WPC. 2BB@R@ Z3|B Times New RomanTimes New Roman (Bold)Times New Roman (Italic)"5@^*8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZ*8888CE8SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS8S888SAxSf.fExSxSxSxo8oE]A]AN:*LS8JSSSSS.4}}S2S}288JJS88SS8J82t8[[[[^ee*C`^.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*********************************8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZv**8SJSS8]8****88JJ:S8A8x**x*8SSSS!S8.S^8SC[228`L*824S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff8888xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSSHP LaserJet 4M(PCL) (Additional)HPLAS4M.WRSC\  P6Q,,,f%P23 t~'3|X I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNa݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheading"0\ E A.  2|%#^ #$dk#%#&$FOOTNOTEFootnote - Appearance#PHIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd$+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date% X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style off&@@    2)'X%(1&)17'*1h(HEADERHeader A - Appearance'LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5( 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5)f 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11*L 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   2C,+1),n*-Xj+.+LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14+ 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a Document,K\ * ăFOOTERFooter A - Appearanced-BLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indented.N X 2//iu,0d,1jB-2-HEADING 33rd Heading Level/| XHIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold Large0B*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored1 V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/margins2u H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   243E/4-B158o2683INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math Invoice3 ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page Format4D.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice5:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macro6z 4p, $0$0027758X69[ 7:[e7INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice7+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle8SMALLSmall Typestyle9FINEFine Typestyle:2:;[7<[M8=[8>9LARGELarge Typestyle;EXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle<VERY LARGEVery Large Typestyle=ENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header>+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   2<?X:@X;Ah;B<MACNormal?,.1@dfStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without MarginsA$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5B$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO 2MDC<DlAE%CFCStyle 11Initial Codes for Advanced IICJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/TabsD )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsEDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 FontF4h )a [ PfQO  dddn 2FG|DHDIEJ;FStyle 2Dutch Italic 11.5G$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 PointH$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5I$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 PointJ$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO 26[K GLLMQN VStyle 10oInitial Codes for AdvancedK U )a [ PfQK  dddn  ##  [[ b, oT9 !b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  QN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8PfInitial Codes for BeginninggLi )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9Initial Codes for IntermediateM )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 Њ [ e )^ `> XifQ ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   3 )^ `> XifQ Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jf )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`+ >Page  jX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 UpdateInitial Codes for Update ModuleN )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`7 CPage  jN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2]Oh[P"\Q}\R]Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph FontO11#XXz PQXP##Iz PQP#head1 #P'd#2p}wC@ #a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfQ$ a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfR/` ` ` 2f`S]Tk^U _V_a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfS:` ` `  a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfTE` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfUP  ` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfV[   2fW`XWag!bylda7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfWf  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfXq Times New RomanTimes New Roman (Bold)Times New Roman (Italic)Times New Roman (Bold Italic)CG Times8+G7  pTQ DPC2XWXP7  PT6QXP, DUC2XYXU7  pTQX]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d"" reference;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2I ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  B2OFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded Documentiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#annotation rK&7>annotation referenceGw. "7>NGI "OaOb#Xv P7XP##Xv P7XP#annotation tK&7>annotation textGw/ "7>NGI "2c(d2G2*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "8ij@  2pT9G9*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "wwx` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 10G0*(Q&7tDocument Style Gl0 "7t GI "׸GH` ` ` 11G1*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׹4I$J     12G2*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׺*KL    2g13G3*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׻'MN   14G4*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׼&OP   15G5*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׽&QR  . 