustment is  xZneeded to remove the effects of the transferred exchanges from pricecapped rates that have been  xLbased, in whole or in part, upon the inclusion of those exchanges in the study areas subject to  X -price cap regulation.u% j L {O-ԍxSee LEC Price Cap Review Order, supra note 36,  330.u  Xy- B. Pleadings  XK-  4x17. Petition. S&T Cooperative seeks a waiver of Section 61.41(c)(2) of the  xCommissions rules so that it may operate as a rateofreturn LEC, rather than price cap LEC,  xand may participate in the NECA tariffs after acquiring the Dighton exchange which currently  xMis under price cap regulation. Petitioners argue that the rule's application in this instance is  xcontrary to the public interest and does not serve the purposes for which the rule was adopted.  xPetitioners further argue that the Commission's two concerns, the threat of cost shifting between  X-affiliates and gaming of the system, are not at issue in this case.& L yOp#-  jԍxJoint Petition at 1923. We note that, although UnitedKansas signed the petition, it does not seek a waiver of the allornothing rule.  X- "~T &,N(N(ZZ2"Ԍ X-C. Discussion  X-  !x18. We agree with petitioners that the Commission's first concern underlying the allor xnothing rule is not applicable in this case. S&T Cooperative does not have an incentive to shift  xxcosts between price cap and rateofreturn affiliates, because it is not seeking to maintain separate  xaffiliates under different systems of regulation. As to the Commission's second concern, we find  xit implausible that UnitedKansas could game the system by moving the one exchange back and  xkforth between price cap and rateofreturn regulation, because UnitedKansas is selling this  xzexchange and a reacquisition would require a second study area waiver. Moreover, United xKansas cannot transfer the exchange without removing the rate effects of this exchange from the  X -rates that have been based, in part, upon the inclusion of this exchange in its Kansas study area.Z' L {O -ԍxSee discussion supra  16.Z x   {x19. We therefore find there is good cause to grant S&T Cooperative waiver of the allor xnothing rule to permit it to operate under rateofreturn regulation after acquiring the Dighton  xMexchange which currently is under price cap regulation. As noted above, these waivers are  xjsubject to the condition that UnitedKansas shall make exogenous adjustments to its price cap  x=indices to reflect the removal of this exchange from its Kansas study area. For the present, we  xwill regulate S&T Cooperative as a rateofreturn carrier, and because we are waiving Section  x61.41(c)(2); S&T Cooperative may remain in the NECA pools. We note that, as is the case for  xany other rateofreturn carriers, S&T Cooperative may elect price cap regulation in the future if it decides to withdraw from the NECA pools.  X-x` ` ? IV. OTHER ISSUES  X-  | x20. To the extent necessary, S&TDighton seeks a waiver of Section 69.3(e(11) of the  X- xCommission's rules.("ZL {O-  \ЍxSee 47 C.F.R. 69.3(e)(11). Section 69.3(e)(11) states that "[a]ny changes in Association common line  x tariff participation and [l]ong [t]erm and [t]ransitional [s]upport resulting from the merger or acquisition of telephone  x,properties are to be made effective on the next annual access tariff filing effective date following consummation of the merger or acquisition." That rule requires that any changes in NECA common line tariff  x<participation and long term support resulting from a merger or acquisition of telephone properties  xare to be made effective on the next annual access tariff filing effective date following the merger  X|- xor acquisition. S&TDighton is concerned that under a strict interpretation of this rule it, rather  xthan NECA, would be required to file a tariff on the next annual access tariff filing date.  xAssuming its acquisition occurs this year, S&TDighton represents that it plans to utilize NECA  X7- x<as its interstate tariff administrator;F)7DL yO,$-ԍxJoint Petition at 33.F consequently, S&TDighton's carrier common line costs will  xbe included in NECA's 1997 filing. We conclude that S&TDighton is not required to make a  xseparate annual access filing for its carrier common line costs, and therefore a waiver of Section 69.3(e)(11) is not required." ),N(N(ZZ<"Ԍ X-ԙx` ` 5 V. ORDERING CLAUSES ă   }x21. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 201202 of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 155(c), 201202, and  x/Sections 0.91, 0.291, and 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, 1.3, that the  xZpetition of S&T Communications of Dighton, Inc., S&T Telephone Cooperative Association, Inc.,  xkand United Telephone Company of Kansas for waiver of Part 36, Appendix-Glossary, of the  xCommission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 36 AppendixGlossary IS GRANTED subject to the condition stated in paragraph 13 and note 26 of this Order.   x22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 201202 of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 155(c), 201202, and  x/Sections 0.91, 0.291, and 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, 1.3, that the  xpetition of S&T Communications of Dighton and S&T Telephone Cooperative Association, Inc.  xfor waiver of Section 61.41(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  61.41(c)(2), IS GRANTED subject to the condition stated in paragraph 19 of this Order.   x23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 201202 of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 155(c), 201202, and  x\Sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, that the National  xExchange Carrier Association, Inc. shall not distribute USF assistance exceeding the limit imposed in paragraph 13 and note 26 of this Order.   x24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 201202 of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 155(c), 201202, and  xzSections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, that this Order IS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UPON RELEASE. X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: