WPC% 2BX Z3|o (TT)Courierw Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)6G;XP#Times RomanTimes Roman Bold\  PCP]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777C7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSx]AN:*KS7JSSSSS.4}}S2~~S}277JJS77SS7J72N7[[^C`^SS`*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZv7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7~.S^7~SC[227`K*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSSHP LaserJet 5Si PS room 534 LPT3HPLA5SPO.PRS]\  PCv!lP2 *Lo0_Times Roman-#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#"S^*8DSS888S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZ8*888888888888S.xJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxJxJoJoJoJoJxSfJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSxSxS8S8S888SA8xSf.f8f8f8f.xSxSxSxSxSxo8o8o8]A]A]A]Af8f8f8xSxSxSxSxxSfJfJN:*LS8JSSSSS.4}}S2S}2JJS88SS]]8J2t^^\\^^ee*C^.wR)Ewn\1fy\r\Sxx\rB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`lBdYddBoBBBYYFdBNB2Bdddd(dB7dqBdPn<dYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddTimes RomanTimes Roman BoldTimes Roman ItalicT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)7PC2XXP\  P6QXP.7UC2XXU4  pQXW!0(Xh0\  P6QhP2 L n  X- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#Xj\  P6G;cXP#cXP#"S^2CRddCCCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`lC2CC!CCCCCCCCCCd8YYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddodYYYYYYdzYzYzYzYdddddddCdCdCCCdNCdz8zCzCzCz8dddddCCCoNoNoNoNzCzCzCdddddzYzYNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<$YYdCCddooCY@` `  ` ` ` 9=БB46gLDocument Style=(//B4*//=БBE 0? @    10=БB56gLRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*//=БBE!JAB` ` @  ` `  2x'"$#;%$%%&11=БB66gLRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*//=БBE"SCD` `  @  12=БB76gLRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*//=БBE#\EF` `  @hh# hhh 13=БB86gLRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*//=БBE$eGH` `  hh#@( hh# 14=БB96gLRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*//=БBE%nIJ` `  hh#(@- ( 2?*&''{((5)))15=БB:6gLRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*//=БBE&wKL` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 16=БB;6gLDocument Style=(//B;*//=БBE'FMN *  ׃  17=БB<6gLTechnical Document StyleB<*//=БBE(&OP  . 18=БB=6gLTechnical Document StyleB=*//=БBE)&QR  . 2,*q*+ +,+-6,19=БB>6gLTechnical Document StyleB>*//=БBE**ST    20=БB?6gLTechnical Document StyleB?*//=БBE+'UV   21=БB@6gLTechnical Document StyleB@*//=БBE,&WX   22=БBA6gLTechnical Document StyleBA*//=БBE-4Y$Z     20.-/-0".1%023=БBB6gLTechnical Document StyleBB*//=БBE.&[\  . 24=БBC6gLTechnical Document StyleBC*//=БBE/&]^  . CitatorBD6gLFormat Secretary's Citator Output File/=БBE0_`#d6X@7@# XX  XX V#X}xP7XP##d6X@7@# XX #d6X@ 7@# XX #d6X@ 7@# XX #d6X@ 7@# XX *  VFormat Downl6gLFormat Downloaded DocumentBH*//=БBE1Uab XX    X\ #d6X@ 7@#2;213m94:5m:MACNormalI6gLG17/|=(//BI*//=БBE2cd    \ X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP# I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a),X0Í Í,X0Í Í,0Í Í,0Í Í,XÍ.,XÍ.,Í.,Í. .,., US#:}D4PXP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4PXP# .,., US#:}D4PXP#FootnoteBL6gL(G17/|=(//BL*//=БBE3effootnote tex6gL6G17/|=(//BM*//=БBE4'gh#FxX  PCXP#headerBO6gLDG17/|=(//BO*//=БBE5i j  #FxX  PCXP# 2A6-<7<8mB>9b?referenceP6gL`G17/|=(//BP*//=БBE6;kl#FxX  PCXP#itemizeBQ6gLnG17/|=(//BQ*//=БBE7*mn F r#FxX  PCXP#header2BR6gL|G17/|=(//BR*//=БBE8o p`    #FxX  PCXP# heading 3S6gLG17/|=(//BS*//=БBE9qr #FxX  PCXP# 2gD:SCA;B<(C=CfooterBT6gLG17/|=(//BT*//=БBE:st!#d\  PCP#a1Right Par+//=Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers//Bb*//;8uv@   a2Right Par+//=Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers//Bb*//D?FE@EAFa4Right Par+//=Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers//Bb*//>S{|` `  @  a5Right Par+//=Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers//Bb*//?\}~` `  @hh# hhh a6Right Par+//=Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers//Bb*//@e` `  hh#@( hh# a7Right Par+//=Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers//Bb*//An` `  hh#(@- ( 23JBGCgHDHEyIa8Right Par+//=Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers//Bb*//Bw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp "egV6_rSmall Circle 7j_4&=(40*4.çegDEC"footnote referencefootnote referenceD4#XP\  P6QXP#Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph FontE11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#2LFveJGJHxKILfootnote textfootnote textF HeadingwK-n6bChapter Heading=(G>wK@-H*G>FwE~wK\EG3/ 0 *  ׃  Right Par.n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EH<12@    Subheadingn6bSubheading >8=(G>wK@/H*G>FwE~wK\EI.3 4  2PJdLK8MLNMcOHIGHLIGHT 1n6bItalics and Bold(G>wK@1H*G>FwE~wK\EJ78 DRAFT ONK2n6bHeader A Text = DRAFT and DateH*G>FwE~wK\EKo9: X 8Q 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#Xj\  PG;XP#`$ (#DDRAFTă `(#CD3 1, 4D  QDRAFT OFF6n6bTurn Draft Style offwK@6H*G>FwE~wK\ELD;<    LETTER LANDn6bLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5@8H*G>FwE~wK\EM ?@ '3   2UNc0QOcRPcSQnYULEGAL LANDn6bLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5K@9H*G>FwE~wK\EN AB 'A   LETTER PORTn6bLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11K@:H*G>FwE~wK\EO CD 3'   LEGAL PORTn6bLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14wK@;H*G>FwE~wK\EP EF A'   TITLE~wK<n6bTitle of a DocumentwK@<H*G>FwE~wK\EQGH* ă2YRUSdzVTjVUHWBLOCK QUOTEn6bSmall, single-spaced, indentedH*G>FwE~wK\ERKL HIGHLIGHT 2n6bLarge and Bold=(G>wK@@H*G>FwE~wK\ESOP HIGHLIGHT 3n6bLarge, Italicized and UnderscoredH*G>FwE~wK\ET Q RLETTERHEADn6bLetterhead - date/marginswK@BH*G>FwE~wK\EU!S T X  3'   * 3' Ѓ   2^VIYWF[X<W\Y<]INVOICE FEEn6bFee Amount for Math Invoice@CH*G>FwE~wK\EVUV X, $0  MEMORANDUMn6bMemo Page Format(G>wK@DH*G>FwE~wK\EWWX  * M E M O R A N D U M ă y<N dddy INVOICE EXPn6bExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice*G>FwE~wK\EXYZ ,p, $0INVOICE TOTn6bTotals Invoice for Math MacroFH*G>FwE~wK\EY[\ p,p, $02dZ_[Xc\[c][5dINVOICE HEADn6bHeading Portion of Math InvoiceH*G>FwE~wK\EZ]^   p,X 9 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#Xj\  PG;XP# XX  *$HHީ  ӧ   XX  1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)Ҳ#Xj\  PG;XP# XX  *$HHީNORMALwKJn6bReturn to Normal TypestyleK@JH*G>FwE~wK\E[_`SMALL~wKKn6bSmall Typestyle=(G>wK@KH*G>FwE~wK\E\abFINEE~wKLn6bFine Typestyle=(G>wK@LH*G>FwE~wK\E]cd2g^[d_[e`[xeaeLARGE~wKMn6bLarge Typestyle=(G>wK@MH*G>FwE~wK\E^efEXTRA LARGEn6bExtra Large TypestylewK@NH*G>FwE~wK\E_ghVERY LARGEn6bVery Large TypestylewK@OH*G>FwE~wK\E`ijENVELOPEKPn6bStandard Business Envelope with Header>FwE~wK\Eakl V,  X  , 8N#Xj\  PG;XP#   N `   2Gjbgcvhdiei25wE~wKin6bTechnical Document StylewK@iH*G>FwE~wK\Eb&  . a127\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fc8@   a227\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>FdA@` `  ` ` ` a327\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>FeJ` ` @  ` `  2cmfyjg&khkila427\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>FfS` `  @  a527\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fg\` `  @hh# hhh a627\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fhe` `  hh#@( hh# a727\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fin` `  hh#(@- ( 2ojmkpfnlqnmeGoa827\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fjw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O gk` ` ` Document[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gl  . Document[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gm  2qneooCppppqFqDocument[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gn  Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O go*    Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gp  ` ` ` Right Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gq8 @  2tr rsrt:susRight Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O grA@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gs0     Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gtJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O guS` ` `  @  2wvtwsux2vyvRight Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gv\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gwe` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gxn` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gyw` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 2]zzw{x|ddzzzzzzzzzzBBBBozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd2LLא #"S^*8FSS888Sq*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88qqqSffoxffxx8Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ8*888888888888S.fSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSoJoJoJoJxSfJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSxSxS8S8S888SJ8oJ].]8]8]8].oSoSoSxSxSofAfAfASASASASA]8]8]8xSxSxSxSo]J]A]AN:*WSASSSSSS.4}}S2S}2$]]S88SSSS8]2tqq\\qqee*Cq.wR)Ewn\1fy\r\Sxx\r"S^2CTddCCCd2C28ddddddddddCCdzzzzCYozzdozzooN8NTdCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddNN8dYYYNP7PlC2CC!CCCCCCCCCCd8zdzdzdzdzdYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYzddddoYdzdzdzdYYYYdzYzYzYzYdddddddCdCdCCCdYCYo8oCoCoCo8dddddzNzNzNdNdNdNdNoCoCoCddddoYoNoNNF2idNdddddd7>d<d<+oodCCddddCoԍXxResponse of the United States Department of Justice to Motion by ALTS to Strike Ameritech's Reliance   on an Agreement with AT&T From its Michigan Application, at 3 (Feb. 5, 1997) (DOJ Response);   Comments of the Telecommunications Resellers Association, at 46 (Feb. 5, 1997) (arguing that "it is not   at all clear that this latest [January 28th] rendition of the AT&T/Michigan interconnection Agreement has   been or will be approved by the MPSC," and further that the January 16th Version, "which having itself   \superseded its predecessor, has now itself been superseded") (TRA Comments); Comments of WorldCom,   Inc., on ALTS Motion to Strike, at 2 n.4 (Feb. 5, 1997) (citing 47 U.S.C.  252(e)(4)) (WorldCom   Comments); Letter from Danny E. Adams, Counsel, Competitive Telecommunications Association, to   !Regina M. Keeney, Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, at 12 (Feb. 5, 1997) (claiming that Ameritech's   characterization of the AT&T agreement as approved is "erroneous because the contract has only recently   been submitted to the MPSC for review") (CompTel Response); Comments of Sprint Communications   /Company, L.P., at 34 (Feb. 5, 1997) (noting that, in filing the January 29th Version with the Michigan Commission, Ameritech stated that that agreement "'supersedes' all prior agreements") (Sprint Comments).(#: In addition, several parties contend that Ameritech's repeated filing of superseding versions of the AT&T agreement has rendered the Ameritech application a "moving target," inhibiting their ability to assess Ameritech's application, contrary to the Commission's requirement that  X_-a BOC application under Section 271 be complete on the date it is filed.h'_  yO-  ԍXxWorldCom Comments at 3 (arguing that Ameritech is wasting the limited resources of the Commission and   ^interested parties "by filing a 'moving target' that is destined to be rejected because on its face it is  {OX-  incomplete."). See also DOJ Response at 3; MCI Letter from Jonathan B. Sallet, Chief Policy Counsel,   MCI Communications Corporation, to Regina M. Keeney, Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, at 2 (Feb. 5,   1997) ("Third parties scrambling to respond in 20 days to Ameritech's voluminous submission (which it   could leisurely prepare over a period of weeks or months) should not have to deal with a moving target;   nor should the Commission's review period be artificially shortened by amendments to BOC applications.");   Mand Letter from Mark C. Rosenblum, Vice President Law & Public Policy, AT&T Corp., to Regina M.   MKeeney, Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, at 12 (Feb. 5, 1997) ("[T]the Act (and common sense) plainly   contemplate, at a minimum, that any application under Section 271 be based on a factual record that is complete and final . . . events in this case have not satisfied even this threshold standard.").(#h These parties argue that, in light of the strict statutory deadline of 90 days for a Commission decision on a section 271 application, the "completeness" requirement is essential to afford interested parties, state commissions, and the Department of Justice a meaningful opportunity to  X -comment on an application, and for the Commission to evaluate a large, complex record.g(   {O -  ]ԍXxWorldCom Comments at 3. See also DOJ Response at 4 ("It is essential to fair and orderly review of   kapplications under Section 271 that all commenters review the same basic facts."); CompTel Response at   2 (failure to grant ALTS's motion "will represent a departure from the Commission's strict standards of   completeness for Section 271 applications, instead creating a standard that will lead to administrative chaos   [in the processing of this and subsequent applications"); TRA Comments at 7 (the commitment by applicants   \to "confirm the accuracy and completeness of their applications is critical to the Commission's ability to   engage in reasoned decisionmaking . . .. And just as Commission analysis would be hindered by   incomplete, inaccurate or stale data, so to [sic] would the right of the industry and consuming public to participate in the Commission's decisional processes be seriously undermined"). (#g" (,-(-(ZZ "Ԍ X-ԙx 11. ` ` Several of the parties supporting ALTS's motion encourage the Commission to take further action, beyond simply granting the motion, to ensure that Ameritech does not, whether through intentional or inadvertent action, subvert the section 271 application review  X-process. The additional relief requested ranges from restarting the 90day review process)  yO4-  NԍXxDOJ Response at 45 ("the Commission should obtain clarification as to which version of the AT&T   agreement, if any, has been approved by the MPSC, and should restart the 90day review process after   Mobtaining such clarification in order to afford all parties an adequate opportunity to review and comment on the application").(#Ƴ to dismissing Ameritech's application with prejudice, precluding Ameritech from refiling its  X-application until April 17, 1997, 90 days after the January 17 filing date.