16G6*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׾&ST  . 2n7A17G7*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׿&UV  . 18G8*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "&WX  . 19G9*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "8YZ@  20G:*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "A[\@` ` `  ` ` ` 2fD21G;*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "J]^` ` ` @  ` ` ` 22G<*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "S_`` ` `  @  23G=*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "\ab` ` `  @hhh hhh 24G>*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "ecd` ` `  hhh@ hhh 2`125G?*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "nef` ` `  hhh@  26G@*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "wgh` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 27wSg K6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJmn` ` @  ` `  28wSg L6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ESop` `  @  2j)29wSg M6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\qr` `  @hh# hhh 30wSg N6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Eest` `  hh#@( hh# 31wSg O6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Enuv` `  hh#(@- ( 32wSg P6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ewwx` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2Epd33wSg R6w Document Style=(H8g Rܺ*HںwSg E{|` ` ` 34wSg S6w Technical Document Styleg Sܺ*HںwSg E4}$~     35wSg T6w Technical Document Styleg Tܺ*HںwSg E*    36wSg U6w Technical Document Styleg Uܺ*HںwSg E'   2w 37wSg V6w Technical Document Styleg Vܺ*HںwSg E&   38wSg W6w Technical Document Styleg Wܺ*HںwSg E&  . 39wSg X6w Technical Document Styleg Xܺ*HںwSg E&  . 40wSg Y6w Technical Document Styleg Yܺ*HںwSg E&  . 2"Q~41wSg Z6w Technical Document Styleg Zܺ*HںwSg E&  . 42wSg [6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   43wSg \6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 44wSg ]6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  2>Tv45wSg ^6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  46wSg _6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 47wSg `6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 48wSg a6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 2LpA49wSg b6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 50wSg c6w Document Style=(H8g cܺ*HںwSg EF *  ׃  51wSg d6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  52wSg e6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  2~453wSg f6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 54wSg g6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 55wSg h6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 56wSg i6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2p.z57wSg j6w Document Style=(H8g jܺ*HںwSg E` ` ` 58wSg k6w Technical Document Styleg kܺ*HںwSg E4$     59wSg l6w Technical Document Styleg lܺ*HںwSg E*    60wSg m6w Technical Document Styleg mܺ*HںwSg E'   2dAZ61wSg n6w Technical Document Styleg nܺ*HںwSg E&   62wSg o6w Technical Document Styleg oܺ*HںwSg E&  . 63wSg p6w Technical Document Styleg pܺ*HںwSg E&  . 64wSg q6w Technical Document Styleg qܺ*HںwSg E&  . 2H65wSg r6w Technical Document Styleg rܺ*HںwSg E&  . 66wSg s6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   67wSg t6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 68wSg u6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  2@69wSg v6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  70wSg w6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 71wSg x6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 72wSg y6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 2: X73wSg z6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 74wSg {6w Document Style=(H8g {ܺ*HںwSg EF *  ׃  75wSg |6w Document Style=(H8g |ܺ*HںwSg E*   76wSg }6w Document Style=(H8g }ܺ*HںwSg E0    2qeepZ77wSg ~6w Document Style=(H8g ~ܺ*HںwSg E  . 78wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  79wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  80wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E` ` ` 2X@(3<"5@^*8]SS.88S_*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo8.8aS8S]J]J8S].8].]S]]JA8]SxSSJB%BW*8888CE8S]xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxJxJxJoJoJoJSSSS]]C]A]A8A]S]o.oEx]x]SxxJxJ]A]AN:*ZS8SSSSSS27}}S2||S}288SSS88SS8S82t8[[[[_ee*C`_.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*********************************8]SS.88S_*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo8.8aS8S]J]J8S].8].]S]]JA8]SxSSJB%BWv**8SSSS8]8****88SS:S8A8x**x*8SSSS%S8|2S_8|SC[228`Z*827S}}}SxxxxxxxooooAAAAxx_xxxxxf]SSSSSSxJJJJJ....S]SSSSS[S]]]]S]   2J@@ @ "5@^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCddddddd<d<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd2VZ|<@@ n9B8*X6B7  PT6QP, n9G8*X8+G7  pTQ DPC2XWXP7  PT6QXP, DUC2XYXU7  pTQXj DPC2X'XP7  xTQXX DRC2X@2gXR7  xTyQX O)0(X-h07  PT6QhP"5@^2Nodd8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdNdzzozzzC8CrdCddYdYCdo88d8odddNN8oYdYNF,Fr2CC!CCPRCdddddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddoooozYddddzYdzddddYYYYYYddddooPdNdNCNdddz8zRoodNRoNoNNF2ddNdddddd5<!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006G!2,d22!d8!Y!!,,#2d!b'!HH!22222!L28!L2(7!:-!2KKK,HHHHHHYC====!!!!HHHHHHH8HHHHHH82,,,,,,C,,,,,222222272222222"5@^17PSS777S7777SSSSSSSSSS77Seeoxe_xx7Jo\oxexeS\xee\\777SSSSSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSS@@.SJoJJ@JSJSSSSSSESSSeSeSeSeSeSooJeJeJeJeJ7.7.7.7.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS\JeSxSxSxS\JxSeSeSeSeSoJoSoSeSeSeSxSxSxxSxSxSxSSSSSSSSoJ\.\EoSoSxSoe@eES@S@NSSS7SMMSSSSSS:SSS:77SSS..SSe7S7:t7[[ee*S\.wRMMn[Cfx\xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge1111111111111111111111111111111117PSS777S7777SSSSSSSSSS77Seeoxe_xx7Jo\oxexeS\xee\\777SSSSSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSS@@.SJoJJ@JSJS117SSSSSS.111177SSSSSe@.o11\17SSSSSSSSSM7SSS::S\SMS:SMSeeeeeeoeeee7777xoxxxxxxxxxx\eSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSSSSSSSJS"5@^*8FSS$88Sq*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88qqqSffoxffxx8Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ*8888CE8SSfSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSfSoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS8S888SJoJ].]EoSoSxSofAfESASAN:*WSASSSSSS.4}}S2S}288]]S88SS8]82t8[[[[qee*C`q.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*********************************8FSS$88Sq*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88qqqSffoxffxx8Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZv**8S]SS8S8****88]]:S8A8o**]*ASSSS.S8.Sq8SC[228`W*824S}}}Sffffffoffff8888xoxxxxxqxxxxx]fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSJS2t. @# @&^*d"5@^17MSS777S7777SSSSSSSSSS77Jxhr{hbx{7@uh{x_xoYh{xxxl777SSSJSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS=@.SSxSSJJSJSSSSSSESSSxJxJxJxJxJorJhJhJhJhJ7.7.7.7.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S_SxSxSxSrJrSrShShShSxSxSxxSxS{S{SSSSSSS7SSuSh.hE{S{SxSxo=oEY@Y@NSSS7JDDSSSSSS:SSS:77VVS++SSe7V7:t7[[ee*S\.wRDDn[Cfx\xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge1111111111111111111111111111111117MSS777S7777SSSSSSSSSS77Jxhr{hbx{7@uh{x_xoYh{xxxl777SSSJSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS=@.SSxSSJJSJS117SVSSSY+111177VVSSSe@+x11x17SSSSSSSSSD7SSS::S\SS:SDJxxxxxxrhhhh7777{{xxxxxx{{{{x_SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSSSSSSSSS"5@^!.22YN!!!2Y!!!!2222222222!!dYd,YH?DJ?;HJ!'F?ZJH9HB6?JH^HHA!!!222,2,2,!222N2222%'22H22,,2,222222)222H,H,H,H,H,YBD,?,?,?,?,!!!!J2H2H2H2H2J2J2J2J2H2H,J2H2H2H2J292H2H2H2D,D2D2?2?2?2H2H2HH2H2J2J22222222F2??)J2J2H2YHB%B)6'6'N222!,))22222YY2#222Y#!!442Y22=Y!4x!#t!Y77YYc<<!.22YN!!!2Y!!!!2222222222!!dYd,YH?DJ?;HJ!'F?ZJH9HB6?JH^HHA!!!222,2,2,!222N2222%'22H22,,2,2d!24Y222x6Y!!4422Y2='HH!222222222)Y!222Y##272.2#2)YYY,HHHHHHYD????!!!!JJHHHHHYHJJJJH92,,,,,,B,,,,,2222222Y2222222 n9B8*X6B7  PT6QP, n9G8*X8+G7  pTQ DPC2XWXP7  PT6QXP, DUC2XYXU7  pTQXj DPC2X'XP7  xTQXX DRC2X@2gXR7  xTyQX !O)0(X-h07  PT6QhP "B"(!X,(7  PT6Q,Pj #n9C8*X'<C7  xTQXt$x/D81X^D PE3QP t%H)!X^,) PE3Q,Pz-D81XgD&_ xQXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN+HH+7<)5<<<rr18. Finally, we reject the LECs' various arguments that the IXCs' complaints were untimely  xon grounds of equity or general reasonableness. None of the LECs has cited specific authority for equitable defenses to a Section 208 complaint.  e2 sIV. SUBSTANTIVE CLAIMS  e2rrA. Commission Rule 69.105(a)  e|2rr 1. Application and Measurement of CCL Charges  eN2rr a. Contentions rr  rvrr19. The IXCs argue that the LECs may assess a CCL charge only when a call transported  xby an IXC actually, physically uses a common line connecting the enduser subscriber to the LEC  e2 xend office serving the subscriber.z0 nZk!(#C\  P6Q6P#эrrAT&T Br. at 2, 7; MCI Br. at 34. z In particular, the IXCs contend that use of LEC central office  xswitching capabilities alone is not enough to trigger application of a CCL charge; a call must  e 2 xtransit the common line between the end user and the end office.1 X nZ$(#C\  P6Q6P#эrrAT&T Br. at 34, 6, 1112; AT&T Reply at 3, 6; MCI Reply at 5. In addition, the IXCs claim  xthat measurement of access minutes of use should mirror the exact number of minutes a call"! 1,N(N(ZZN "  e2 xactually uses a common line.*2X nZy( r#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrrAT&T Br. at 7; MCI Br. at 23. This issue arises primarily with respect to call waiting and, to a lesser extent,  nZA( x2with threeway calling and call forwardingtype configurations (i.e., the reminder ring signaling the subscriber that  nZ (the forwarding option has been activated). See Section IV.A.2, infra, regarding these individual services.* In support of their position, the IXCs cite Section 69.105(a) of  x$the Commission's rules, which states that CCL charges are assessed on IXCs that "use common  e2 xline facilities."3 nZk(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrr47 C.F.R.  69.105(a); AT&T Br. at 2, 3; MCI Br. at 23. The IXCs maintain that the rule expressly requires tangible use of a common  e2line not merely central office equipment before LECs may impose a CCL charge.f4x nZ ( rp#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrrSee, e.g., AT&T Br. at 34. MCI Br. at 4 (characterizing the imposition of a CCL charge without actual use of the common line as a "freefloating tax" to recover costs that are not caused by the IXC). f rr  e2 r:rr20. The IXCs also point to the 861 Docket Order,5 nZ( r#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrrWATSRelated and Other Amendments to Part 69 of the Commission's Rules, CC Docket No. 861, 59 Rad.  nZ( xReg. 2d 1418 (1986) ("861 Docket Order"); see also WATSRelated and Other Amendments, CC Docket No. 861,  nZ( xNotice of Proposed Rulemaking, 51 Fed. Reg. 633 (1986) ("861 NPRM"); Common Carrier Services; WATSRelated  nZf( xand Other Amendments of the Access Charge Rules, CC Docket No. 861, Final Rule, 51 Fed. Reg. 10839 (1986) ("861 Final Rule").  in which the Commission modified  ev2 xjS ection 69.105 to exempt from CCL charges closedend WATS arrangements, which do not use  e_2 xa common line to connect end users to the end office.6_  nZ(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrrAT&T Br. at 8. The IXCs note that the original version  xof Section 69.105(a) stated that CCL charges shall be assessed on all IXCs "that use local  e12 xexchange switching facilities."71 nZ(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrr861 NPRM, 51 Fed. Reg. at 640 (presenting Sections 69.105(a) as proposed). According to the IXCs, the Commission modified Section  x$69.105(a) to provide that CCL charges apply to all IXCs "that use local exchange common line  xpfacilities," to clarify that a CCL charge does not apply based solely on use of local exchange  e 2 xswitching facilities.8  nZ=(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrr861 Final Rule, 51 Fed. Reg. at 10841 (presenting Sections 69.105 (a) as adopted). Moreover, the IXCs argue that Bell Atlantic Cellular,9 0 nZ(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrrBell Atlantic Tel. Cos. Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, 6 FCC Rcd 4794 (Com. Car. Bur. 1991). the NYNEX Waiver  e 2 xOrder,:  nZF (#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrrNYNEX Tel Cos. Pet. for Waiver, 10 FCC Rcd 7445 (1995). and Bill Correctors ; P nZ!(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrrBill Correctors, Inc. v. Pacific Bell, 10 FCC Rcd 2305 (1995); see note 101, infra.  have established that LECs may not recover a CCL charge unless  e 2a common line is used, and may assess the charge only once for each use.<  nZO$(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrrAT&T Br. at 1012; AT&T Reply at 912.  rrr21. The IXCs present an additional "double recovery" argument. They contend that the  xRLECs' assessment of an interstate CCL charge for the use of common line is inappropriate in"y p<,N(N(ZZ"  xcertain types of call situations, especially call forwarding, where the LECs recover the cost of  xthe common line from intrastate sources through intrastate toll charges, subscriber fees for the  e2 xoptional service, or general contribution.=X nZK( r:#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrrAT&T specifically raises this argument with respect to call forwarding (AT&T Br. at 26) and threeway  nZ( xcalling (id. at 3031); MCI specifically raises it with respect to call forwarding (MCI Br. at 78), call waiting (id.  nZ(at 10), threeway calling (id. at 910), and voice mail and fax processing (id. at 12).  In support of this position, the IXCs cite Bell Atlantic  e2 xCellular, in which the Commission found unlawful a CCL charge to the IXC for the link from  xthe LEC serving office to the radio common carrier (RCC), not only because this link is not a  xcommon line, but also because the LEC already recovers those costs from the RCC pursuant to  ev2 xintercarrier agreements.>v nZ ( x2#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#э MCI Br. at 79, 12 (citing Bell Atlantic Cellular). MCI also relies on Crockett Telephone Co. v. FCC, 963  xBF.2d 1564 (D.C. Cir. 1992)), concerning interjurisdictional effects of mixing average schedule and actual cost  xratemaking, for the proposition, quoted by the Court from an earlier decision by the Commission, that "'[n]o company  xhas a legal or equitable right to obtain more than its full costs by recovering more than the appropriate allocation  nZ/( x6under Part 36 of the Commission rules for either its interstate or intrastate costs." MCI Reply at 57 (citing 963 F.2d  nZ(at 1572 (quoting MTS and WATS Market Structure Average Schedule Companies, 103 F.C.C. 2d 1017, 1027)). Similarly, the IXCs assert that they should not be liable for  xBunanticipated common line charges attributable to an optional service that the subscriber, on its  eH2own initiative, takes from the LEC.?H`  nZY(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrrMCI Br. at 79. ,LL  rrr22. The LECs raise several arguments to counter the IXCs' allegations. First, the LECs  xassert that for purposes of applying a CCL charge, it does not matter whether a call uses a  e 2 xcommon line for all or part of the call.@  nZ(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrrSee, e.g., Bell Atlantic Br. at 2; NYNEX Br. at 3, 10; BellSouth Br. at 10, 13; Pacific Br. at 910. Most of the LECs stress that CCL charges are designed  e 2 xto recover a fixed sum of nontraffic sensitive common line costs.A  nZ(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrrBell Atlantic Br. at 4; NYNEX Br. at 3, 9; BellSouth Br. at 8; US West Reply at 2. They submit that even  xthough the Commission required IXCs to contribute to recovery of common line costs, the  e 2 x|Commission recognized that end users, rather than IXCs, "cause" common line costs.;B  nZh( r#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrrBell Atlantic Br. at 34; Ameritech Br. at 2, 5, 6; Ameritech Reply at 23, 7, 8; NYNEX Reply at 910; BellSouth Br. at 810; BellSouth Reply at 7; US West Br. at 11.;  xAccordingly, the LECs argue, since the CCL charge is an imperfect match between cost causation  x$and recovery, the Commission did not intend that this charge recoup the costs of IXCs' "use" of  xcommon lines, or of a particular service. Instead, according to the LECs, CCL charges are a cost  xspreading mechanism or subsidy from long distance to local exchange services to limit economic  e42 xburdens to end users.LC4h nZM$( r#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrrBell Atlantic Br. at 5; Bell Atlantic Reply at 3; Ameritech Br. at 2; BellSouth Br. at 810, 12; SWBT Br. at 4; Pacific Br. at 10; GTE Br. at 2.L Thus, the LECs assert that the Section 69.105(a) reference to common  x4line "use" identifies which carriers must pay the CCL charge, but does not describe how the" C,N(N(ZZ$"  e2charge is assessed.D nZy(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrrNYNEX Reply at 4; GTE Reply at 1, 4, 5 n.8.  rrr23. Second, the LECs advance a related argument that a CCL charge applies to all access  e2 xminutes that in some manner use their access switching capabilities.EX nZ( r#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrrBell Atlantic Br. at 2, 5 (applies to use of "switched access service"); Ameritech Br. at 6 (charges apply to  xminutes of use involving "basic local exchange service"); NYNEX Br. at 3 (applies for services "connected to  xcommon line facilities"); BellSouth Br. at 8, 1213, 2021 (applies to use of local exchange switching facilities); US  x West Reply at 5 (applies when call using switched access "actually or potentially utilizes a common line"); SWBT Br. at 1, 3 (applies to use of "any portion" of common line facilities). The LECs contend that  x\the common line encompasses not only the line connecting the end user to the serving central  e2 xoffice, but also the central office equipment at that central office.4F nZF ( r#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrrSee, e.g., Bell Atlantic Br. at 9; SWBT Br. at 1, 3 (noting central office circuit equipment is partially  xapportioned to common line under Section 69.306(e)); SWBT Reply at 3, 56 (also noting Section 69.306(e)). GTE  xznotes that the CCL charge is a "carrier's carrier charge" imposed on IXCs that use "local exchange switching  nZ( xfacilities." GTE Br. at 3 (citing Sections 69.4 and 69.5 of the Commission's rules, governing the elements of  xcarrier's carrier charges (including carrier common line) and the applicability of such charges to switched access service)). 4 Moreover, like the IXCs, the  ev2 xLECs draw support from the Commission's modification of Section 69.105 in the 861 Docket  e_2 xOrder. The LECs, however, highlight the Commission's statement that differences in the adopted  eH2 xversion of the rule did "not reflect any difference in substantive result"GH  nZy(#C\  P6Q6P#эrr861 Docket Order, 59 Rad. Reg. at 1429 n.61. from the proposed  e12 x`version.H1 nZ(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrrBell Atlantic Br. at 45, 7; Ameritech Br. at 710; BellSouth Br. at 1521; BellSouth Reply at 34. The LECs suggest that this revision, as well as other matters on which the IXCs rely,  xVmerely carved out narrow exceptions for WATS or other special access services, and that CCL  e 2charges apply to all other access minutes of use.IX  nZT( r>#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#ЍrrBell Atlantic Br. at 3, 6; Bell Atlantic Reply at 56; Ameritech Br. at 23; Ameritech Reply at 46; NYNEX  rrrBr. at 9; NYNEX Reply at 7; BellSouth Br. at 1526; BellSouth Reply at 4, 69; GTE Br. at 3; GTE Reply rrat 56. rr  rrr24. Third, the LECs dispute the IXCs' claim that measurement of common line minutes  xof use must track, minute by minute, physical use of the common line. They note, for example,  e 2 x$that pursuant to Sections 69.2(a) and 69.105(a) of the Commission's rules,J  nZ"(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrr47 C.F.R.  69.2(a), 69.105(a). the CCL charge is  x8determined based on "access minutes of use," and Section 69.2(a) specifies when measurement  ey2begins and ends.KyP nZz%( r#C\  P6Q6P#ЍrrNYNEX Reply at 4; BellSouth Br. at 2729; SWBT Br. at 5; SWBT Reply at 7; Pacific Reply at 23; GTE Br. at 4; GTE Reply at 79. "bK,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ rrr25. Fourth, each LEC asserts that, except for paging, calls involving the optional services  xLdo use a common line. Initially, the LECs argue that the options make "general" use of common  x$line facilities because the common line is always available for use and is a bundled element of  e2 xswitched access and local exchange service.L nZ4(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrrSee, e.g., Ameritech Br. at 3, 15; NYNEX Br. at 10; BellSouth Br. at 38. In addition, they cite physical uses of the common  x8line in connection with each optional service. For example, in call forwarding, they note that a  xshort signal ring is sent to the subscriber's common line to indicate that the forwarding feature  ev2 xhas been activated;[MvX nZ (ԍrrSee Section IV.A.2.a.i, infra.[ similarly, in threeway calling, they cite the fact that the subscriber's  e_2common line is occupied simultaneously by signals from two distinct sources.[N_ nZ (ԍrrSee Section IV.A.2.e.i, infra.[  rrr26. Finally, the LECs reject the IXCs' additional argument of crossjurisdictional double  x$recovery for common line allegedly resulting from the overlap between interstate CCL charges  xand various forms of intrastate charges for certain services. They argue that jurisdictionally e 2 x2mixed common facilities are apportioned to each jurisdiction by the Part 36 separations process,~O x nZ(#C\  P6Q6P#эrrSee 47 C.F.R. Part 36.~  xand that distinct regimes of rates and cost recovery are applicable thereto. Accordingly, they  e 2claim, the question of duplicated cost recovery across jurisdictional lines is foreclosed.P  nZw( r#C\  P6Q6P#эrrAmeritech Reply (MCI) at 45; BellSouth Reply at 810, 1617; NYNEX Reply at 1617 n.32 ( noting this point was not raised in AT&T's complaint).   e2rr b. Discussion  r&rr27. It is well established that in a formal complaint proceeding pursuant to Section 208  eK2 xof the Act, the complainant has the burden of proof.Q K`  nZ\( r#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrrSee, e.g., Amendment of Rules Concerning Procedures to be Followed When Formal Complaints are Filed  nZ$( xAgainst Common Carriers, 8 FCC Rcd 2614, 261617 (1993); Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel v. AT&T  nZ( xCommunications, 4 FCC Rcd 8130, 8133 (1989), aff'd sub nom. Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel v. FCC,  nZ(915 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 1310 (1991). See generally 47 C.F.R.  1.7201.735.  Applying that standard, and after review  xof our rules, prior decisions, and the record before us, we conclude that the complainant IXCs  xhave carried their burden of showing that the defendant LECs improperly assessed CCL charges in some instances.  r rr28. With respect to the optional services in question, a LEC may impose CCL charges only  x\at points where an interstate or foreign call originates from, or terminates to, an end user via  xBtransmission over a common line. Pursuant to Section 69.105(a), CCL charges are assessed on"H Q,N(N(ZZR"  e2 x"all interexchange carriers that use local exchange common line facilities."R nZy(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrr47 C.F.R.  69.105(a) (emphasis added). This express  xlanguage establishes not only which entities are subject to the charge, but also the prerequisite  xfor application of the charge. Although common line costs are not traffic sensitive, this does not  xmean that CCL charges are not tied to common line use. On the contrary, the Commission  e2 ximplemented a usagebased system of cost recovery in spite of the NTS nature of the costs  e2 x$themselves as a means to ease the transition to its long range plan.SXX nZ( r#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#ЍrrSee, e.g., Access Charge Order, 93 F.C.C. 2d at 24344, 26465, 26667, 278; Reconsideration Order, 97  xPF.C.C. 2d at 70708. We also note that the Commission realized that access could be viewed as a service provided  nZ& (either to IXCs or end users. Access Charge Order, 93 F.C.C. 2d at 249. The Commission had long  ev2 xLrecognized that CCL charges "reduce the relationship between rates and cost causation."Tvx nZ (#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrrReconsideration Order, 97 F.C.C. 2d at 708. Yet,  xafter weighing the advantages and disadvantages of the approach, the Commission concluded that  x(CCL charges were an appropriate transitional means of recouping a portion of common line costs.  rrr29. The Commission has explicitly stated that, "[c]ommon [l]ine usage charges obviously  e 2 x*should reflect common line usage."U  nZ(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrrId. at 709. For example, the Commission has explained that CCL  xcharges under the new plan would "be calculated on a straightforward minutes of use basis for  e 2 xservices using common line facilities."V  nZ(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrrAccess Charge Order, 93 F.C.C. 2d at 285 (emphasis added). The Commission applied this principle in Bell Atlantic  e 2 xCellular, where it held that CCL charges do not apply to calls that terminate to end users over  e 2 x.an RCC's facilities.W (  nZ(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrrBell Atlantic Cellular, 6 FCC Rcd at 479495. The Commission explained that RCCs are carriers, not end users, so that  e2 x\the facilities interconnecting LECs to RCCs are not common line.kX  nZ(#C\  P6Q6P#эrrId. at 4795. k The Commission further  xnoted that RCCs' facilities are not "dedicated to a particular end user" such that those facilities  xcould be considered common line. Accordingly, the Commission concluded that CCL charges  xBdo not apply, and rejected a tariff transmittal that would have applied CCL charges to calls that  e42terminated over RCC facilities.:Y4H  nZ-!(ԍrrId.:  rJrr30. We also reject the LECs' view that CCL charges apply based on use of switching  xfacilities or central office equipment. The fact that certain switching facilities are involved in  x\common line connecting functions and allocated to common line costs does not mean that the  xCCL charge can be completely dissociated from common line use, or that switching equipment  xalone is sufficient to justify imposition of a CCL charge. In fact, the Commission rejected this"Y,N(N(ZZ"  e2very argument when it exempted the closed ends of WATS services from CCL charges.Z nZy(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrr861 Docket Order, 59 Rad. Reg. at 142425, 142930.  e2 rvrr31. Thus, in the Second Reconsideration Order, the Commission decided that the closed  x0ends of WATS services should be subject to CCL charges so that they would be handled  xconsistently under both the access charge rules and the separations rules governing apportionment  e2 xof costs between the intrastate and interstate jurisdictions.[X nZ(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#э 97 F.C.C. 2d at 86667. Although the Commission recognized  xthat WATS closed ends were private lines dedicated to interstate service, the FederalState Joint  x~Board had not completed its examination of direct assignment of costs for separations purposes.  xHence, the Commission temporarily placed closedend WATS arrangements in the common line  xVcategory "to prevent any anomalous results and undue complexity produced by inconsistent cost  e 2 xapportionment and cost recovery procedure."\  nZ(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrr861 NPRM, 51 Fed. Reg. at 634. When the Commission subsequently adopted the  xJoint Board's recommendation that closedend WATS access lines be directly assigned to the  e 2 xappropriate jurisdiction,%] x nZ( rV#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#ЍrrMTS and WATS Market Structure; Establishment of a Joint Board, CC Docket Nos. 7872, 80286, 85655, Final Rule, 51 Fed. Reg. 7942 (1986).% it made corresponding changes to its access charge rules to exempt  e 2closedend WATS from CCL charges because they do not use a common line.k^  nZV(ԍrr861 Docket Order, 59 Rad. Reg. at 142425, 142830.k  e 2 r:rr32. In the 861 Docket Order, the Commission rejected arguments of certain parties that  x`CCL charges should apply to WATS closed ends because WATS calls use local switches. The  xCommission determined that, because closedend WATS arrangements do not use common lines,  xthe costs of these connecting lines themselves should be recovered through special access charges  xinstead of CCL charges, once the temporary discrepancy between cost allocation and rates had  xbeen resolved. The Commission noted, however, that the costs of switching and transport  x.functions actually performed in association with the closed end of WATS lines would continue  e2 xtto be recovered through appropriate traffic sensitive access charge elements._`  nZ(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#эrrId. at 142830. (#rƩ This reflects the  xCommission's recognition that access service consists of several elements, such as common line,  x local switching and local transport, and that costs of each component are recovered through  x`separate charges, triggered by different conditions. In the case of common line, the CCL charge  xpursuant to Section 69.105(a) is expressly conditioned on actual common line use, and the  e2presence of associated switching is immaterial to that determination. `X  nZ4%( xԍ There is no merit to GTE's claim (see note 70, supra) that Section 69.5(b) imposes carrier's carrier charges  x(which include an element for CCL charges under Section 69.4(b)(2)) whenever there is local switching because  xSection 69.5(b) provides that carrier's carrier charges are to be assessed on all IXCs that "use local exchange"&_,N(N(&"  xswitching facilities." The reference to IXCs that "use local exchange switching facilities" in Section 69.5(b) simply  nZX( xrmeans that carrier's carrier charges are generally applicable to switched access service. Section 69.4(b) then specifies  xthe various elements in the general composition of switched access carrier's carrier charges, such as CCL and local  xswitching. Finally, separate provisions provide for imposition and computation of each element depending on  xdiffering factors in each case, such as actual use of carrier common line (Section 69.105(a)) and actual use of local switching (Section 69.106(a)).  "@`,N(N(ZZ$"Ԍ rԙrr 33. The LECs appear to misconstrue certain remarks by the Commission concerning the  e2 xVeffect of the access charge rules adopted in its 861 Docket Order. The Commission originally  xVproposed to modify Section 69.105(a) of the rules to state that a CCL charge would apply to all  xHIXCs "that use local exchange switching facilities, and that [e]ach minute of use of any local  xexchange switch by [interstate or foreign] services, except WATS access line minutes of use,  e2 xshall be counted for purposes of computing and assessing"a@ nZ~ (#C\  P6Q6P#э 861 NPRM, 51 Fed. Reg. at 640 (presenting Sections 69.105(a) and (b) as proposed). the CCL charge. As adopted,  xhowever, the rule applied a CCL charge to IXCs "that use local exchange common line facilities,"  e_2 xbased on access minutes of use that "use local exchange common line facilities."b_ nZ(#C\  P6Q6P#э 861 Final Rule, 51 Fed. Reg. at 10841 (presenting Sections 69.105(a) and (b) as adopted). The  xCommission acknowledged that the proposed and adopted versions were different, but indicated  e12 x@that the variations did "not reflect any difference in substantive result."c1`  nZB(#C\  P6Q6P#э 861 Docket Order, 59 Rad. Reg. at 1429 n. 61. Because the  x.Commission specifically rejected arguments by certain parties that CCL charges should be tied  x>to use of local switches, the Commission's comment cited by the LECs simply clarified that,  e 2 xHnotwithstanding the language of the rule proposed in the 861 NPRM, the Commission never intended to impose CCL charges for use of the local switch.  r4rr!34. Similarly, a CCL charge is generally appropriate only at points where an interexchange  xcall originates or terminates over a common line, and intermediate "uses" do not constitute  x8chargeable common line usage. For instance, Section 69.2(a) of our rules explains how access  eb2 xminutes of use must be measured on the originating and terminating ends of an interexchange  eK2 xcall; it does not provide for intermediate switching or common line "use."X01Í ÍX81Í Í<dK  nZ( x#C\  P6Q6P#Ѝ 47 C.F.R.  69.2(a); cf. 47 C.F.R  69.2(b) (defining "access service" to include "services and facilities provided for the origination or termination of any interstate or foreign telecommunications").< Furthermore, as we  e42 xsaid in Teleconnect Co. v. Bell Tel. Co. of Pennsylvania, "[c]ourts and this Commission have  xconsistently emphasized that they consider the endtoend nature of communications rather than  x`the various facilities used . . . . Interstate wire communication is regulated from its inception to  xits completion by the Communications Act and, within the meaning of the Act, does not end at  e2an intermediate switch."e H  nZ$( x#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#Ѝ 6 FCC Rcd 5202, 5206 (1991), recon., 10 FCC Rcd 1626 (1995), further recon., 11 FCC Rcd 1837 (1996)  nZ%( x"(Teleconnect). See also Bill Correctors, supra (disallowing multiple EUCL charges for intermediate central offices  nZa&( xthrough which the link between an FX customer and its foreign serving office pass). See Section IV.A.2.a.i. infra")'d,N(N(k&"  xRregarding application of these principles to call forwarding. In contrast, however, some call configurations  xdistinguishable from the optional services at issue here may justify imposition of one but only one CCL charge  xfor each common line in an intermediate exchange. For example, a resale offering of WATS or 800 service that  x~involves actual usage of intermediate "common lines" or their functional equivalents to exit and reenter