********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from
the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
                            Before the
                FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                     Washington, D.C.  20554

     In the Matter of)
     )
   National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.)AAD 97-2
 1997 Proposed Modifications to the Interstate)
    Average Schedule Formulas)


                              ORDER

     Adopted:  June 27, 1997Released:  June 27, 1997

By the Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau:

      1.On June 20, 1997, the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.
("NECA") filed a motion ("Motion") requesting that the Common Carrier Bureau ("Bureau") stay
its May 28, 1997 Order in this proceeding, insofar as the order requires NECA to implement, on
July 1, 1997, a modified common line formula for average schedule companies.  For the reasons
discussed below, we deny NECA's motion.

                          I.  BACKGROUND

      2.On December 31, 1996,  NECA filed modifications to the average
schedule formulae proposed to become effective July 1, 1997.  The filing was submitted in
accordance with the Commission's rules that require NECA to submit proposed modifications to
the average schedule formulae annually or to certify that no modifications are warranted.  Those
formulae, which are approved or modified by the Commission, determine payments to average
schedule companies from the access charge revenue pool.   Comments regarding the average
schedule formulae were received on February 12, 1997.

      3.On May 28, 1997, we released an order requiring modification of NECA's
common line formula for average schedule companies.  The modified formula, denominated a
"reciprocal" formula in our order, models average schedule settlements per line using a smooth
transition curve rather than the linear spline model originally filed by NECA.  On June 16, 1997 ,
NECA filed its annual access tariff, which reflected the modified common line formula for
average schedule companies, as required by our May 28 Order.

      4.On June 20, 1997, NECA filed a petition asking that the Bureau reconsider
its May 28 Order.  NECA asserted that the Bureau used improper criteria, including reliance on
R-squared statistics, in selecting the modified formula.  NECA also alleged that the modified
formula produces substantial, unpredictable settlement changes for average schedule companies,
is oversensitive to data from companies with small numbers of lines per exchange, fails to
exclude companies with serious reporting errors, and understates the common line revenue
requirement for the average schedule population.

      5.NECA also filed a motion for stay on June 20, 1997, requesting that the
Bureau stay its May 28, 1997 Order insofar as it requires that on July 1, 1997 a modified
common line formula for average schedule companies become effective.  In its motion, NECA
reiterated the substantive criticisms presented in its petition for reconsideration.  In addition,
NECA alleged that significant irreparable harm would result if the modified formula were
applied to average schedule companies.  The examples of purported irreparable harm described
by NECA were the following:  "large settlement changes to small companies, which are likely to
be reversed in a year or two, lack of predictability, lower-than-warranted settlements for large
numbers of companies, and a reduction in confidence in the average schedule process."  NECA
also argued that the public interest strongly favors stay of the modified common line formula
pending reconsideration, because "[s]ubstituting unstable formulas for the sake of minor (at best)
improvements in accuracy would undermine small company confidence in the formulas, and
lessen their future viability."

                         II.  DISCUSSION

      6.In determining whether to grant the extraordinary remedy of a stay of an
order, the Commission uses the test enunciated in Virginia Jobbers and Washington Transit. 
The factors to be considered are:  (1) a likelihood of success on the merits by the party requesting
the stay; (2) irreparable harm in the absence of a stay; (3) no substantial harm to other interested
parties if the stay is granted; and (4) public interest in favor of a stay.  The most important of
these factors is irreparable harm, without which other factors need not be considered.

      7.None of the potential harms cited by NECA constitute irreparable harm. 
Settlement changes or "lower-than-warranted settlements for large numbers of companies," even
if true, are mere monetary damages that are insufficient to satisfy the requirement of irreparable
harm.  The only exception to this general rule arises when the monetary harm is so
overwhelming as to amount to "destruction of a business," and we find no evidence --- nor does
NECA allege --- that implementation of the modified formula would destroy the business of any
average schedule company.  As to NECA's argument that the modified common line formula will
cause "lack of predictability" and will undermine confidence in the average schedule process, we
find that NECA's assertions are highly speculative and, moreover, cannot reasonably be regarded
as "irreparable harm."  Having determined that NECA has failed to demonstrate irreparable harm
in the absence of a stay, there is no need to examine the other factors to be considered in
determining whether to grant a motion for stay.  Nonetheless, we find that NECA has not
established a likelihood of success on the merits nor a public interest concern that warrants the
issuance of a stay.  

      8.In sum, we conclude that NECA has failed to meet the standards for a stay
as set forth in Virginia Jobbers and Washington Transit.  Accordingly, we deny NECA's request
for a stay of our May 28 Order in this proceeding.

                      III.  ORDERING CLAUSES

      9.Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 201-
205 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), and 201-
205, and pursuant to Sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.102(b)(2), and 69.606 of the Commission's rules, 47
C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, 1.102(b)(2), AND 69.606, that the Motion for Stay filed by the National
Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. on June 20, 1997, IS DENIED.

     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


     Kathleen B. Levitz
     Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau