WPC 2HBVX@Z3|P (TT)7PC2X CXP\  P6QXP"5@^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddHP LaserJet 5P/5MPcriptHPLAS5P.WRSXN\  P,,,)!dXP2. z@ Z3|P"5@^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777CE7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSf.fExSxSxSxo7oE]A]AN:*LS7JSSSSS.4}}S2S}277JJS77SS7J72t7[[[[^ee*C`^.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7.S^7SC[227`L*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSSHP LaserJet 5P/5MPcriptHPLAS5P.WRSc PE37,,,)!dP2`v@p @  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)Times New Roman (Bold Italic) (TT)"5@^*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BW*7777CE7S]xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxJxJxJoJoJoJSSSS]]C]A]A7A]S]o.oEx]x]SxxJxJ]A]AN:*ZS7SSSSSS27}}S2}}S}277SSS77SS7S72t7[[[[_ee*C`_.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BW7SSSS7]777SS:S7A7xx*7SSSS%S7}2S_7}SC[227`Z*727S}}}SxxxxxxxooooAAAAxx_xxxxxf]SSSSSSxJJJJJ....S]SSSSS[S]]]]S]"5@^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd2"@"@b@@"5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCddddddd<d<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYda8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2$k""v'#t#a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2&C$ $ % '&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* ' 'y(A)a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2s-C*+,,a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2'0-,../a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2Z3Y0113'2a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg283e77u8PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheading"0\ E A.  FOOTNOTEFootnote - Appearance#P2>$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'2C(1C>)1t?*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   2D,n9C-XC.C/iDTITLETitle of a Document,K\ * ăFOOTERFooter A - Appearanced-BLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indented.N X HEADING 33rd Heading Level/| X2MI0dE1jE2E3EHHIGHLIGHT 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-I58J68K7MMEMORANDUMMemo 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 2XP8XN9[GO:[O;[ONORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle8SMALLSmall Typestyle9FINEFine Typestyle:LARGELarge Typestyle;2S<[P=[P>@Q?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@XMSASBETCT1@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]DlYEb[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 2dH8]I]Jx^K_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 2sLQdMXiN]nOpssStyle 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` ` ` 2uPqtQetRetSPuDocument[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*    2GxTpvUvVwWwDocument[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     2?{XyxYyZy[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 2I~\q{]9|^ }_}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_&!"  . 2ŀ`{~abc1Technical[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&)*   2def,g Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gd4+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O ge&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gf&/0  . CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FilegW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  B2Ahij0k~ÅFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded Documenthiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#footnote tex#i'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#referencej;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1k&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#2tlism}܈nYoheader2lI ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# a1Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fm$ 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: 2`pqDrsa4Paragraph+%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  2\tud\\@a8Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Ftq 1, 2, 3, 6W6Numbers$1/$=('*'=d Eu .jy.C8*XrxC\  P6QP.ky.G8*X}G4  pQm7PC2XXP\  P6QXP.l7UC2X>XU4  pQXnW!0(XAh0\  P6QhPoI(!Xy,(\  P6Q,Pp{,C8*X3C*f9 xQXq5PC2X3 XP*f9 xQXXl6RC2XR XR9 xyQXSTARWAIV\RURAL32_\G@Svx^w_yle2?! ="5@^2Nodd8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdNdzzozzzC8CrdCddYdYCdo88d8odddNN8oYdYNF,Fr2CC!CCPRCdddddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddoooozYddddzYdzddddYYYYYYddddooPdNdNCNdddz8zRoodNRoNoNNF2ddNdddddd5area for each state, and ILECs operating in a single state typically have a single study area.  xStudy area boundaries are important primarily because ILECs perform jurisdictional separations  X4- xat the study area level.04, L yO-  LԍxThe phrase "jurisdictional separations," or "separations," refers to the process of dividing costs and revenues  {O-between a carrier's state and interstate operations. See generally 47 C.F.R.  36.136.741.0 For jurisdictional separations purposes, the Commission froze all study  X- xarea boundaries effective November 15, 1984.[ L {OT!-  >ԍx47 C.F.R. 36 app. (defining "study area"). See MTS and WATS Market Structure, Amendment of Part  {O"- x,67 of the Commission's Rules and Establishment of a Joint Board, Recommended Decision and Order, 49 Fed. Reg.  {O"- x48325 (December 12, 1984) ("1984 Joint Board Recommended Decision"); id., Decision and Order, 50 Fed. Reg.  {O#- x939 (January 8, 1985) ("1985 Order Adopting Recommendation"); see also Amendment of Part 36 of the  {O|$- x;Commission's Rules and Establishment of a Joint Board, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 5 FCC Rcd 5974 (October  {OF%-10, 1990) ("Study Area Notice").[ The Commission took that action primarily to  x=ensure that ILECs do not set up highcost exchanges within their existing service territories as" ,N(N(ZZ"  X- xlseparate study areas to maximize interstate cost allocations.L {Oy-  [ԍxSee 1984 Joint Board Recommended Decision, supra note 6,  66; 1985 Order Adopting Recommendation,  {OC-supra note 6,  1,5. An ILEC must apply to the  xCommission for a waiver of the frozen study area rule if it wishes to sell or purchase an  X-exchange.P$L yO-ԍx47 C.F.R. 1.3, 36 app.P  X-h!P    x5. Waiver of Commission rules is appropriate only if special circumstances warrant  X- xdeviation from the general rule and such a deviation will serve the public interest. L {O -   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  XH- x.USF support program; h HL {O-  \ԍUSF PROCEDURE USF RULE xSee 1984 Joint Board Recommended Decision, supra note 6,  66. The Commission created the USF to  {O- xpreserve and promote universal service. See Amendment of Part 67 of the Commission's Rules and Establishment  {O- xKof a Joint Board, Decision and Order, 96 FCC 2d 781 (1984). The USF allows ILECs 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  xexchange rates in study areas receiving such assistance. To determine which ILEC 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 regulatory authority over the  xexchange(s) to be transferred does not object to the change; and third, the public interest supports  X -such a change. ^ >L {O -  ԍxSee U S WEST Communications, Inc., and Eagle Telecommunications, Inc., Joint Petition for Waiver of  {O- 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").   x6. 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. J dL yO!-  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)  {OF$- 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  {O%- xwand 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  {Oj'- xon the USF until the final universal service rules become effective. See FederalState Joint Board on Universal"j' ,N(N('"  {O- xService, Recommended Decision, 11 FCC Rcd 7928 (1996) ("1996 Joint Board Recommended Decision"); id., Report  {OZ-and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7920 (1996) ("Extension of Interim Cap Rules"). " $ ,N(N(ZZ "  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  X- xa "onepercent" guideline to study area waiver requests filed after January 5, 1995. $L {Ob -ԍxSee U S WESTEagle Study Area Order, supra note 11,  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 {OS-  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.  14 note 34.  X - B. Pleadings x` `   X-  x7. Petition. U S WEST seeks a waiver of the rule freezing study area boundaries to  xenable it to remove one exchange, serving approximately 686 access lines, from its Arizona study  x{area. San Carlos also seeks a waiver of that rule to permit it to acquire this exchange and  XM-establish a new study area. San Carlos proposes that it be regulated as a cost company.ML yO-  ԍxCost companies are those ILECs that receive compensation for the use of their facilities in originating and terminating interstate telecommunications services on the basis of their actual costs.  X-  \x8. Petitioners state that the proposed changes would serve the public interest because San  xCarlos would improve telecommunications service without necessitating inordinate increases in  X- xbasic service rates.@2 L yO -ԍxPetition at 12.@ San Carlos states that it plans to replace much of the existing analog  x<equipment with modern digital equipment to provide the customers with the most technologically  X- xadvanced telephone system possible.b L yO8$-ԍxPetition at Attachment B, Response to Question 4.b San Carlos also states that it plans to install modern toll  xrecording, signalling, and equal access facilities. San Carlos states that, over the next five years,  x>it plans to make plant investments totalling $11,226,000, of which $7,898,900 will be for loop"R ,N(N(ZZQ"  X-related facilities.L {Oy-ԍxPetition at Attachment B, Response to Question 4. See Investment Letter, supra note 4.   x9. Petitioners estimate that the transfer of the exchange out of U S WEST's study area  xNand into San Carlos' proposed new study area would make San Carlos eligible to receive  X- x>$435,283 in annual USF support.VZL yO-ԍxPetition at Attachment B, Appendix C.V San Carlos estimates that, after all planned upgrades are  X- x.completed, its USF draw would increase to $1,079,602.`L {O( -ԍxSee USF Letter, supra note 4.` In addition, petitioners state that U S  xWEST currently receives no USF support in Arizona and, after the sale, will not be eligible to  X_-receive USF support.b_|L yO -ԍxPetition at Attachment B, Response to Question 4.b  X1- C. Discussion  X -  x10. Request for waivers. We have reviewed the data the petitioners filed with NECAy L yO-ԍxNECA USF 1995 Submission of 1994 Study Results filed September 29, 1995.y  xand the estimates filed with this proceeding and have determined that the combined increase in  xUSF draws will not have a substantial adverse impact on the USF total or on individual ILEC  xdraws. In addition, the Arizona Corporation Commission ("Arizona CC") states that it does not  X - xobject to these requested waivers. L {O-ԍxSee Arizona CC Opinion and Order, Docket Nos. E105195143, U289295143, dated March 26, 1996. The modernization and upgrade proposals as stated by San  xjCarlos, demonstrate that current and potential customers in the affected exchange will likely be  X{- xbetter served by San Carlos.K{. L {OZ-ԍxSee supra at  8.K The requested study area waivers thus are likely to serve the  xpublic interest. We therefore find that the threeprong standard for granting a study area waiver has been met in this instance and that the waiver requests should be granted.  X-  x11. Request for exemption from USF limits. Although we find no reason to question San  x-Carlos' estimates of the USF impact, we nonetheless are concerned that those estimates may later  xprove inaccurate when the planned upgrades are completed. To address this concern, we have  x>granted waivers of this type subject to the condition that, absent explicit approval from the  xBureau, the annual USF support provided to the new or revised study area shall not exceed the  xamount specified in the petition. In reference to that Bureau policy, San Carlos submits an  X-argument against the imposition of limits on its USF draw.C L yO&-ԍxPetition at 1314.C "P ,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ  A 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)x12. San Carlos argues that it would be inappropriate for its future USF draw to be  X- xrestricted to current estimates (i.e., $1,079,602) because that estimate was made in good faith and  X- xmay need to be adjusted once it begins daytoday operations.@L yOM-ԍxPetition at 14.@  1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)We have found that, even in a  X- xperiod of a few years, the USF estimates for some ILECs have risen by unexpected amounts.~XL {O-  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  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  {O - 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 payment of $390,993, which has been nearly doubled again by the 1995 payment of approximately $750,000.  xThese ILECs generally had undertaken substantial upgrades or expansions of the local network  xZin difficulttoserve, sparsely populated exchanges that are similar to the exchange being acquired  xzby San Carlos. However, San Carlos' failure to submit accurate USF estimates is not, as San  xCarlos suggests, a valid reason for granting these waivers unconditionally. On the contrary, the  xLpotential for such failure has been our primary reason for imposing limits on ILECs' USF draws following exchange transfers.   x13. These limits would ensure that the study area waivers will not, due to errors or  xunforeseen circumstances, result in USF impacts which substantially exceed San Carlos' forecasts.  xThe limits also would ensure that the Commission's one percent guideline can be properly  x-adhered to in future filings of this kind. Absent such limits, companies could file waiver requests  xzthat appear to fall within the guideline, only to later adjust their USF estimates to exceed the  xkguideline free of any Bureau review. We therefore reject the claim that, because San Carlos'  xyrepresentation of the USF impact may be inaccurate, it would be unreasonable for its USF draw to be limited by those representations.   x14. In conclusion, we believe that we should continue our policy of imposing limits on  xthe new or revised study area's USF draw. We therefore find that the waivers should be subject  xto the condition that, absent explicit approval from the Bureau, the annual USF support provided  xto San Carlos' proposed new study area shall not exceed the postupgrade amount specified by  X- xLit in the petition.L {O) -  \ԍxSan Carlos estimates that its posttransfer, post upgrade USF draw would be $1,079,602. See USF Letter,  {O -supra note 4. We note that the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which became effective  X- xon February 8, 1996,z L yOn#-ԍxTelecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).z requires the reform of many mechanisms the Commission uses to support  X- x{its universal service goals, including the USF, by May 8, 1997.^ L {O%-  zԍxId. 47 U.S.C. 254(a)(2). To develop new USF rules, the Commission has initiated a proceeding to address  {O&- 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",N(N(ZZR"  xuniversal service rules will alter the method used to determine the distribution of USF support  xito highcost areas, thereby changing the projected level of support to San Carlos' new study area.  xThis, in turn, may require us to revisit these issues, and the related waiver conditions that we have established herein.  X-  X-x III. PRICE CAPS WAIVER  X_-A. Background  X1-  x15. Section 61.41(c)(2) of the Commission's rules provides that, when a cost companyI1L {O -ԍxSee supra note 15.I  X - xacquires a price cap company,E X ZL yO% -  ԍxPrice cap companies are those ILECs 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 company, and any ILEC with which it is affiliated,  X - xshall become subject to price cap regulation within a year of the transaction.e! zL {O.-  \ԍx47 C.F.R.  61.41(c). See Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Dominant Carriers, Second Report and  {O- 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.  {OV- 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- xNotice 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  xstated that this "allornothing" rule applies not only to the acquisition of an entire ILEC but also  X - xto the acquisition of part of a study area."\ Z L {O-  ԍxSee LEC Price Cap Reconsideration Order, supra note 33,  149 note 207. The Commission explained that,  xif these two types of acquisitions were not treated the same under the allornothing rule, an ILEC could avoid the  {Or-rule by selling all but one of its exchanges. Id.Ď U S WEST is a price cap company. Hence, under  xthis rule, San Carlos' acquisition of the U S WEST exchange would obligate San Carlos to become subject to price cap regulation instead of rateofreturn regulation.   ^x16. The Commission explained that the allornothing rule is intended to address two  xconcerns regarding mergers and acquisitions involving price cap companies. The first concern  xis that, in the absence of the rule, an ILEC 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  X- 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, an ILEC  xmay attempt to "game the system" by switching back and forth between rateofreturn regulation  x{and price cap regulation. The Commission cited, as an example, the incentive a price cap  x<company may have to increase earnings by opting out of price cap regulation, building up a large"~",N(N(ZZq"  x-rate base under rateofreturn regulation so as to raise rates and, then, after returning to price cap  xkregulation, cutting costs back to an efficient level. It would disserve the public interest, the  xCommission stated, to allow an ILEC to alternately "fatten up" under rateofreturn regulation  xand "slim down" under price cap regulation, because rates would not fall in the manner intended  X-under price cap regulation.K#L {O-ԍxId.  148.K   x17. 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  XH- xto outweigh the threat that the system may be subject to gaming.N$HZL {OS -ԍxId.  149 note 207.N Such a waiver would not be  xLgranted unconditionally, however. Rather, waivers of the allornothing rule would be granted  x=subject to the condition that the selling price cap company shall make a downward exogenous  X - x.adjustment to its price cap indices 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,  {Oj- xi 328, 330 (1995) ("LEC Price Cap Review Order"). Under that requirement, U S WEST must reduce the price  xcap indices for its Arizona study area if the changes in study area boundaries reduce the cost bases for those indices.  xThe price cap indices, which are the cost indices on which pricecapped rates are based, are calculated pursuant to  {O-a formula specified in the Commission's rules for price cap ILECs. See 47 C.F.R.  61.45.xx That adjustment is  xneeded to remove the effects of the transferred exchanges from rates that have been based, in  xLwhole or in part, upon the inclusion of those exchanges in the study areas subject to price cap  X -regulation.|& L {O-ԍxSee LEC Price Cap Review Order, supra note 37,  330. |  X- B. Pleadings  Xb<  !x18.  Petition.  San Carlos seeks waiver of Section 61.41(c)(2) so it may operate as a rate xMofreturn ILEC, rather than a price cap ILEC, after acquiring the exchange which currently is  xiunder price cap regulation. Petitioners argue that the rule's application in this instance is contrary  xto the public interest and does not serve the purposes for which the rule was adopted. Petitioners  x[further argue that the Commission's two concerns, the threat of cost shifting between affiliates  X-and gaming of the system, are not at issue in this case.'4 L yO -  ԍxPetition at 37. We note that, although U S WEST signed the petition, U S WEST does not seek a waiver of the allornothing rule.  X- C. Discussion   !x19. We agree with petitioners that the Commission's first concern underlying the allor xnothing rule is not applicable in this case. San Carlos has no incentive to shift costs between  xprice cap and cost affiliates, because San Carlos is not seeking to maintain separate affiliates"g ',N(N(ZZ""  xunder different systems of regulation. As to the Commission's second concern, we find it  x>implausible that U S WEST could game the system by moving the exchange back and forth  xbetween price caps and rateofreturn regulation, because U S WEST is selling the exchange and  xa reacquisition would require a second study area waiver. Moreover, U S WEST cannot transfer  xthe exchange without removing the rateincreasing effects of the exchange from the pricecapped  X-rates that have been based, in part, upon the inclusion of the exchange in its Arizona study area.`(L {O-ԍxSee discussion supra  17.` x   x20. We therefore find there is good cause to grant San Carlos a waiver of the allor xnothing rule to permit it to remain under rateofreturn regulation after acquiring the exchange  xwhich currently is under price cap regulation. As noted above, these waivers are subject to the  xcondition that U S WEST shall make a downward exogenous adjustment to its price cap indices  xjto reflect the removal of this generally highcost exchange from its Arizona study area. For the  x=present, we will regulate San Carlos as a rateofreturn carrier. We note that, as with any other  xrateofreturn carrier, San Carlos may elect price cap regulation in the future if it decides to withdraw from the NECA pools.  X-? IV. OTHER ISSUES ă  Xb-   1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. i.(1)(a)(i) 1) a)x21. To the extent necessary, San Carlos seeks a waiver of Section 69.3(e(11) of the  XK- xCommission's rules.)"KZL {OV-  \ԍxSee 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<or acquisition. San Carlos is concerned that under a strict interpretation of this rule it, rather than  xNECA, would be required to file a tariff on the next annual access tariff filing date. Assuming  x]its acquisition occurs this year, San Carlos represents that it plans to utilize NECA as its  X- x/interstate tariff administrator;?*DL yO-ԍxPetition at 7.? consequently, San Carlos' carrier common line costs will be  xincluded in NECA's 1997 filing. We conclude that San Carlos is not required to make a separate  xannual access filing for its carrier common line costs, and therefore, a waiver of Section 69.3(e)(11) is not required.  XN-x` ` 5 V. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  X -  }x22. 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" *,N(N(ZZ<"  xpetition of San Carlos Apache Telecommunications Utility, Inc. and U S WEST Communications,  xInc. for waiver of Part 36, Appendix-Glossary, of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 36  x.AppendixGlossary, IS GRANTED subject to the condition stated in paragraph 14 and note 28 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, 0.291, and 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, 1.3, that the  xpetition of San Carlos Apache Telecommunications Utility, Inc. and U S WEST Communications,  xInc. for 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 20 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  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 shall not distribute USF assistance exceeding the limit imposed in paragraph 14 and note 28 of this Order.   x25. 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` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  Xe- x` `  hhKenneth P. Moran x` `  hhChief, Accounting and Audits Division x` `  hhCommon Carrier Bureau@@  @xx