WPC? 2MB RCourierw Roman0#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#3|xBoldTimes New Roman@`7X@]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNX\  P6G;PP2]: ZQCourierCourier BoldTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldHP LaserJet 5SiHPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\2!eX@|D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdCourierCourier BoldTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic?xxx,x `7X7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP7nC:,%/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\4  pG;\ 5hC:,:rXh*f9 xr G;XX!W!@(#,h@\  P6G;hP<R&HHH,~!,H6X@`7h@"x/c81,Q c PE37P #z-b81,Zub&_ x7X\{,W80,:BZW*f9 xr G;X29 W.&m 4"i~'K2^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoYi{xxxl888SS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS>A.SSxSSJJSJS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxIxSxIqIqIrSrS{dgIiSiSgIxSxSxSxSxS{S{S8.SSSS8Sz]SSuSg/g\4  pG;\ 5hC:,:rXh*f9 xr G;XX!W!@(#,h@\  P6G;hP<R&HHH,~!,H6X@`7h@"x/c81,Q c PE37P #z-b81,Zub&_ x7X\+{,W80,:BZW*f9 xr G;X ?xxx,jΡx6Nhez7XH     X<  ( X- #Xj\  P6G;ynXP#w Federal Communications Commission`)(# DA 971343  yxdddy (Պ #d6X@`7N@# #Xj\  P6G;ynXP#v3#X\  P6G;ɒP# Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  yOaWashington, D.C. 20554 ă  XA-#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#In the Matter of hh@h) x` `  hh@h)  X-National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.h)ppAAD 972  X-1997 Proposed Modifications to the Interstateh)  X-Average Schedule Formulashh@h)  X -; ORDER  Xr -Adopted: June 27, 1997hh@hppReleased: June 27, 1997 By the Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau:  X-x` ` 1. On June 20, 1997, the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.  X-("NECA") filed a motion ("Motion") requesting that the Common Carrier Bureau ("Bureau")  X-stay its May 28, 1997 Order Pc<ԍ #c P7 P#National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc., Order, AAD 972, DA 971114, (Com. Car. Bur. rel. May 28, 1997). 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.  X- I. BACKGROUND ă  X`-x` ` 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  X-to the average schedule formulae annually or to certify that no modifications are warranted.j1 O<ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#47 C.F.R.  69.606(b).j Those formulae, which are approved or modified by the Commission, determine payments to  X-average schedule companies from the access charge revenue pool.j Oo!<ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#Id.  69.606(a).j Comments regarding the average schedule formulae were received on February 12, 1997.  X-x` ` 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. "c q0*o(o(qq"  X-On June 16, 1997 , NECA filed its annual access tariff,= Oy<ԍ#X\  P6G;ɒP# 1997 Annual Access Tariff Filing, Transmittal No. 758 (filed June 16, 1997, to become effective July 1, 1997). which reflected the modified common line formula for average schedule companies, as required by our May 28 Order.  X-x` ` 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 Rsquared 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.  X -x` ` 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, lowerthanwarranted settlements for large numbers of companies, and a reduction in confidence in the average  X4-schedule process."40= O<ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#Motion at 4.#X\  P6G;ɒP#  Ė 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  X-company confidence in the formulas, and lessen their future viability."Z= Mp<ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#Id.Z  X- II. DISCUSSION ă  X-x` ` 6. In determining whether to grant the extraordinary remedy of a stay of  X|-an order, the Commission uses the test enunciated in Virginia Jobbers and Washington  Xg-Transit.lgn= O"<ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association v. Federal Power Commission, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C.  {O^#-Cir. 1958) (Virginia Jobbers); Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559  {O($-F.2d 841, 843 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (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. "; 0*&&qq" The most important of these factors is irreparable harm, without which other factors need not  X-be considered.= Ob<ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 67374 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (Wisconsin Gas).  X-x` ` 7. None of the potential harms cited by NECA constitute irreparable harm. Settlement changes or "lowerthanwarranted settlements for large numbers of companies," even if true, are mere monetary damages that are insufficient to satisfy the requirement of  Xv-irreparable harm. vh= O <ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#See Washington Transit, 559 F.2d at 843, n. 2, and Wisconsin Gas, 758 F.2d 669. The only exception to this general rule arises when the monetary harm is  X_-so overwhelming as to amount to "destruction of a business,"{ _= O <ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#Washington Transit, 559 F.2d at 843.{ 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.  Xb-x` ` 8. In sum, we conclude that NECA has failed to meet the standards for a  XK-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.  X-  III. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  X-x` ` 9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 201205 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), and 201205, 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. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhKathleen B. Levitz x` `  hhDeputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau