WPC 2BVWZ 3|n  cpi)?xxx,{Xx6X@JQX@HP LaserJet IIISiPostScriptHPLAIISI.WRSx  @,,,:#-WX@2C%S Zx@3|n   Xj PZ. тHP LaserJet IIISiPostScriptHPLAIISI.WRSx  @,,,:#-WX@footerfooterX` hp x (#!2zbDApage numberpage number heading 1heading 1C#g2PQP# heading 2heading 2F#XX2PQXP# heading 3heading 3C#&Q2PQ&P# 28 heading 4heading 4  heading 5heading 5;1#&Q2PQ&P##XP\  P6QXP#heading 6heading 6>4#&Q2PQ&P##XP\  P6QXP#heading 7heading 7 ;1#XX2PQXP##XP\  P6QXP#2   lP @ heading 8heading 8 >4#XX2PQXP##XP\  P6QXP#heading 9heading 9 >4#B2PQP##XP\  P6QXP#Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font headerheader X` hp x (#!2m. j llqToc 1Toc 1X` hp x (#!#C\  P6QP# toc 2toc 2X` hp x (#!#C\  P6QP#index 1index 1X` hp x (#DL!`#C\  P6QP##XP\  P6QXP#DL!`X` hp x (#index 2index 2X` hp x (#lDL!#C\  P6QP##XP\  P6QXP#lDL!X` hp x (#2ll{llSindex 3index 3X` hp x (#l4DL!#C\  P6QP##XP\  P6QXP#l4DL!X` hp x (#index 4index 4X` hp x (#4DL!#C\  P6QP##XP\  P6QXP#4DL!X` hp x (#index 5index 5X` hp x (# DL!#C\  P6QP##XP\  P6QXP# DL!X` hp x (#index 6index 6X` hp x (# DL!#C\  P6QP##XP\  P6QXP# DL!X` hp x (#2&ll] l"5%index 7index 7X` hp x (# T DL!#C\  P6QP##XP\  P6QXP# T DL!X` hp x (#index 8index 8X` hp x (#T  DL!#C\  P6QP##XP\  P6QXP#T  DL!X` hp x (#index 9index 9X` hp x (# DL!#C\  P6QP##XP\  P6QXP# DL!X` hp x (#index headingindex headingA7#C\  P6QP#  #XP\  P6QXP#2.j7&l'l *ly,toc 3toc 3X` hp x (#!`#C\  P6QP#toc 4toc 4X` hp x (#l!`#<\  P6QP##XP\  P6QXP#l!`X` hp x (#toc 5toc 5X` hp x (#4!`#<\  P6QP##XP\  P6QXP#4!`X` hp x (#toc 6toc 6X` hp x (#!`#<\  P6QP##XP\  P6QXP#!`X` hp x (#27l/l1 l3![6toc 7toc 7X` hp x (# !`#<\  P6QP##XP\  P6QXP# !`X` hp x (#toc 8toc 8X` hp x (# !`#<\  P6QP##XP\  P6QXP# !`X` hp x (#toc 9toc 9 X` hp x (#T !`#<\  P6QP##XP\  P6QXP#T !`X` hp x (#footnote textfootnote text!;1#C\  P6QP##XP\  P6QXP#29"eQ7#7$p8%49footnote referencefootnote reference" annotation referenceannotation reference#11#6\  P6QP##XP\  P6QXP#annotation textannotation text$;1#C\  P6QP##XP\  P6QXP#Document MapDocument Map%;1#XX2PQXP##XP\  P6QXP#2}<&*:':(w;)q <Document[1]K&7>Document StyleE " "7>NGI "&F **  ׃  Document[2]K&7>Document StyleGw "7>NGI "'*   Document[3]K&7>Document StyleGw "7>NGI "(0     Document[4]K&7>Document StyleGw "7>NGI ")  . 2Y>*e<+e=,py=-p=Document[5]K&7>Document StyleGw "7>NGI "*   Document[6]K&7>Document StyleGw "7>NGI "+   Document[7]K&7>Document StyleGw "7>NGI ", `  Document[8]K&7>Document StyleGw "7>NGI "-`  2A.>/;?0?1l@Technical[1]K&7>Technical Document Style "7>NGI ".4$     Technical[2]K&7>Technical Document Style "7>NGI "/*    Technical[3]K&7>Technical Document Style "7>NGI "0'   Technical[4]K&7>Technical Document Style "7>NGI "1&   2FC22A3A4Technical Document Style "7>NGI "2&  . Technical[6]K&7>Technical Document Style "7>NGI "3&  . Technical[7]K&7>Technical Document Style "7>NGI "4&  . Technical[8]K&7>Technical Document Style "7>NGI "5&   . 2E6xC7 D8D9IERight Par[1]K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "68!"@   Right Par[2]K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "7A#$@`  `  Right Par[3]K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "8J%&` @  `   Right Par[4]K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "9S'(`  @   26I:(F;F<G=eHRight Par[5]K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI ":\)*`  @#h# #h# Right Par[6]K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI ";e+,`  #h#@(( #h#(( Right Par[7]K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "=w/0`  #h#((--@2p2 --2p2 2 L>hI?'J@JAtKDoc Init(K&7>Initialize Document Style "7>NGI ">1Y2   T I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Ta1DocumentI "7>Document Stylerw !E "Gw" "?F34 **  ׃  a2DocumentI "7>Document Stylerw !E "Gw" "@*56   a3DocumentI "7>Document Stylerw !E "Gw" "A07 8    2MBq;LCeLDeMEpvMa4DocumentI "7>Document Stylerw !E "Gw" "B9 : . a5DocumentI "7>Document Stylerw !E "Gw" "C ;< a6DocumentI "7>Document Stylerw !E "Gw" "D => a7DocumentI "7>Document Stylerw !E "Gw" "E?@`  2PFpNGNH8OIOa8DocumentI "7>Document Stylerw !E "Gw" "FAB`  Tech Init(K&7>Initialize Technical Style "7>NGI "GXCDT 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Ta1Technical "7>Technical Document Style !E "Gw$ "H4E$F     a2Technical "7>Technical Document Style !E "Gw$ "I*GH    2RJPKKQLQMdRa3Technical "7>Technical Document Style !E "Gw$ "J'IJ   a4Technical "7>Technical Document Style !E "Gw$ "K&KL   a5Technical "7>Technical Document Style !E "Gw$ "L&MN  . a6Technical "7>Technical Document Style !E "Gw$ "M&OP  . 2XNSOSP%TQ$Xa7Technical "7>Technical Document Style !E "Gw$ "N&QR  . a8Technical "7>Technical Document Style !E "Gw$ "O&ST  . Pleading(K&7>Header for numbered pleading paper7>NGI "PUV    X  y*dddyy*dddy H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   Ӈfootnote refK&7>footnote referenceGw) "7>NGI "Q+WX2[RXSYT/ZU[Default ParaK&7>Default Paragraph Fontw+ "7>NGI "R([(\endnote refeK&7>endnote referenceGw- "7>NGI "S+_+`annotation rK&7>annotation referenceGw. "7>NGI "TLaLb Xv P  Xv P annotation tK&7>annotation textGw/ "7>NGI "U)c(d2t^V[W\X5]Y]footnote texK&7>footnote textGw0 "7>NGI "V)e(f2G2*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "W8ij@   3G3*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "XAkl@`  `  4G4*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "YJmn` @  `   2aZ^[S_\ `]`5G5*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "ZSop`  @   6G6*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "[\qr`  @#h# #h# 7G7*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "\est`  #h#@(( #h#(( 8G8*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "]nuv`  #h#((@-- ((-- 2:d^a_nb`cac9G9*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "^wwx`  #h#((--@2p2 --2p2 BibliogrphyK&7>Bibliography"Gw: "7>NGI "_yz  a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers`8{|@    ưX a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersaA}~@`  ` ưX 2Jgbldcedeefa3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersbJ` @  `  ưX a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberscS`  @  ưX a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersd\`  @h #h#ưX a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersee`  #h#@$$ #h#((ưX 2Ajf|ggJhhp!iiia7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersfn`  #h#((@** ((--ưX a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersgw`  #h#((--@/p/ --2p2ưX 10G0*(Q&7tDocument Style Gl0 "7t GI "h`  11G1*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "i4$     2ljsjkklkm8l12G2*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "j*    13G3*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "k'   14G4*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "l&   15G5*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "m&  . 2onlotmpmq~n16G6*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "n&  . 17G7*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "o&  . 18G8*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "p&  . 19G9*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "q8@   2qrBosotpu.q20G:*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "rA@`  `  21G;*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "sJ` @  `   22G<*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "tS`  @   23G=*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "u\`  @#h# #h# 2(uvrwrxsynt24G>*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "ve`  #h#@(( #h#(( 25G?*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "wn`  #h#((@-- ((-- 26G@*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "xw`  #h#((--@2p2 --2p2 1wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg EyF **  ׃  2 xzZu{u|v}aw27wSg K6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EzJ` @  `   28wSg L6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E{S`  @   29wSg M6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E|\`  @#h# #h# 30wSg N6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E}e`  #h#@(( #h#(( 2 {~Rxypy[z31wSg O6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E~n`  #h#((@-- ((-- 32wSg P6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew`  #h#((--@2p2 --2p2 33wSg R6w Document Style=(H8g Rܺ*HںwSg E`  34wSg S6w Technical Document Styleg Sܺ*HںwSg E4$     2}={{n|}35wSg T6w Technical Document Styleg Tܺ*HںwSg E*    36wSg U6w Technical Document Styleg Uܺ*HںwSg E'   37wSg V6w Technical Document Styleg Vܺ*HںwSg E&   38wSg W6w Technical Document Styleg Wܺ*HںwSg E&  . 2}>~~H39wSg X6w Technical Document Styleg Xܺ*HںwSg E&  . 40wSg Y6w Technical Document Styleg Yܺ*HںwSg E&  . 41wSg Z6w Technical Document Styleg Zܺ*HںwSg E&  . 42wSg [6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   2 K43wSg \6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@`  `  44wSg ]6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` @  `   45wSg ^6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES`  @   46wSg _6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\`  @#h# #h# 2g847wSg `6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee`  #h#@(( #h#(( 48wSg a6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En`  #h#((@-- ((-- 49wSg b6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew`  #h#((--@2p2 --2p2 50wSg c6w Document Style=(H8g cܺ*HںwSg EF **  ׃  2$Ȇu+51wSg d6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` @  `   52wSg e6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES`  @   53wSg f6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\`  @#h# #h# 54wSg g6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee`  #h#@(( #h#(( 2Ջp%55wSg h6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En`  #h#((@-- ((-- 56wSg i6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew`  #h#((--@2p2 --2p2 57wSg j6w Document Style=(H8g jܺ*HںwSg E`  58wSg k6w Technical Document Styleg kܺ*HںwSg E4$     2Q8̍59wSg l6w Technical Document Styleg lܺ*HںwSg E*    60wSg m6w Technical Document Styleg mܺ*HںwSg E'   61wSg n6w Technical Document Styleg nܺ*HںwSg E&   62wSg o6w Technical Document Styleg oܺ*HںwSg E&  . 263wSg p6w Technical Document Styleg pܺ*HںwSg E&  . 64wSg q6w Technical Document Styleg qܺ*HںwSg E&  . 65wSg r6w Technical Document Styleg rܺ*HںwSg E&  . 66wSg s6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   2x֐q’67wSg t6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@`  `  68wSg u6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` @  `   69wSg v6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES`  @   70wSg w6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\`  @#h# #h# 2i171wSg x6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee`  #h#@(( #h#(( 72wSg y6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En  `  #h#((@-- ((-- 73wSg z6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew  `  #h#((--@2p2 --2p2 74wSg {6w Document Style=(H8g {ܺ*HںwSg EF  **  ׃  2qe75wSg |6w Document Style=(H8g |ܺ*HںwSg E*   76wSg }6w Document Style=(H8g }ܺ*HںwSg E0     77wSg ~6w Document Style=(H8g ~ܺ*HںwSg E  . 78wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  2eppc79wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  80wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E`  81wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E`  82wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E4$     2Ev 83wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E*     84wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E'!"   85wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&#$   86wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&%&  . 2F˞P87wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&'(  . 88wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&)*  . 89wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&+,  . 90wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8-.@   2S91wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA/0@`  `  92wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ12` @  `   93wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES34`  @   94wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\56`  @#h# #h# 2o@95wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee78`  #h#@(( #h#(( 96wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En9:`  #h#((@-- ((-- 97wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew;<`  #h#((--@2p2 --2p2 98wSg 6w Default Paragraph Font8g ܺ*HںwSg E8=8> x@  b@ 2h:ѧendnote text6w endnote textH̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E9?8@ x@  b@ 99wSg 6w endnote referenceH8g ܺ*HںwSg E;A;B x@  b@ 100wSg 6w footnote text̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E9C8D x@  b@ 101wSg 6w footnote referenceH8g ܺ*HںwSg E;E;F x@  b@ 2!Ltoa heading6w toa headingH̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E]^(#` hp x (#captiong 6w caption 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E9_8` x@  b@ _Equation Ca6w _Equation CaptionH8g ܺ*HںwSg E8a8b x@  b@ endnote referenceendnote reference1e1f Xv@  b@ 2ΰ89_Equation Caption_Equation Caption.k.l Xv@  b@ 102OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQEFop **  ׃  103OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE*qr   104OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE0s t    2qeqeֱp;105OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQEu v . 106OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE wx 107OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE yz 108OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE{|`  2.pݲM109OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE}~`  110OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE4$     111OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE*    112OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE'   2`y113OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE&   114OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE&  . 115OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE&  . 116OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE&  . 2 :̸g117OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE&  . 118OQ6CRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*5ںOQE8@   119OQ6CRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*5ںOQEA@`  `  120OQ6CRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*5ںOQEJ` @  `   2'=_121OQ6CRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*5ںOQES`  @   122OQ6CRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*5ںOQE\`  @#h# #h# 123OQ6CRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*5ںOQEe`  #h#@(( #h#(( 124OQ6CRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*5ںOQEn`  #h#((@-- ((-- 2Y*125OQ6CRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*5ںOQEw`  #h#((--@2p2 --2p2 126OQ6CDefault Paragraph FontQܺ*5ںOQELL x@  b@ 127OQ6Cendnote reference5Qܺ*5ںOQEOO x@  b@ 128OQ6Cfootnote text̺=(5Qܺ*5ںOQEML x@  b@ 2L3)y129OQ6Cfootnote reference5Qܺ*5ںOQEOO x@  b@ 130OQ6C_Equation Caption5Qܺ*5ںOQELL x@  b@ Bullet ListIndented Bullet List` ưX 131</ 6Document Style=(w78/ ܺ*w7ں</ EF **  ׃  2|~qe132</ 6Document Style=(w78/ ܺ*w7ں</ E*   133</ 6Document Style=(w78/ ܺ*w7ں</ E0     134</ 6Document Style=(w78/ ܺ*w7ں</ E  . 135</ 6Document Style=(w78/ ܺ*w7ں</ E  2epp136</ 6Document Style=(w78/ ܺ*w7ں</ E  137</ 6Document Style=(w78/ ܺ*w7ں</ E`  138</ 6Document Style=(w78/ ܺ*w7ں</ E`  139</ 6Technical Document Style/ ܺ*w7ں</ E4$     2q140</ 6Technical Document Style/ ܺ*w7ں</ E*    141</ 6Technical Document Style/ ܺ*w7ں</ E'   142</ 6Technical Document Style/ ܺ*w7ں</ E&   143</ 6Technical Document Style/ ܺ*w7ں</ E&  . 2rQ[144</ 6Technical Document Style/ ܺ*w7ں</ E&  . 145</ 6Technical Document Style/ ܺ*w7ں</ E&  . 146</ 6Technical Document Style/ ܺ*w7ں</ E&  . 147</ 6Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*w7ں</ E8@   2F?148</ 6Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*w7ں</ EA@`  `  149</ 6Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*w7ں</ EJ` @  `   150</ 6Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*w7ں</ ES`  @   151</ 6Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*w7ں</ E\`  @#h# #h# 2x[7@@152</ 6Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*w7ں</ Ee`  #h#@(( #h#(( Courier 12pt (10cpi)WP CyrillicA (TT)Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)"5@^d^i_pSf~\~\۞wUqqkiogoqgYy[~]ergǧɩmy[`Ҙf^pSpSpSf``۞oMmRqI7I7A1H~!֙Rg\]~~q`I77fcgcI]BBB~B`ddddd~d\dd\dOd`~dfdqdcdq~ypy~~~~~g~ffe`e`ggoNmHke^ggemkgpeq~]gk]kog}tginndyy2^6cggnCzhbnonvyXzXshn~|yddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd^i_pSf~\~\۞wUqqkiogoqgYy[~]ergǧɩmy[`Ҙf^pSpSpSf``۞oMmRqI7I7A1dT6kkkooǓqm~]~]gguOeempggǧie֒kH}gg^~\`qI7I7g~]`Ҙf^~\~\qg~]`ҘfccBBBBcdddddddddddddd"5@^*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ*7777BE7TTxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7/7/7/7/xTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxJxTxTxTxTxT\TxTxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxTxTxxTxTxTxTBT7T777TAxTf/fExTxTxTxo7oE\A\AN:*KT7JTTTTT.3}}T2T}277JJT77TT7J72t7[[[[^ee*B`^-wSTTn[Cfx`xWkRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwhe*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ7TJTT7\777JJ:T7A7xx*7TTTT!T7.T^7TB[227`K*723T}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx\TJJJJJJoJJJJJ////TTTTTTT[TTTTTTT2^@D@Z@"5@^2BRdd$BBdq2B28dddddddddd88qqqYzoBNzoozzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`l2BB!BBPRBddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdBdBBBdNdz8zRdddBRoNoNNF2ZdBYddddd7>d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5@^2Boddȧ8BBdr2B28ddddddddddBBrrrdzNdzoȐB8BtdBdoYoYBdo8Bo8odooYNBodddYO,Oh2BB!BBPRBdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNBNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldBddddddXU4  pQXt,@5(,(@\  P6QP<t,D5(,>xdD4  pQ"5@^(5APP|55PZ(5(-PPPPPPPPPP--ZZZGskksbYss5>sbssYskYbssssb5-5KP5GPGPG5PP--P-|PPPP5>-PPsPPGM MW(5555@B5PPsGsGsGsGsGkkGbGbGbGbG5-5-5-5-sPsPsPsPsPsPsPsPsPsPsGsPsPsPsPsPYPsPsGsGkGkGkGbGbGbGsPsPssPsPsPsP@P5P555P>sPb-bBsPsPsPsk5kBY>Y>N8(HP5GPPPPP,1xxP0zzPx055GGP55PP5G50t5XXXXZaa(@\Z,rOPP{{{iXCbs\sSgOsXYX_aFbFo\zSsXn{nerca||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||(5APP|55PZ(5(-PPPPPPPPPP--ZZZGskksbYss5>sbssYskYbssssb5-5KP5GPGPG5PP--P-|PPPP5>-PPsPPGM MW|||5PGPP5Y5||||55GG8P5>5s||s(5PPPP P5z,PZ5zP@X005\H(501PxxxGsssssskbbbb5555sssssssZssssssYPGGGGGGkGGGGG----PPPPPPPXPPPPPPP2@R"5@^(5YPP-55P[(5(-PPPPPPPPPP55[[[Psksskb||>P|ks|b|sYkssssk5-5]P5PYGYG5PY-5Y-YPYYG>5YPsPPG?#?S(5555@B5PYsPsPsPsPsPssGkGkGkGkG>->->->-sY|P|P|P|PsYsYsYsYsPsPsY|P|PsPsPbYsPsPsPsGsGsGkGkGkG|P|P||P|P|Y|Y@Y>Y>5>YP|Yk-kBsYsY|PssGsGY>Y>N8(WP5PPPPPP05xxP0xxPx055PPP55PP5P50t5XXXX[aa(@\[,rOPP{{{iXCbs\sSgOsXYX_aFbFo\zSsXn{nerca||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||(5YPP-55P[(5(-PPPPPPPPPP55[[[Psksskb||>P|ks|b|sYkssssk5-5]P5PYGYG5PY-5Y-YPYYG>5YPsPPG?#?S|||5PPPP5Y5||||55PP8P5>5s||s(5PPPP#P5x0P[5xP@X005\W(505PxxxPssssssskkkk>>>>ss|||||[|sssssbYPPPPPPsGGGGG----PYPPPPPXPYYYYPY X2  #C\  P6Q/P#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#XP\  P6QCXP# X2#Xj\  P6G;CXP#(#x  X2   y QFederal Communications Commission ă`(# FCC 97345 ă  yxdddy  *Before the V FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  X2Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  X2X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:"(#p 1 XxII. BACKGROUND p>"(#p 2  X2XX` ` A.` ` Statutory Provisions ` p>"(#p 2  X2XX` ` B.` ` Commission's Regulations ` p>"(#p 7  X2XX` ` C.` ` Procedural History ` p>"(#p 8  X2XX` ` D.` ` MCI's Preemption Petition ` p"(#k 15  X2XX` ` E.` ` Response of the Missouri Public Service Commission ` p"(#k 18  X|2XX` ` F.` ` Response of Southwestern Bell ` p"(#k 21 XxIII. DISCUSSION p"(#k 24  X72XX` ` A.` ` Scope of the Commission's Preemption Authority Under Section 252(e)(5) ` p"(#k 24  X 2XX` ` B.` ` The Missouri Arbitration ` p"(#k 31 XxIV. CONCLUSION p"(#k 39 XxV. ORDERING CLAUSES p"(#k 40 "h$0*&&CC""Ԍ X2 I. INTRODUCTION  TP  X-x1.` ` This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses the petition of MCI Telecommunications Corporation and MCImetro Access Transmission Services, Inc. (collectively, MCI) for preemption of the jurisdiction of the Missouri Public Service Commission (Missouri Commission) with respect to an arbitration proceeding involving MCI and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT). Specifically, MCI seeks preemption of  Xa-the Missouri Commission pursuant to section 252(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934,Ja+ yO-ԍx47 U.S.C.  252(e)(5).J  XJ-as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.4\JX+ {OS -ԍxTelecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996 Act), codified at 47 U.S.C.  {O - 151 et seq. We will refer to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, as "the Communications Act," or "the Act." 4 Section 252(e)(5) authorizes the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) to preempt a state commission in any proceeding or matter in which the state commission "fails to act to carry out its responsibility"  X -under section 252.J |+ yO2-ԍx47 U.S.C.  252(e)(5).J Section 252 sets out the procedures by which telecommunications carriers may request and obtain interconnection, services or unbundled network elements from an incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC) either through voluntary negotiations or through  X -mediation or arbitration by state commissions.X + {O}-ԍxSee generally 47 U.S.C.  252.X For the reasons discussed below, we find that MCI has not proven that the Missouri Commission "failed to act" within the meaning of  X-section 252(e)(5), as required by our rules.N+ {O-ԍxImplementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First  {O-Report and Order, CC Docket No. 96-98, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 16128 (1996),  1285 (Local Competition Order),  {Ou-aff'd in part and vacated in part sub nom. Competitive Telecommunications Ass'n v. FCC, 117 F.3d 1068 (8th  {O?-Cir. 1997), aff'd in part and vacated in part sub nom. Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, No. 963321 et al., 1997 WL  {O -403401 (8th Cir., July 18, 1997) (Iowa Utils. Bd.), Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 13042 (1996),  {O-Second Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 19738 (1996), Third Order on Reconsideration and Further  {O-Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 97295 (rel. Aug. 18, 1997), further recon. pending; see also 47 C.F.R.  51.803(b). We therefore deny MCI's petition and do not preempt the Missouri Commission at this time. "M0*$$CCI"  X-$ II. BACKGROUND  TP  X- A.xStatutory Provisions   X-x2.` ` Congress adopted sections 251 and 252 of the Act to foster local exchange competition by imposing certain requirements on incumbent LECs that are designed to facilitate the entry of competing providers. Section 251 describes the various requirements designed to promote market entry, including incumbent LECs' obligations to provide  X1-interconnection, services for resale and unbundled network elements.dZ1+ {O -ԍxSee generally 47 U.S.C.  251(c). For purposes of this order, the interconnection, access to unbundled network elements, services for resale and other items for which incumbent LECs have a duty to negotiate pursuant to section 251(c)(1) are sometimes referred to collectively as "interconnection."d Section 252 sets forth the procedures by which telecommunications carriers may request and obtain interconnection, unbundled network elements and services for resale from an incumbent LEC pursuant to  X -section 251.X + {O-ԍxSee generally 47 U.S.C.  252.X Specifically, section 252 establishes a scheme whereby telecommunications carriers may obtain interconnection with the incumbent according to agreements fashioned through (1) voluntary negotiations among the carriers, (2) mediation by state commissions,  X -and (3) if necessary, arbitration by state commissions.V |+ {O-ԍxSee 47 U.S.C.  252(a), (b).V These interconnection agreements  X-must then be submitted for approval to the appropriate state commission.J + yOO-ԍx47 U.S.C.  252(e)(1).J  Xb-x3.` ` Section 252(e)(5) directs this Commission to assume responsibility for any proceeding or matter in which the state commission "fails to act to carry out its responsibility" under section 252: Xx` ` (5) COMMISSION TO ACT IF STATE WILL NOT ACT. If a State commission fails to act to carry out its responsibility under this section in any proceeding or other matter under this section, then the Commission shall issue an order preempting the State commission's jurisdiction of that proceeding or matter within 90 days after being notified (or taking notice) of such failure, and shall assume the responsibility of the State commission under this section with  X|-respect to the proceeding or matter and act for the State commission.J |+ yO#-ԍx47 U.S.C.  252(e)(5).J "|. 0*$$CC"Ԍ X-ԙx4.` ` Section 252 sets forth several requirements that state commissions must follow in arbitrating disputes among incumbents and carriers requesting interconnection. Section 252(c) provides: Xx(c) STANDARDS FOR ARBITRATION. In resolving by arbitration under subsection (b) [of section 252] any open issues and imposing conditions upon parties to the agreement, a State commission shall  XxX` ` (1) ensure that such resolution and conditions meet the requirements of section 251, including the regulations prescribed by the [Federal Communications] Commission pursuant to section 251;x` XxX` ` (2) establish any rates for interconnection, services, or network elements . . . ; and x` XxX` ` (3) provide a schedule for implementation of the terms and  X -conditions by the parties to the agreement.G + yO7-ԍx47 U.S.C.  252(c).Gx` Further, section 252(b)(4)(A) requires a state commission to "limit its consideration of any [arbitration] petition . . . to the issues set forth in the petition and in the response, if any, filed  Xb-[by the nonpetitioning party to the negotiation]."M bX+ yOk-ԍx47 U.S.C.  252(b)(4)(A).M  X4-x5.` ` In addition, section 252(b)(4)(C) requires a state commission to "resolve each issue set forth in the petition and the response, if any, by imposing appropriate conditions as required to implement subsection (c) [of section 252] upon the parties to the agreement, and [to] conclude the resolution of any unresolved issues not later than 9 months after the date on  X-which the [incumbent] LEC received the request [for interconnection]." + yOq-ԍx47 U.S.C.  252(b)(4)(C). Section 252 also sets forth requirements that a state commission must follow in reviewing an interconnection agreement or a "statement of generally available terms" submitted to the state commission for approval. 47 U.S.C.  252(e)(1)(e)(4); 47 U.S.C.  252(f). Under section 252(f), a Bell Operating Company may demonstrate its compliance with the obligations of section 251 in certain circumstances by filing a statement of the terms and conditions that the company generally offers within a state with the state commission for approval. 47 U.S.C.  252(f)(1).  X-x6.` ` To assist the state commission in performing its arbitration duties, section 252(b)(2) delineates the roles of the parties to the arbitration. Section 252(b)(1) allows any party to an interconnection negotiation to petition the state commission for arbitration of "any open issues" during the 25day period beginning on the 135th day after the incumbent"e` 0*$$CC"  X-received a request for interconnection and ending on the 160th day after such request.J+ yOy-ԍx47 U.S.C.  252(b)(1).J Section 252(b)(2) directs the party petitioning for arbitration to comply with the following procedure: Xx(2) DUTY OF PETITIONER.  Xx` ` (A) A party that petitions a State commission under paragraph (1) shall, at the same time as it submits the petition, provide the State commission all relevant documentation concerning  XxX` `  (i) the unresolved issues;x` XxX` `  (ii) the position of each of the parties with respect to those issues; andx` XxX` `  (iii) any other issue discussed and resolved by the  X -parties.M X+ yO-ԍx47 U.S.C.  252(b)(2)(A).Mx` Section 252(b)(3) also permits the nonpetitioning party to respond to the arbitration petition "and provide such additional information as it wishes within 25 days after the State  X-commission receives the petition."J+ yO)-ԍx47 U.S.C.  252(b)(3).J In addition, section 252(b)(4)(B) authorizes a state commission to require parties to an arbitration to submit needed information, but allows the state commission to resolve any open issues based on the best information available if the parties do not furnish such information quickly enough to assist the state commission in  X4-carrying out its arbitration responsibilities.M4x+ yO]-ԍx47 U.S.C.  252(b)(4)(B).M  X- B.xCommission's Regulations  X-x7. FCCREGS ` ` In our Local Competition Order, we established interim procedures to exercise our preemption authority under section 252(e)(5) in order to "provide for an efficient and fair transition from state jurisdiction should we have to assume the responsibility of the state  X-commission . . ."$+ {ON!-ԍxLocal Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16127,  1283. We adopted the procedures for exercising our section 252(e)(5) preemption authority on an interim basis in order to allow us "to learn from the initial experiences and gain a better understanding of what types of situations may arise that require Commission  {O#-action." Id. at 16128,  1284. We concluded that we would not take an "expansive view" of what" 0*$$CC3"  X-constitutes a state commission's "failure to act" within the meaning of section 252(e)(5).O+ {Oy-ԍxId. at 16128,  1285.O Rather, we interpreted "failure to act" to mean a state's failure to complete its duties in a timely manner, thereby limiting preemption under section 252(e)(5) "to instances where a state commission fails to respond, within a reasonable time, to a request for mediation or  X-arbitration, or fails to complete arbitration within the time limits of section 252(b)(4)(C)."&Z+ {O-ԍxLocal Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16128,  1285; see also 47 C.F.R.  51.801(b). Such instances would not encompass those in which an interconnection agreement is "deemed approved" under section  {OA -252(e)(4) as a result of state commission inaction. Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16128,  1285; see  {O -also 47 C.F.R.  51.801(c). We also concluded that "[t]he party seeking preemption [pursuant to section 252(e)(5)] must prove that the state [commission] has failed to act to carry out its responsibilities under  X_-section 252 of the Act."_H+ {OX-ԍxLocal Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16128,  1285; see also 47 C.F.R.  51.803(b). Further, we concluded that once we assume jurisdiction of a matter pursuant to section 252(e)(5), "any and all further action regarding that proceeding or matter will be before the Commission," rather than before the state commission that has failed to  X -act. + {O-ԍxLocal Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16129,  1289; see also 47 C.F.R.  51.805(a). In its review of the Local Competition Order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit acknowledged that we have authority, pursuant to section 252(e)(5), to preempt a state  X -commission's jurisdiction if it fails to fulfill its duties under section 252 of the Act.b l + {O -ԍxIowa Utils. Bd., 1997 WL at 403401, at *14.b  X - C.xProcedural History  X -  X-x8.INTERCNREQUEST` ` On March 26, 1996, MCI sent a letter to SWBT requesting interconnection in  X{-all five states of SWBT's region, including Missouri.{ + yO*-ԍxMCI Petition at 6; SWBT Response at 2. The other states in SWBT's region are Texas, Kansas, Arkansas and Oklahoma. The parties subsequently attempted to negotiate the terms of a preliminary nondisclosure agreement, which would govern the  XM-treatment of information exchanged during negotiations over an interconnection agreement.]MV + yOT -ԍxMCI Petition at 6; SWBT Response at 2.] Three months later, after these negotiations proved unsuccessful, SWBT sent a letter to the Missouri Commission asking it to mediate the dispute regarding the nondisclosure"0*$$CCG"  X-agreement.J+ yOy-ԍxSWBT Response at 2.J The Missouri Commission met with both parties regarding the terms of the  X-nondisclosure agreement on July 10, 1996, but that meeting also proved unsuccessful.FX+ {O-ԍxId. at 3.F Thereafter, on August 16, 1996, MCI filed with the Missouri Commission a petition for arbitration pursuant to section 252(b) of the Act ("the August 16, 1996 Arbitration  X-Petition").l+ yO? -ԍxMCI Petition at 6; Missouri Commission Response at 2.l  Xv-x9.MCIARBPET` ` MCI's petition sought arbitration of several issues involving pricing, as well as  X_-technical and other standards for interconnection.%_z+ yO -ԍxThese issues included: interconnection; access to unbundled network elements; access to poles, ducts, conduits and rights of way; access to 911 services, directory assistance and operator services; customer access to directory listings; access to telephone numbers; access to signaling systems; number portability; dialing parity; reciprocal compensation; resale; collocation; nondisclosure agreements; and other operational matters. MCI Petition, Affidavit of Stephen F. Morris, Exhibit B at 911.% The petition described the issues very generally. After the general description of each issue, MCI included a brief description of its  X1-position on that issue.~1* + {O -ԍxSee, e.g. id. (describing MCI's position on the interconnection issue).~ Except with respect to the nondisclosure agreement, MCI did not include SWBT's position on any of the issues. Rather, MCI stated: "As a result of [SWBT's] insistence on a restrictive nondisclosure agreement, MCI has not been able to  X -determine [SWBT's] position on the issues."E + {OY-ԍxSee id. at 14.E The petition was accompanied by "MCI's Requirements for Intercarrier Agreements," a lengthy document detailing proposed technical requirements for interconnection. This document appears to describe MCI's preferred  X -requirements for interconnection with any incumbent LEC.N N + {O-ԍxSee generally id.N MCI requested arbitration of all of the issues in the petition and the "Requirements for Intercarrier Agreements" and asked that SWBT be ordered to respond to the petition by identifying "each and every point of  Xb-contention."A!b+ {O -ԍxId. at 38.A  X4-x 10.` ` On September 17, 1996, the Missouri Commission granted a request by MCI and AT&T, which also had requested interconnection with SWBT, to consolidate their"r!0*$$CCe"  X-respective arbitration requests ("the Consolidation Order").m"+ yOy-ԍxSWBT Response at 3; Missouri Commission Response at 2.m The Consolidation Order also required MCI, AT&T, SWBT and the Missouri Office of the Public Counsel jointly to file an issues memorandum ("the Joint Issues Memorandum" or "the Memorandum") that "shall  X-clearly set out the position of each party on every contested issue" by early October, 1996.g#X+ yO-ԍxSWBT Response at 3; Missouri Commission Response at 3.g The Joint Issues Memorandum was filed on October 4, 1996, and listed 41 unresolved issues and the parties' positions on these issues. The final item of the Memorandum ("Item 42") was a "catchall" category in which each of the parties recommended how all other terms of  X_-interconnection, beyond those encompassed by the first 41 issues, should be decided.$"_+ yO -ԍITEM42QUESTIONxJoint Issues Memorandum at 5758 (submitted as an attachment to SWBT Response, Affidavit of James R. Oxler). Specifically, Item 42 poses the question: "What should be the other terms of interconnection?" Joint Issues Memorandum at 57. The Memorandum then includes a description of how each party would answer that  {OP-question. Id.Į In  XH-response to Item 42,a%H+ {O-ԍxSee supra note ITEM42QUESTION36.a SWBT recommended that the Missouri Commission decide the initial 41 issues identified in the Memorandum and allow the parties to continue negotiating any remaining terms. MCI and AT&T, however, recommended, in essence, that the Missouri Commission adopt the terms and conditions of their respective proposed interconnection  X -agreements..&Z d + yO-ԍxJoint Issues Memorandum at 5758. The Joint Issues Memorandum indicates that MCI filed an actual proposed agreement, whereas AT&T merely recommended that the Missouri Commission direct AT&T to submit  {O-a proposed agreement. Id.. Less than a week after the Memorandum was filed, the Missouri Commission commenced on October 8, 1996 formal hearings before an administrative law judge during which witnesses presented testimony and exhibits concerning the issues in the Memorandum  X -and were subject to crossexamination.' + yO-ԍxMissouri Commission Response at 3; MCI Petition at 7; SWBT Response at 4; Joint Issues  yO-Memorandum at 60. ij The hearings were concluded on October 17, 1996.  Xy-x 11.` ` On December 11, 1996, nine months after SWBT received MCI's formal request for interconnection, the Missouri Commission issued an arbitration order ("the  XK-December 11, 1996 Arbitration Order").z(K+ yO!-ԍxMissouri Commission Response at 3; MCI Petition at 7; SWBT Response at 5.z The December 11, 1996 Arbitration Order resolved the first 41 issues in the Joint Issues Memorandum. Among other things, the Order set interim rates for various services and network elements pending the development of"n(0*$$CCG"  X-permanent rates.)+ yOy-ԍxDecember 11, 1996 Arbitration Order at 48 (submitted as Exhibit F of MCI Petition, Affidavit of Stephen F. Morris). With respect to Item 42, the Order states: Xx` ` Any negotiated outcome inevitably rests on the good will and commitment of the negotiating parties. The record reflects that MCI and SWBT were not able to agree to a prenegotiation nondisclosure agreement. The failure of the parties to negotiate in good faith has brought the arbitration of virtually every detail to the Commission's doorstep. The Commission has dedicated the necessary staff resources to hearing and resolving these issues and hereby encourages the parties to complete the process by negotiating their final agreements in compliance with this Arbitration Order. The Commission finds  X -no other terms are necessary to complete this arbitration.D* + {O -ԍxId. at 4748.D  The Order did not set a deadline at that time for the parties to file a completed interconnection agreement incorporating the findings of the December 11, 1996 Arbitration  X -Order or resolving the issues encompassed by Item 42.D+ + yO!-ԍxMCI Petition at 14.D Following the issuance of the December 11, 1996 Arbitration Order, MCI, AT&T and SWBT filed a series of motions and  X-responses for modification or clarification of the Order.k,B+ yO-ԍxMissouri Commission Response at 45; SWBT Response at 56.k  Xb-x 12.` ` In response to several motions by the parties, on January 22, 1997, the Missouri Commission issued an order modifying and clarifying aspects of the December 11, 1996 Arbitration Order ("the January 22, 1997 Clarification Order") in which it set a deadline of June 30, 1997, for the Missouri Commission to set permanent rates for resale and unbundled network elements that would replace the interim rates established in the December  X-11, 1996 Arbitration Order.{-+ yOr-ԍxMissouri Commission Response at 5; MCI Petition at 16; SWBT Response at 5.{ In order to perform the detailed analysis it considered necessary for establishing permanent rates, the Missouri Commission directed its staff to conduct an  X-investigation regarding appropriate critical inputs and costing models.S.b + yO!-ԍxMissouri Commission Response at 5.S  X-x 13.` ` While the Missouri Commission conducted its investigation to set permanent" .0*$$CCo" rates, the parties attempted, again unsuccessfully, to negotiate a completed interconnection  X-agreement consistent with the December 11, 1996 Arbitration Order.X/+ yOb-ԍxMCI Petition at 14; SWBT Response at 6.X During this period, MCI asked the Missouri Commission on several occasions to set a deadline for completion of  X-an interconnection agreement, but the Missouri Commission did not do so.E0X+ yO-ԍxMCI Petition at 15. E On June 16, 1997, after several months of negotiations, MCI filed with the Missouri Commission a proposed interconnection agreement ("the June 16, 1997 Proposed Agreement") which, in  Xv-MCI's view, incorporated the terms of the December 11, 1996 Arbitration Order.{1v+ yO -ԍxMissouri Commission Response at 6; MCI Petition at 15; SWBT Response at 6.{ When MCI then moved for Missouri Commission approval of the June 16, 1997 Proposed  XH-Agreement, SWBT moved to strike the agreement.D2Hx+ yOq-ԍxSWBT Response at 7.D SWBT stated in its motion to strike that MCI "failed to identify" the issues in its June 16, 1997 Proposed Agreement in the Joint Issues Memorandum "as required by the [Missouri] Commission, instead limiting its description of the issues to a request that its contract be adopted in toto. The [Missouri]  X -Commission rejected that approach . . ."3~ + {O-ԍxPetition of MCI Telecommunications Corporation and its Affiliates, Including MCImetro Access Transmission Services, Inc. for Arbitration and Mediation Under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 of  {O7-Unresolved Interconnection Issues with Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Response of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company to MCI's Reply, Missouri Commission Case No. TO9767, filed July 28, 1997, at 1  {O-(submitted as an attachment to SWBT Response, Affidavit of James R. Oxler); see also SWBT Response at 7 ("'[I]t is not appropriate to resolve these additional matters outside of the arbitration process.'") (quoting from SWBT's motion to strike).  X -x 14.` ` On July 18, 1997, MCI filed the instant preemption petition with the Commission. Responses to MCI's preemption petition were submitted by SWBT and the Missouri Commission on August 4, 1997. Between the filing of the preemption petition and the responses, the Missouri Commission staff investigating permanent rates compiled a report which the Missouri Commission incorporated into a "final" arbitration order released on July  XK-31, 1997 ("the July 31, 1997 Arbitration Order").i4KN + yOJ -ԍxMissouri Commission Response at 67; SWBT Response at 7.i The July 31, 1997 Arbitration Order declined to adopt MCI's June 16, 1997 Proposed Agreement and directed the parties to submit an interconnection agreement reflecting the findings of the July 31, 1997 Arbitration Order by" 40*$$CC)"  X-September 30, 1997.g5+ yOy-ԍxMissouri Commission Response at 6; SWBT Response at 7.g  X-  X-D.xMCI's Preemption Petition   X-x15.MCIPETITIONSUM` ` MCI requests that the Commission preempt the jurisdiction of the Missouri Public Service Commission (Missouri Commission) with respect to the arbitration proceeding at issue here because MCI contends that the Missouri Commission "failed to act" within the  X_-meaning of section 252(e)(5) of the Act.D6_X+ yOh -ԍxMCI Petition at 15.D In particular, MCI submits that the Missouri Commission did not resolve a number of critical issues within the prescribed nine month period and thus, in MCI's view, the Missouri Commission failed to satisfy that subsection by  X -not "produc[ing] a functioning interconnection agreement in a timely manner."D7| + {O-ԍMCIISSUESLISTxId. In its preemption petition and ex parte filings with the Commission, MCI identifies the issues that it believes are encompassed by Item 42. The issues that MCI claims the Missouri Commission never reached include: the appropriate scope of any agreement reached between MCI and SWBT; the effect of such an agreement on subsequent regulatory action; the term of such an agreement; the effect of such an agreement on subsequent alterations in the Missouri Commission's rules or other legal requirements; intellectual property rights; indemnifications and limitations on liability; warranties regarding quality of service and nondiscriminatory  {Oe-access; remedies for breach of contract; and dispute resolution procedures. Id.D In addition, MCI claims that the Missouri Commission left unresolved several terms and conditions that, according to MCI, must be decided before the issues that the Missouri Commission did, in  X -fact, decide can be implemented.8\ , + {O-ԍxId. at 8. According to MCI, these unresolved terms include the conditions and pricing for: interconnection, resale, unbundled network elements, collocation, access to rights of way, number portability and  {OD-operational support systems, among other issues. Id. at 813. See supra note MCIISSUESLIST55. MCI further submits that the Missouri Commission did not resolve these critical issues and terms even though the Missouri Commission recognized  X -that MCI's petition sought "'arbitration of virtually every detail'" of interconnection.r9 P + yO-ԍxMCI Petition at 7 (quoting December 11, 1996 Order, at 47).r In particular, MCI asserts that it specifically requested arbitration on issues encompassed by its "Requirements for Intercarrier Agreements" submitted with the August, 1996 petition, which reflected only MCI's positions, because negotiations with SWBT did not result in agreement  XK-on any substantive issues.I:K+ yO!-ԍxMCI Petition at 6.I  X-x16.` ` Rather than arbitrate all of the issues in its arbitration petition and " p:0*$$CC)" "Requirements for Intercarrier Agreements," MCI asserts, the Missouri Commission  X-encouraged MCI and SWBT to return to private negotiations over the unresolved issues.F;+ {Ob-ԍxId. at 7.F According to MCI, these private negotiations were unsuccessful, in part, because of SWBT's dilatory tactics and because the Missouri Commission declined to set a deadline for MCI and SWBT to submit a complete interconnection agreement, despite MCI's request that the  X-Missouri Commission do so.G<Z+ {O-ԍxId. at 14.G MCI claims that it submitted the June 16, 1997 Proposed Agreement after determining that further negotiation with SWBT regarding the issues left  X_-unresolved by the December 11, 1996 Order would be futile.:=_+ {O -ԍxId.: MCI's preemption petition  XH-contends that the Missouri Commission has taken no action on this proposed agreement.A>H~+ {Ow-ԍxId. at 15.A  X -x17.` ` MCI bases its claim for preemption under section 252(e)(5) on its interpretation of sections 251 and 252 of the Act. Specifically, MCI points out that the Commission, in the  X -Local Competition Order, concluded that, under section 252(e)(5), a state commission "fails to act" if the state commission fails to complete its duties under section 252 in a timely  X -manner.@? + {O-ԍxId. at 6.@ MCI asserts that, as part of these duties, a state commission must (1) resolve any open issues that the parties to an arbitration proceeding could not successfully negotiate; and (2) impose any conditions necessary to implement the provisions of section 252(c), which requires that all issues resolved and conditions imposed by the state commission meet the  Xd-requirements of section 251 and any relevant FCC regulations.`@d+ {O-ԍxId. at 34 (citing section 252(b)(4)(C)).` Because section 251, in turn, imposes requirements on incumbent LECs regarding the terms and conditions of  X6-interconnection,AA64 + yO-ԍxIn particular, MCI writes: "Section 251 . . . requires 'just and reasonable' terms and conditions for all aspects of interconnection and leasing unbundled elements . . .; mandates access 'that is at least equal in quality to that provided by the [incumbent] to itself, or to any subsidiary, affiliate, or any other party to which the carrier provides interconnection . . .; and encompasses a range of other requirements designed to make local competition possible." MCI Petition at 4 (quoting  251(c)) (citations omitted).A MCI argues that "a state commission's responsibility under section 252 plainly extends to resolving disputes over the specific terms and conditions of interconnection," A0*$$CCG"  X-access to unbundled elements, and resale."CB+ yOy-ԍxMCI Petition at 4.C MCI submits that this argument is consistent  X-with the Local Competition Order, which, according to MCI, contemplated that state commissions conducting arbitrations under section 252 would have to define specific terms and conditions governing access to unbundled elements, interconnection and resale of  X-services.@CX+ {O-ԍxId. at 4.@ Thus, reading sections 251 and 252 together, MCI concludes that state commissions have a duty to resolve all issues necessary "to produce actual working interconnection agreements" within the nine month time frame referred to in section  Xa-252(b)(4)(C).D\a+ {O -ԍxId. at 45. In an ex parte filing dated September 3, 1997, MCI reiterates its view that the parties will not be able to complete an interconnection agreement if the Missouri Commission does not resolve all open  {O -issues, which MCI maintains were presented in its petition and subsequent filings. See id.č  X3- E.xResponse of the Missouri Public Service Commission   X -x18.` ` The Missouri Commission argues that there is no basis for the relief MCI requests because the Missouri Commission issued its "final arbitration order" on July 31,  X -1997, nearly two weeks after MCI filed its petition for preemption.SE + yO-ԍxMissouri Commission Response at 1.S The July 31, 1997 Arbitration Order requires that MCI and SWBT prepare and submit an interconnection agreement incorporating the pricing and other requirements of the July 31, 1997 Arbitration  X-Order no later than September 30, 1997.:F+ {O-ԍxId.: The Missouri Commission argues that MCI's preemption petition "is a backdoor attempt by MCI to expand the list of issues [to be arbitrated] to include those that it failed to properly bring before the [Missouri Commission]  XM-prior to the hearings [on MCI's arbitration petition] in October 1996."@GM0 + {O.-ԍxId. at 3.@  X-x19.` ` The Missouri Commission argues that MCI failed to satisfy its obligation, pursuant to the Missouri Commission's September 17, 1996 Consolidation Order, to present  X-all issues for arbitration clearly in the Joint Issues Memorandum.@H + {Od"-ԍxId. at 6.@ The Missouri Commission asserts that the unresolved issues upon which MCI bases its preemption petition were never" T H0*$$CC" properly before the Missouri Commission and thus the Missouri Commission did not fail to  X-carry out its responsibilities by not resolving these issues.@I+ {Ob-ԍxId. at 4.@ Further, the Missouri Commission argues that MCI misread its direction, in the December 11, 1996 Order, that MCI and SWBT negotiate a final agreement in compliance with that order. According to the Missouri Commission, MCI erroneously interpreted this directive as an instruction that the parties  X-resolve any remaining issues solely through private negotiations.:JZ+ {O-ԍxId.: According to the Missouri Commission, the December 11, 1996 Order "was simply indicating that [the Missouri Commission] expected MCI and SWBT to use the findings and conclusions included in the [December 11, 1996 Order] to complete the process of preparing an Interconnection Agreement for [approval by the Missouri Commission] that contained the provisions that were  X -detailed in the December 11, 1996 Order.":K + {O-ԍxId.:  X -x20.` ` In addition, the Missouri Commission contests MCI's assertion that the Missouri Commission has taken no action on MCI's June 16, 1997 Proposed Agreement. The Missouri Commission interpreted the June 16, 1997 Proposed Agreement as a request by MCI for further arbitration concerning issues that were not presented among the first 41 issues in  X-the Joint Issues Memorandum.BL~+ {O-ԍxId. at 67.B The Missouri Commission states that, in the weeks after that proposed agreement was filed, the Missouri Commission's staff analyzed data and compiled the report which was incorporated into the July 31, 1997 Arbitration Order, and the Missouri  XK-Commission itself discussed the matter on several occasions.:MK+ {O -ԍxId.: Further, the Missouri Commission submits that MCI's June 16, 1997 Proposed Agreement was substantially  X-different from the proposed agreement MCI filed with the Joint Issues Memorandum.@N+ {Op-ԍxId. at 7.@ Consequently, the Missouri Commission asks that MCI not be permitted to "hide behind its own failure to request determinations from the [Missouri Commission] by requesting that the  X-FCC exercise its [preemption] authority under Section 252(e)(5)."@O4 + {O!-ԍxId. at 6.@ " O0*$$CC"Ԍ X- F.xResponse of Southwestern Bell   X-x21.` ` SWBT rejects MCI's contention that the Missouri Commission "failed to act" within the meaning of section 252(e)(5) because, in SWBT's view, the Missouri Commission responded within a reasonable time both to SWBT's July 1996 request for mediation  X-regarding the nondisclosure agreements and to MCI's October 1996 petition for arbitration.DP+ yO-ԍxSWBT Response at 8.D SWBT, like MCI, argues that the Missouri Commission's December 11, 1996 Order instructed  X_-the parties to resolve any issues not resolved in that order through private negotiations.DQ_X+ {Oh -ԍxId. at 1112.D SWBT, however, asserts that MCI has failed to negotiate diligently regarding interconnection, primarily because MCI's negotiators initially focused their attention on other states in  X -SWBT's region.R + {O-ԍxId. As stated above, MCI requested interconnection in all five of SWBT's states simultaneously. See  {O-supra  INTERCNREQUEST8. Further, SWBT asserts that MCI failed to fulfill its duty, as the party petitioning for arbitration, to raise all contested issues and the parties' positions on these  X -issues clearly in the arbitration petition.DS F+ yO-ԍxSWBT Response at 9.D In particular, SWBT contends that MCI failed to fulfill this duty with respect to any issues or positions that the Missouri Commission would have had to extract from MCI's "Requirements for Intercarrier Agreements" or MCI's  X -proposed agreements.AT + {O.-ԍxId. at 10.A SWBT contends that the Missouri Commission was not required to analyze MCI's "Requirements" or its proposed agreements to "identify every conceivable issue  Xy-within, and . . . try to resolve every issue without even knowing SWBT's position."$U\yh + {O-ԍxId. at 13. Like the Missouri Commission, SWBT indicates that MCI's June 16, 1997 Proposed Agreement differed substantially from the proposed agreement MCI submitted with the Joint Issues  {O$-Memorandum. Id. at 11.$ SWBT argues, in essence, that the only issues MCI clearly presented to the Missouri Commission were the first 41 issues specified in the Joint Issues Memorandum. In addition, SWBT points to the amount of time and effort the Missouri Commission's staff spent between February 7, 1997, and July 31, 1997, to establish permanent rates as further support for its view that the  X-Missouri Commission did not fail to meet its responsibilities under section 252.AV + {OC"-ԍxId. at 13.A SWBT takes the position that if current negotiations and the Missouri Commission's September 30, 1997 deadline for filing a complete agreement do not yield such an agreement, MCI can seek"V0*$$CC"  X-further arbitration of any remaining issues.FW+ {Oy-ԍxId. at 6, 1314F  X-x22.` ` SWBT relies on our conclusion in the Local Competition Order that the Commission will "exercise its preemption authority under section 252(e)(5) only 'where a state commission fails to respond, within a reasonable time, to a request for mediation or  X-arbitration, or fails to complete arbitration within the time limits of section 252(b)(4)(C).'"XZ+ {O-ԍxId. at 8 (quoting Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16128,  1285). SWBT contends that, under section 252(b)(4)(C), whether the Missouri Commission failed to carry out its section 252 responsibilities turns on whether the Missouri Commission "'resolve[d] each issue set forth in the petition and the response . . . [and] conclude[d] the resolution of any unresolved issues not later than 9 months after the date on which the LEC  X -received the [interconnection] request . . .'"jY + yO-ԍxSWBT Response at 8 (quoting 47 U.S.C.  252(b)(4)(C)).j SWBT submits that there is no dispute that the Missouri Commission (1) responded within a reasonable time to SWBT's July 1996 request for mediation and (2) resolved the first 41 issues raised in the October, 1996, Joint Issues  X -Memorandum within nine months of MCI's request for interconnection with SWBT.HZ |+ yO-ԍxSWBT Response at 8, 10.H  X -x23.` ` SWBT argues that MCI failed to satisfy its duty to present any open issues, as well as the parties' positions on these issues, in its arbitration petition "in such a way that the  X{-State commission is able to consider and resolve [the issues]."@[{ + {O8-ԍxId. at 9.@ This duty, SWBT argues, arises from section 252(b)(2)(A), which sets out the responsibilities of parties petitioning for arbitration, and from the Consolidation Order, which required the parties to set out clearly the  X6-position of each party on every contested issue.A\6+ {O-ԍxId. at 10.A Moreover, SWBT contends that even if it were not "unreasonable" for the Missouri Commission to review the lengthy proposed agreements submitted in support of the arbitrations to identify unresolved issues and the parties' positions on these issues, the Missouri Commission would have lacked authority to do so because section 252(b)(4)(A) states that "'[t]he State commission shall limit its consideration of any petition . . . to the issues set forth in the petition and in the response . .  X-.'"@]0 + {O#-ԍxId. at 9.@ In SWBT's view, any issues contained in MCI's proposed agreements or "Requirements" ]0*$$CC" for Intercarrier Agreements" were not "set forth in the petition or the response" within the meaning of section 252(b)(4)(A).  X- xIII. DISCUSSION ׃  Xv- A.xScope of the Commission's Preemption Authority Under Section 252(e)(5)   XH-x24.` ` The plain language of the Act provides that we have authority, pursuant to section 252(e)(5), to preempt the jurisdiction of a state commission in arbitrations and any other matters in which the state commission has failed to carry out its responsibilities under section 252: Xx"If a State commission fails to act to carry out its responsibility under [section 252] . . . the Commission shall issue an order preempting the State  X -commission's jurisdiction."J^ + yO -ԍx47 U.S.C.  252(e)(5).J  None of the parties contests section 252(e)(5)'s clear grant of authority to the Commission. Further, we find nothing in the Act or any other controlling authority that would define or otherwise limit our power to preempt state commissions that "fail to act" pursuant to section  X4-252(e)(5). This conclusion is consistent with the Eighth Circuit's Iowa Utilities Board decision, which recognized the Commission's authority to preempt under Section 252(e)(5) if  X-a state commission fails to fulfill its duties under section 252 of the Act.b_X+ {O-ԍxIowa Utils. Bd., 1997 WL at 403401, at *14.b  X-   X-x25.` ` Accordingly, we look to the plain language of the Act to determine the scope of our preemption authority under section 252(e)(5). That section provides that the  X-Commission shall preempt a state commission that fails to act "in any proceeding or other  X-matter under this section."I`+ yO0-ԍx47 U.S.C. 252(e)(5).I Thus, the unambiguous text of section 252(e)(5) indicates that we have authority to preempt a state commission's jurisdiction in any proceeding that a state  Xg-conducts pursuant to section 252.a"gz+ yO!-ԍx We emphasize, however, that the Act does not authorize us to find that a state commission has failed to act within the meaning of section 252(e)(5) merely because the state commission allows an agreement submitted for approval under section 252(e)(1) to go into effect automatically by declining to reject the agreement within  {O#-the 30day time frame established in section 252(e)(4). See 47 U.S.C.  252(e)(4). In the following paragraphs, we will focus on the state"gd a0*$$CC" commissions' responsibility to arbitrate interconnection issues, as it is this responsibility upon which MCI relies in seeking preemption under 252(e)(5).  X- x26.` ` Pursuant to our preemption jurisdiction under section 252(e)(5), we have  X-authority to interpret what it means for a state commission to "fail to act" under this section..b + yO-ԍxThe legislative history of this section provides little guidance regarding the meaning of the phrase "fails to act." The conference committee report, in discussing section 252(e)(5) and other provisions of section 252, tends merely to track the language in the statute itself. For example, the "conference agreement" portion of the discussion of section 252 in the Joint Explanatory Statement states that section 252(e) "provides Commission authority to act if a State does not" and that "[t]he House recedes to the Senate on section 252(e)." Joint Managers' Statement, S. Conf. Rep. No. 104230, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 1112 (1996) (Joint Explanatory Statement). The "Senate bill" portion of the discussion of section 252, in turn, indicates that the Senate bill, if enacted, would have provided that "if a State fails to carry out its [arbitration] responsibilities . . . the  {O] -Commission shall assume the responsibilities of the State in the applicable proceeding or matter." Id. at 1112..  X-As stated above, we concluded in the Local Competition Order that we would not take an "expansive view" of what constitutes a state commission's "failure to act" within the meaning  Xa-of section 252(e)(5).Yca+ {O-ԍxSee supra  FCCREGS7.Y Nevertheless, to give effect to our clear grant of preemption authority under that section, we conclude that we must examine more specifically the responsibilities Congress gave the states, in the first instance, to perform pursuant to section 252. For this examination, we return to the language of the Act.  X - x27.CLEARLYSPECIFIC` ` Section 252(b)(4)(A) requires a state commission conducting an arbitration to "limit its consideration . . . to the issues set forth in the petition and in the response, if any,  X -filed [by the nonpetitioning party to the arbitration]."Md , + yO-ԍx47 U.S.C.  252(b)(4)(A).M We interpret this provision to mean that, in cases involving arbitration proceedings, a state commission may not be found to have "failed to act" within the meaning of section 252(e)(5) if the issue or issues that are the subject of the preemption petition were never clearly and specifically presented to the state commission in accordance with any procedures set forth by the state commission. In our view, it would be inconsistent with the Act's grant of authority to the state commissions to arbitrate disputes if we interpreted the statute to authorize us to preempt the state commissions for "failing" to arbitrate disputes that were not clearly and specifically presented to the state commission in the first instance for arbitration.  X- x28.` ` We emphasize that, because we may not find that state commissions have "failed to act" within the meaning of section 252(e)(5) solely because they have not arbitrated issues that were never clearly presented to them, it is critical that parties petitioning for" d0*$$CC4"  X-arbitration present all unresolved issues that they wish arbitrated (rather than a subset of such issues) to the state commission as expeditiously and specifically as possible. Section 252(b)(2) makes clear that a party petitioning for arbitration must "at the same time as it submits the petition, provide the State commission all relevant documentation concerning . . . the unresolved issues; [and] . . . the position of each of the parties with respect to those  X-issues."Me+ yO-ԍx47 U.S.C.  252(b)(2)(A).M According to section 252(b)(3), the nonpetitioning party may, but is not required  Xz-to, respond to the arbitration petition.JfzX+ yO -ԍx47 U.S.C.  252(b)(3).J Thus, a petitioner for arbitration may not rely on the nonpetitioning party to raise, in its response to the petition, any unresolved issues or to present the nonpetitioning party's positions on such issues, as such a response may never be filed.  X -x29.` ` We believe that the language of section 252 suggests that Congress intended that the process of negotiating and, when necessary, arbitrating interconnection agreements would have some definite end. Specifically, section 252(b)(4)(C) requires state commissions to resolve any open issues set forth in an arbitration petition and response within nine months  X -after the date on which the incumbent LEC received the request for interconnection.Mg + yOD-ԍx47 U.S.C.  252(b)(4)(C).M Further, section 252(c)(3) requires a state commission that is conducting an arbitration to provide a schedule for implementation of the terms and conditions derived through arbitration  Xf-by the parties to the arbitration.Jhfx+ yO-ԍx47 U.S.C.  252(c)(3).J We interpret these provisions as requiring state commissions, at the very least, to ensure that they do not forestall the completion of interconnection negotiations by failing to resolve all the issues clearly presented to them in a  X!-timely manner.vi!+ {O-ԍx47 U.S.C.  252(b)(4)(C); see also 47 C.F.R.  51.801(b).v  X-x30.NOAGMTREQUIRED` ` We also remind carriers that they have an ongoing duty, pursuant to section  X-251(c)(1), to negotiate the terms and conditions of interconnection in good faith.Jj+ yO' -ԍx47 U.S.C.  251(c)(1).J We strongly encourage state commissions, in addition to satisfying their mediation and arbitration responsibilities under section 252, to enforce vigorously all carriers' duty to negotiate in good faith. We find that only by fulfilling both of these responsibilities will state commissions provide new entrants with the best opportunity to reach complete and workable"* j0*$$CCP" interconnection agreements with incumbent carriers.  X- B.xThe Missouri Arbitration   X-x31.` ` We find that MCI has not proven that the Missouri Commission "failed to act  X-to carry out its responsibilities under section 252 of the Act," as required by our rules,k+ {O-ԍxLocal Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16128,  1285; see also 47 C.F.R.  51.803(b). and thus we deny MCI's petition for preemption. In particular, on the record before us, we find that the Missouri Commission resolved in a timely manner all of the issues that were clearly and specifically presented to it. We thus conclude, on these facts, that the Missouri Commission's conduct did not amount to a "failure to act" within the meaning of section 252(e)(5).  X -x32.` ` We reject the Missouri Commission's argument that we may not preempt pursuant to section 252(e)(5) simply because the Missouri Commission issued its July 31, 1997 Arbitration Order. That order, issued nearly two weeks after MCI filed its July 18, 1997 preemption petition with this Commission, established permanent rates for unbundled network elements and services for resale and set a deadline for the parties to submit a final  Xy-interconnection agreement.UlyZ+ yO-ԍxMissouri Commission Response at 35.U Although MCI claims that the Missouri Commission, in its earlier December 11, 1996 Arbitration Order, should have set a deadline for the parties to  XK-submit a completed interconnection agreement,GmK+ yO-ԍxMCI Petition at 1516.G its preemption petition is based on its view that the Missouri Commission failed to arbitrate "numerous issues which are essential to  X-forging a valid, binding contract."@nz+ {OH-ԍxId. at 7.@ These issues extend well beyond pricing.to + {O-ԍxId. at 78. See supra  MCIPETITIONSUM15.t Consequently, we find that MCI's petition is not rendered moot by the Missouri Commission's July 31, 1997 Arbitration Order.  X-x 33.` ` MCI's case for preemption consists essentially of two arguments. First, MCI argues that the Missouri Commission "failed to act" within the meaning of section 252(e)(5) because it did not, in MCI's view, carry out all of the tasks that the Act assigns to state  X|-commissions conducting arbitrations. Second, MCI makes a related argument that the Missouri Commission "failed to act" because it did not carry out its required arbitration tasks  XN-within the ninemonth time frame that the Act specifies under section 252(b)(4)(C). "No0*$$CC"Ԍ X-ԙx!34.` ` With respect to the first argument, we find no basis for concluding that the Missouri Commission, to date, has failed to carry out all of its arbitration responsibilities under section 252. As stated above, MCI's August, 1996 arbitration petition only generally  X-described the unresolved issues.p+ {O4-ԍxSee generally MCI Petition, Affidavit of Stephen F. Morris, Exhibit B at 1236. See supra  MCIARBPET9. Subsequently, the Missouri Commission requested that the parties file a Joint Issues Memorandum that clearly set out the position of each party "on  X-every contested issue."rqZ+ yO-ԍxMissouri Commission Response at 3; SWBT Response at 3. r The Missouri Commission thus specified how it wanted the parties to present the unresolved issues to it for arbitration. As noted above, the parties filed the Joint Issues Memorandum on October 4, 1996, as requested. The first 41 issues listed in the Joint Issues Memorandum clearly specified each unresolved issue and the parties' positions on those issues, as required by the Missouri Commission. In contrast, MCI failed to identify clearly or specifically any of the issues encompassed by Item 42 of the Joint Issues  X -Memorandum, even though it was directly requested by the Missouri Commission to do so.Tr + yO-ԍxJoint Issues Memorandum at 5758. T Rather, for purposes of Item 42, MCI merely asked the Missouri Commission to "adopt the  X -other terms and conditions expressed in MCI's proposed Interconnection Agreement."As z+ {O-ԍxId. at 58.A Similarly, in submitting the June 16, 1997 Proposed Agreement, MCI asked the Missouri Commission, in essence, to comb through that agreement, identify the unresolved issues, and then adopt MCI's positions on those issues. We thus agree with the Missouri Commission and SWBT that, with the exception of the first 41 issues listed in the Joint Issues Memorandum, MCI's various submissions fell short of satisfying its duty, under section 252(b)(2) and pursuant to the Missouri Commission's procedures, to present any open issues and the parties' positions on such issues clearly and specifically, so that the Missouri  X-Commission could then arbitrate the issues.t + {O-ԍxMissouri Commission Response at 4; SWBT Response at 9; see also 47 U.S.C.  252(b)(2).  X-x"35.` ` For its part, the Missouri Commission could have exercised its authority, pursuant to section 252(b)(4)(B) and as part of its responsibility for enforcing the duty to negotiate in good faith, to require the parties to have submitted additional information, according to its procedures, that the Missouri Commission needed to facilitate the  X-arbitration.Ju+ yO"-ԍx47 U.S.C.  252(b)(2).J We wish to underscore that use of state commissions' power to request information, coupled with aggressive enforcement of the duty to negotiate in good faith, will"|. u0*$$CCP" increase the likelihood that arbitrations will result in completed interconnection agreements that will afford consumers a choice of service providers over the long term.  X-x#36.` ` In any event, there is no dispute that the 41 issues clearly presented to the Missouri Commission in the Joint Issues Memorandum were decided by the Missouri Commission as set forth in the December 11, 1996 Arbitration Order. While MCI claims that the Missouri Commission "left unresolved myriad terms and conditions which are necessary to implement even those issues that it did resolve," it points to nothing in the record indicating that the "myriad terms" to which it refers were ever presented clearly and specifically to the  X1-Missouri Commission.Cv1+ yO -ԍxMCI Petition at 8.C We recognize that the human and other resources available to state commissions to investigate and resolve open arbitration issues are finite. It would appear that, subsequent to the December 11, 1996 Arbitration Order, the Missouri Commission devoted many of its resources to establishing permanent rates for unbundled elements and services for  X -resale, both of which were areas of significant concern for MCI.wZ X+ {O-ԍxMissouri Commission Petition at 56; see also MCI Petition, Affidavit of Stephen F. Morris, Exhibit I at 2; MCI Petition, Affidavit of Stephen F. Morris, Exhibit L at 2; MCI Petition, Affidavit of Stephen F. Morris, Exhibit M at 2. Given that the Missouri Commission did, in fact, require the parties to submit information to supplement the August,  X -1996 arbitration petition[xX z+ yO-ԍxIndeed, as SWBT and the Missouri Commission point out, the Missouri Commission's September, 1996 Consolidation Order required the parties to file an issues memorandum that "clearly set out the position of each party on every contested issue." SWBT Response at 3; Missouri Commission Response at 3.[ and then resolved all of the issues clearly and specifically presented to it in the Joint Issues Memorandum, we find, on these facts, that the Missouri Commission's failure to require the parties to submit even more information did not rise to the level of a "failure to act" within the meaning of section 252(e)(5). Thus, we reject MCI's argument that the Missouri Commission failed to carry out all of its arbitration responsibilities under section 252.  X-x$37.` ` With respect to MCI's second line of argument, we reject its contention that the Missouri Commission "failed to act" because it did not resolve all disputed issues including those encompassed by MCI's proposed agreements within nine months after MCI requested interconnection with SWBT. As stated above, the language of the Act indicates that a state commission may not be found to have "failed to act" within the meaning of section 252(e)(5) solely on the basis that the state commission did not arbitrate issues that were never clearly  X|-and specifically presented to it.by|+ {O#-ԍxSee supra  CLEARLYSPECIFIC27.b Further, there is no dispute that the Missouri Commission"|, y0*$$CC" resolved the issues that were, in fact, clearly and specifically presented to it in the December 11, 1996 Arbitration Order. Because the Missouri Commission issued the December 11, 1996, Arbitration Order within 9 months of March 26, 1996, the date on which MCI requested interconnection with SWBT, we conclude that the Missouri Commission met the  X-deadline specified in section 252(b)(4)(C).Wz+ {O-ԍxSee 47 U.S.C.  252(b)(4)(C).W  Xv-x%38.` ` As a general matter, we agree with MCI that setting deadlines for parties to an arbitration to file completed interconnection agreements will make it more likely that carriers  XH-will, in fact, reach such agreements.D{HZ+ yOS -ԍxMCI Petition at 14.D It appears, for example, that the experience gained by the Missouri Commission in the course of this arbitration led it to set a deadline in its July  X -31, 1997 Arbitration Order for the parties to file an interconnection agreement.c| + yO-ԍxMissouri Commission Response, Attachment A at 5. c We conclude, nonetheless, that the Missouri Commission's decision not to impose a deadline for the parties to file an agreement in the December 11, 1996 Arbitration Order did not, on these facts, amount to a "failure to act" within the meaning of section 252(e)(5). We find that, in  X -light of the parties' apparent inability to agree on interconnection terms before now,} z+ {O-ԍxSee, e.g., December 11, 1996 Arbitration Order at 47 ("The failure of the parties to negotiate in good faith has brought the arbitration of virtually every detail to the [Missouri] Commission's doorstep."). as well as the unresolved issues that the Missouri Commission did not reach (because MCI failed to present them clearly and specifically for arbitration), it would be unfair to attribute the parties' failure to reach a completed agreement at this late date primarily to the Missouri Commission's decision not to impose a deadline for the submission of such an agreement.  X- :IV. CONCLUSION ׃  X-x&39.` ` For the foregoing reasons, we deny MCI's petition under section 252(e)(5) for preemption of the jurisdiction of the Missouri Commission with respect to MCI's arbitration proceeding with SWBT. "}0*$$CC3"  X- V. ORDERING CLAUSES ׃  X-x'40.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 252, the petition for preemption filed by MCI Telecommunications Corporation and MCImetro Access Transmission Services, Inc. is DENIED.  x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhWilliam F. Caton x` `  hhActing Secretary