*  yO -  ԍXxWorldCom Comments at 45. WorldCom asserts that, because Ameritech's application relies on an   /unsigned, unapproved agreement, the Commission should promptly dismiss Ameritech's application with  {O~ -  prejudice to Ameritech refiling its application until the 90 day clock has run. Id. at 45. In the alternative,   LWorldCom asks the Commission to strike that portion of Ameritech's application that relies on any version   of the AT&T agreement, and to make clear that, if Ameritech withdraws its application, it does so with  {O-  mprejudice to refiling before April 17, 1997. Id. at 5. See also CompTel Response at 3 (urging the   Commission to declare that, "when a Section 271 application is filed in an acceptable form it cannot be   withdrawn and refiled until the 90day window on the original filing has elapsed"); Sprint Comments at 45   (urging the Commission to dismiss summarily Ameritech's application on the ground that, without the   AT&T agreement, Ameritech cannot satisfy the competitive checklist); MCI Response at 2 ("the   Commission should inform Ameritech that it can either withdraw its application or, with the newest AT&T   agreement, restart the clock"); TRA Comments at 8. TRA urges the Commission to consider imposing   0sanctions on Ameritech if it finds that errors in Ameritech's application were due to more than mere  {O-  inadvertence. Id. TRA asserts that, absent such a determination, Ameritech should be allowed to prosecute   .its application without the AT&T agreement or, alternatively, to withdraw the application and not to refile  {O-until it has confirmed the application's accuracy and completeness. Id. (#  X_-x 12.` ` On February 5, 1997, Ameritech filed a response to ALTS's motion to strike. In its response, Ameritech argues that: 1) the January 16th Version in fact has been approved by the Michigan Commission; and 2) the January 16th Version has not been superseded by  X -the January 29th Version.Q+  yO-ԍXxAmeritech Response at 1.(#Q As to the first point, Ameritech contends that the Michigan Commission in its November 26, 1996 Order approved the AT&T interconnection agreement as adopted by the arbitration panel and as modified by the Michigan Commission in its Order, except with respect to certain outstanding issues which the parties were directed to resolve  X -and incorporate into their otherwise approved agreement.T,  {O!-ԍXxId. at 3, paras. 57.(#T Ameritech contends that the January 16th Version incorporates provisions resolving the outstanding issues identified in the  X-November 26, 1996 Order.-\" {Oc%-  ԍXxId. at 3. The unresolved issues related to: indemnification, limitation of liability, and performance  {O-&-  standards. Id. at para. 6. In addition, according to Ameritech, the Michigan Commission ordered in its   November 26 Order that certain rates to be determined in thenpending cases should be incorporated in the"&,,-(-('"  {O-  kAT&T interconnection agreement when those cases were concluded. Id. at para. 7 (citing November 26, 1996 Order at 8).(#Ɗ Ameritech therefore contends that the January 16th Version "is""-,-(-(ZZ" the interconnection Agreement expressly approved by the [Michigan Commission] on  X-November 26, 1996."Z." {O-ԍXxId. (emphasis in original).(#Z  X-x 13.` ` With respect to its second point that the January 29th Version does not supersede the January 16th Version, Ameritech contends that there is no material difference  X-between the January 16th Version and the January 29th Version.'/ yO -  ԍXxAmeritech contends that the changes between the January 16th Version and the January 29th Version were   limited to removing the rates for unbundled local switching ports from the unbundled local switching section   of the pricing schedule and placing those same rates in a separate section of the schedule, which AT&T   jentitled "Michigan ports." Ameritech Response at 5. Ameritech maintains that this change (which it claims   is the only change) makes no difference at all because the definition of "Michigan ports" is the same as the  {O-definition for unbundled local switching ports contained in the AT&T interconnection agreement. Id.(#' While acknowledging that it stated in its cover letter to the Michigan Commission that the January 29th Version  X_-"supersedes" previously filed versions,0_.  {O>-  ԍXxId. at 4. Ameritech states that the January 29th cover letter statement "may have been a poor choice of  {O-words." Id.(# Ameritech maintains that the January 16th Version  XH-and January 29th Versions "are identical."[1H  {O-ԍXxId. (emphasis in original). (#[ Therefore, according to Ameritech, ALTS' assertion that the two agreements are different and that the second supersedes the first is  X -"frivolous."H2  {O-ԍXxId. at 5.(#H  X -x 14.` ` On February 6, 1996, the Michigan Commission submitted a written  X -consultation on Ameritech's Amended Application.3  yO4-  ԍXxComments of the Michigan Public Service Commission, pp. 45 (Feb. 6, 1997) (Michigan Commission Comments).(#Ư In that submission, the Michigan Commission addressed the issue of the various versions of the AT&T arbitrated interconnection agreement. The Michigan Commission stated: XxIn the case of the AT&T agreement, five versions of that interconnection agreement have now been filed with the MPSC. Four were filed by Ameritech Michigan on December 6, 1996, December 26, 1996, January 16, 1997 and January 29, 1997. AT&T also filed a contract on January 14, 1997. Each party represents that each submitted version of the interconnection agreement complies with the MPSC's order in its arbitration case. The January 29, 1997, version of the interconnection agreement has been signed by both parties. " 3,-(-(ZZ" However, disputed language still appears in the rate schedules. Regardless of the representations in the cover letters, no determination has been made by the [Michigan Commission] as to which, if any, of the [five] contract versions complies with the [Michigan Commission] order in the AT&T/Ameritech  X-Michigan arbitration case.J4 {O-ԍXxId. at 45.(#J   Xv- IV. DISCUSSION ă  XH-x15.` ` We grant ALTS's motion to strike because we find that the January 16th Version, the only version of the AT&T/Ameritech "agreement" included in Ameritech's Amended Application, had not been approved by the Michigan Commission as of January 17, 1997, the date Ameritech filed the instant Amended Application. Indeed, since the Michigan Commission has stated explicitly that it has made "no determination. . . as to which, if any, of the [five] contract versions complies" with its order in the arbitration proceeding, the Michigan Commission plainly had not approved the January 16th Version as of the date Ameritech filed its Amended Application. The Michigan Commission's statement also effectively disposes of Ameritech's contention that the January 16th Version has been approved by the Michigan Commission because, according to Ameritech, that document conforms to the Commission's November 26th Order. The Michigan Commission's statement makes clear that it has not held that the January 16th Version, or any other version, complies with its Order. Ameritech, therefore, may not rely on the January 16th Version in its Amended Application to satisfy the competitive checklist in Michigan. We further note that the January 16th Version was neither signed by either party nor dated and, thus, does not appear to be a legally binding contract. As such, Ameritech may not be able to rely indirectly on the January 16th Version through the MFN clauses contained in its  X-interconnection agreements with Brooks Fiber, MFS, and TCG.35 Z yO-  ԍXxWe also note that the TCGAmeritech agreement included in the Amended Application is not signed by   TCG. In its consultation, the Michigan Commission states that Ameritech and TCG did not jointly submit   within ten days an agreement that complies with the Michigan Commission's November 1, 1996 arbitration  {O$-  #decision, as required by that decision. Id. at 4. On November 14, 1996, TCG objected to the  {O-  =interconnection agreement submitted to the Michigan Commission by Ameritech. Id. See also Letter from   Stephen J. Videto, counsel for TCG, to Dorothy Wideman, Executive Secretary, Michigan Commission   {(Nov. 14, 1996). Because neither the ALTS motion nor the comments address the status of the TCG   Magreement, we make no finding in this Order regarding Ameritech's ability to rely on the TCG agreement to satisfy section 271.(#3  X-x16. ` ` Section 252 sets forth a threestage process for the approval of arbitrated agreements. First, section 252(b) requires that, within nine months of the original request for interconnection, the state commission shall arbitrate all disputed issues related to the"e . 5,-(-(ZZ"  X-agreement.U6X yOy-  ԍXx47 U.S.C.  252(b)(4)(C) ("The State commission . . . shall conclude the resolution of any unresolved issues   not later than 9 months after the date on which the local exchange carrier received the request [for interconnection] under this section.").(#U Second, section 252(e) contemplates that, from the results of the arbitration, the parties shall create a joint document that reflects those results, and then submit the document  X-to the state commission for final approval.7^ {Ok-  ԍXxSee id.  252(e)(1) ("Any interconnection agreement adopted by . . . arbitration shall be submitted for  {O5-  approval to the State commission."); id.  252(e)(4) (referring to the foregoing submission as a "submission  {O-by the parties") (emphasis added).(#ƈ Third, section 252(e)(1) requires the state  X-commission to approve or reject the agreement.R8 {Oz -ԍXxId.  252(e)(1).(#R If the state commission does not act within  X-30 days after the parties' submission, the agreement is deemed approved.I9Z {O -  yԍXxId.  252(e)(4) ("If the State commission does not act to approve or reject the agreement . . . within 30 days   after submission by the parties of an agreement adopted by arbitration . . ., the agreement shall be deemed approved.").(#I Under this statutory procedure, if disputes between the parties arise following the arbitration regarding the conformity of any submissions to the arbitration rulings, the state commission is obliged to resolve those disputes before giving final approval. This procedure ensures that disputes about the proper interpretation of the arbitration decision will not prolong implementation of arbitrated agreements, and thus forestall the development of local exchange competition.  X -x17. ` ` We find that neither the January 16th Version nor any other version (including the January 29th Version) has been approved by the Michigan Commission consistent with the procedures outlined above. The November 26th arbitration decision, as the Michigan  X -Commission recognized by its acknowledgement that no "complete" agreement yet existed,b:  {O1-ԍXxMichigan Commission Decision at 30.(#b  X -did not give final approval to a complete agreement between Ameritech and AT&T.b; T  {O-ԍXxMichigan Commission Decision at 30.(#b The Michigan Commission further stated in its written consultation, that "no determination has been made by the [Michigan Commission] as to which, if any, of the [five] contract versions complies with the [Michigan Commission] order in the AT&T/Ameritech Michigan arbitration  XK-case."[<K yO!-ԍXxMichigan Commission Comments at 5.(#[ We thus agree with the Department of Justice that, because a complete agreement that reflected the resolution of disputed issues by the arbitration panel and the Michigan Commission was not before the Michigan Commission, "there is no specific document that  X-can be identified as having been 'approved' [on November 26, 1996]."=v {O-&-  ԍXxDOJ Response at 3. See also WorldCom Comments at 2 n.4 ("It is not reasonable, . . . nor consistent with the Act's review provisions, to deem an agreement officially approved before it has even been filed.")(# Section 252(e)" =,-(-(ZZ(" requires final approval of a complete arbitrated agreement that conforms to the state  X-commission's arbitration decision.O> yOb-ԍXx47 U.S.C.  252(e).(#O  X-x18. ` ` Following the Michigan Commission's November 26th decision, the first version of an agreement between Ameritech and AT&T was filed by the parties with the Michigan Commission on December 6, 1996. But neither this version nor any subsequent version of the agreement has been under state commission review for 30 days without being superseded by the filing of a new version by one of the parties or contested as not being a joint submission conforming to the Michigan Commission's November 26th decision. Accordingly, we find that neither the January 16th Version nor any of the other versions of the AT&T arbitrated interconnection agreement is deemed approved pursuant to section 252(e)(4). x  X -x19. ` ` The purpose of the third stage of the section 252 approval procedure is to allow the parties to raise with the state commission any disputes regarding the conformity of any proposed agreements to the arbitration rulings, and to enable the state commission to resolve such disputes before final approval of an agreement is granted. Any other understanding of the section 252 approval procedure would create considerable and unnecessary difficulties for purposes of the section 271 review process. Because of the strict 90day statutory review period, the section 271 review process is keenly dependent on both final approval of a binding agreement pursuant to section 252 as well as an applicant's  X-submission of a complete application at the commencement of a section 271 proceeding. ?FX yO&-  lԍXxIn fact, in our December 6, 1996 Public Notice establishing procedural requirements that apply to the   processing of section 271 applications, we stated: "We expect that a section 271 application, as originally   filed, will include all of the factual evidence on which the applicant would have the Commission rely in   making its findings thereon. In the event that the applicant submits (in replies or ex parte filings) factual   evidence that changes its application in a material respect, the Commission reserves the right to deem such  {O-  submission a new application and start the 90day review process anew." Procedures for Bell Operating  {O-  Company Applications under New Section 271 of the Communications Act, Public Notice, FCC 96469 at  {O-2 (rel. Dec. 6, 1996) (December 6th Public Notice).(#  We agree with WorldCom that "completeness is essential in order to permit interested parties, state commissions, and the Department of Justice a realistic opportunity to comment, and for  X-the FCC to evaluate, an enormous and complex record in a short period of time."D@Zf  {O -  ԍXxWorldCom Comments at 3.  See also CompTel Response at 2 ("The statutory requirement for 90day   mconsideration of requests under Section 271 simply is too demanding for anything less than a fully 'complete upon filing' standard.").(#D Allowing parties continually to file different versions of unsigned interconnection agreements and to litigate before this Commission the approval status of various versions would impair the ability of the state commission and of the Attorney General to meet their respective statutory" @,-(-(ZZ"  X-consultative obligations.EA {Oy-  ?ԍXxSee 47 U.S.C.  271(d)(2). See also DOJ Response at 3 ("In light of the confusion concerning which   [agreement, if any, has been approved by the MPSC, and the resultant uncertainty about the manner in which   Ameritech will comply with the competitive checklist requirements of Section 271, the Department of   Justice, other parties, and the Commission itself will have great difficulty in properly assessing Ameritech's application.")(#E In addition, it would undermine this Commission's ability to render a decision within the 90day statutory timeframe. As TRA notes, "reasoned decisionmaking is obviously undermined if agency actions are predicated on flaws or deficient  X-records."KBz yO -ԍXxTRA Comments at 7.(#K Moreover, such a practice, if condoned, would be unfair to interested third parties seeking to comment on a fixed record triggered by the date that a section 271 application is  X-filed.C  {OH -  MԍXxSee TRA Comments at 7 ("And just as Commission analysis would be hindered by incomplete, inaccurate   Nor stale data, so to [sic] would the right of the industry and the consuming public to participate in the  {O-  Commission's decisional processes be seriously undermined."). See also DOJ Response at 4; WorldCom   at 3; CompTel Response at 2. We note that the procedures we have established for BOC applications under   section 271 require an applicant to identify the date on which all interconnection agreements that the  {O4-applicant has entered into were approved. December 6th Public Notice at 23.(# Finally, such uncertainty undermines the ability of third parties to take advantage of  Xv-interconnection agreements pursuant to section 252(i). Dv  {O-  >ԍXx47 U.S.C.  252(i). See also 47 U.S.C.  252(h) (state commission shall make a copy of each agreement or statement approved available for public inspection within 10 days of approval).(#   XH- x20. ` ` Thus, we grant the motion to strike, and shall not consider the January 16th Version in deciding whether Ameritech has satisfied the competitive checklist in Michigan. In reaching this decision, we express no view as to whether Ameritech's application, absent the January 16th Version, satisfies the statutory criteria for Ameritech's provision of inregion, interLATA services in the State of Michigan.  X - x21. ` ` As a consequence of our decision to grant the motion to strike the January 16th Version, however, we believe there is some uncertainty as to whether Ameritech alleges that it meets the statutory checklist requirements without reliance on the AT&T arbitrated agreement, and therefore whether Ameritech intends to prosecute its section 271 application on the basis of the MFS, Brooks Fiber, and TCG agreements alone. To ensure this proceeding can go forward in an orderly fashion, we hereby order Ameritech to clarify this uncertainty in a submission to be filed with this Commission no later than Tuesday, February 11, 1997. Specifically, no later than Tuesday, February 11, 1997, Ameritech is ordered either to: 1) state that it intends to continue to prosecute its application, without any version of the AT&T arbitrated agreement; or 2) withdraw its application. We also note that should Ameritech choose the first option, we expect that Ameritech will prosecute its application until such time as the Commission renders its decision. If, instead, Ameritech chooses the first option but then subsequently withdraws the application, we will consider in that event" D,-(-(ZZR"  X-whether any Commission action is warranted.WE {Oy-ԍXxSee 47 C.F.R.  1.52.(#W Similarly, if Ameritech amends or supplements its application to add an approved AT&T arbitrated agreement or any other approved agreement, we intend to strike any such amendment or supplement. These measures are necessary to ensure that Commission proceedings are conducted in "such manner as will  X-best conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends of justice."OFZ yO-ԍXx47 U.S.C.  154(j).(#O Given the tight statutory timeframe for the Commission's decision, these requirements are necessary to ensure that all commenting parties have an opportunity to evaluate the complete application, and thereby facilitate development of a complete record.  X1-x22.` ` While our decision today rests entirely upon the evidence that the Michigan Commission has not approved any final agreement between AT&T and Ameritech, we believe it is necessary to articulate further the steps a Bell Company must take in its initial application to establish a prima facie case that any agreements on which it seeks to rely whether section 271(c)(1)(A) agreements or other agreements whose terms are imputed into a section 271(c)(1)(A) agreement through operation of a "most favored nation" clause are "binding agreements that have been approved under section 252." When we established our procedures that govern section 271 determinations, we said that "[w]e expect that a section  Xy-271 application, as originally filed, will include all of the factual evidence on which the  Xd-applicant would have the Commission rely in making its findings thereon."pGd {O-ԍXxDecember 6th Public Notice at 2 (emphasis added).(#p At a minimum, we believe that when a Bell Company files a 271 application asserting compliance with section 271(c)(1)(A), the Bell Company must submit facts that demonstrate that, as of the date of filing, the Bell Company has entered into "binding" and "approved" agreements to provide each and every checklist item in the relevant state. This necessarily presupposes that agreements have been executed by the respective parties and subsequently approved by the relevant State Commission. An application, however, that is based on unexecuted draft agreements makes it difficult for the Commission to determine whether an agreement has been reached, which draft of the agreement is the basis on which the Commission should determine checklist compliance, whether the agreement is binding on the applicant, and whether the requesting carrier is able to use such agreement to obtain interconnection as a matter of right.  X9-x23. ` ` We take this opportunity to make clear that, consistent with our December 6, 1996 Public Notice, any application asserting compliance with section 271(c)(1)(A) must be supported as of the date that the section 271 application is filed by either: 1) an agreement executed by both parties and approved by the State Commission, either explicitly and affirmatively or by operation of law; or 2) an order from the State Commission clearly and unambiguously approving the specific and complete text of the agreement upon which the applicant seeks to rely, and proof that the applicant regards such agreement as binding on the"!|G,-(-(ZZ " applicant for any and all purposes. Any other agreements that an applicant seeks to incorporate into a section 271(c)(1)(A) agreement through operation of a "most favored nation" clause shall satisfy the same requirements. Finally, we remind applicants of their obligation under our rules to maintain "the continuing accuracy and completeness of  X-information" furnished to the Commission.HH yO-ԍx47 C.F.R.  1.65(a).H It is essential that our decision on a section 271 application be based on an accurate current record.  X_- 5V. ORDERING CLAUSE S ă  X1-x24.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 252, 271 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 154(j), 252, 271, the motion to strike filed by the Association for Local Telecommunications Services on February 3, 1997, IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein.  X -x25.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the arbitrated interconnection agreement between Ameritech Michigan and AT&T Communications of Michigan, contained in Ameritech Michigan's Amended Application and filed with this Commission on January 17, 1997, SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED for purposes of determining whether the Ameritech Michigan Amended Application satisfies the competitive checklist set forth at 47 U.S.C.  271(c)(2)(B).  X-x26.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Ameritech Michigan, no later than Tuesday, February 11, 1997, shall either: 1) state in a submission to be filed with this Commission that it intends to continue to prosecute its application, without any version of the AT&T arbitrated agreement; or 2) withdraw its pending application for authorization to provide inregion, interLATA services in the State of Michigan, pursuant to section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. x` `  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  ppWilliam F. Caton x` `  ppActing Secretary