the  nZx( xnetwork in transit through an intermediate PBX may be properly subject to CCL charges. See, e.g., MTS and WATS  xand Market Structure Applicability of Certain Access Charge Provisions to Resold MTS/WATS and MTS/WATS xLtype Services, 1985 WL 260297 (Com. Car. Bur. 1985). The call configurations in the instant proceeding that  xinclude true common lines are distinguishable because they do not involve actual transit out of the network at the intermediate point. "` e,N(N(ZZ@"Ԍ rԙrr"35. Just as a LEC may only impose an interstate CCL charge at points where a continuous  xRinterstate call originates from, or terminates to, an end user via a common line, the LEC may  xonly impose that charge to the extent that it is not also recovering for the same use of the same  xcommon line facilities through various intrastate sources. For us to hold otherwise would  xcondone unwarranted double recovery. On the other hand, this crossjurisdictional double  xrecovery can occur only if the questionable portion of the interstate CCL revenue is clearly  x8attributable to the portion of common line facilities assigned to the intrastate jurisdiction by the  e_2Part 36 separations process.f_`  xPp( #]\  PC P#эAs will be discussed below in Section IV.A.2.a, this issue is particularly important with respect to call forwarding.  rrr#36. We do not agree with the IXCs' contention that measurement of access minutes should  x8mirror the exact number of minutes a call actually uses a common line. Once the conditions for  ximposing a CCL charge are met a common line is used to originate or terminate an  xinterexchange call measurement of chargeable usage is strictly governed by Section 69.2(a). Accordingly,     Xr Lx (#%'0*,.8135@8:X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:xKH : nZD (X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: The Commission has reached similar conclusions regarding  e42the endtoend nature of such calls in Teleconnect and Bill Correctors.y4: nZ"(X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:&(#C\  P6Q6P#э NYNEX Br. at 12; NYNEX Reply Br. at 13 n.27.~ BellSouth also admits that CCL"e ,N(N(ZZ"  e2 xPcharges should not be assessed on calls delivered to paging systems.v nZy(#C\  P6Q6P#э See, e.g., BellSouth Br. at 3.v Pacific initially contended that CCL charges are lawfully applied to paging service calls,cX nZ(#C\  P6Q6P#э Pacific Br. at 9.c but subsequently, consistent with  e2 x4the other LECs' views regarding the practice, agreed to reexamine its position.e nZk(#C\  P6Q6P#э Pacific Reply at 6.e US West  xconcedes that paging companies are cocarriers rather than end users and states that it will  e2conform its tariffs properly. x nZ ( x#C\  P6Q6P#э US West Brief at 11; US West Reply at 7 (stating that connections to paging terminals "are deemed not to be common lines because paging companies are carriers").    :59. GTE is the sole defendant that has not openly expressed a willingness either to  xconcede the inapplicability of CCL charges to paging service calls or, like Pacific and US West,  x(review its practices and work with the IXCs to resolve the dispute. GTE states that it does assess  xCCL charges on calls to be delivered to paging systems that are connected with GTE end offices  xvia DID or Dial Line Connections, and argues that the charges are lawful because both  e 2 xconnections are common lines._  nZ(#C\  P6Q6P#э GTE Br. at 9._ GTE does not address AT&T's claims regarding the use of  xPradio signals to terminate the call or the paging providers' status as either cocarriers or end users.  e 2` `  ,hhh ii. Discussion   ;60. We commend the parties who have worked, or are working amicably to settle this  xissue. Because not all of the parties agree that CCL charges do not apply to paging service calls, however, we must decide the issue.  e42  <61. Bell Atlantic Cellular firmly established that CCL charges should not be assessed on  xZcalls that terminate to end users via radio common carrier (RCC) facilities because those facilities  xare not common lines and RCCs are not end users such that the facilities connecting the wireline  e2 xcarrier to the wireless carrier are common line.k`  nZ (#C\  P6Q6P#э See infra para. 29.k The same reasoning applies to RCCs such as  xpaging carriers they are not themselves end users and the lines to their facilities are not  xcommon line. Accordingly, it is unlawful for a LEC to assess terminating CCL charges on paging service calls.  e72 ` `  ,d. Call Waiting "7 ,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ e2ԙ` `  ,h i. Description and Contentions   =62. Call waiting notifies a subscriber who is already on the telephone that an incoming  xDcall is trying to get through, and enables the subscriber to answer the second call without  e2 xterminating the first call.a nZ(#C\  P6Q6P#э AT&T Br. at 31.a When the second call reaches the LEC end office serving the call  xwaiting subscriber, that end office "holds" the call at the switch and sends a signal tone to the  ev2 xsubscriber.vX nZ ( x(#C\  P6Q6P#Ѝ Id. at 3132; Bell Atlantic Br. at 9; Ameritech Br. at 16 (tone notifies subscriber a second call is "waiting"); SWBT Br. at 67. If the subscriber ignores the tone, the second call is not completed and the LEC  e_2 xpdoes not impose a CCL charge for that call.x_ nZ (#C\  P6Q6P#Ѝ Bell Atlantic Br. at 9 n.21.x If the subscriber instead flashes the telephone  eH2 xswitchhook, he answers the second call, and the first call is held at the LEC end office.H@ nZ9(  0#C\  P6Q6P#эAT&T Br. at 3132; Bell Atlantic Br. at 9; Ameritech Br. at 16 (first call is "suspended"); BellSouth Br. at 3233 & n.60. By  x~repeatedly flashing the switchhook, the subscriber may alternate back and forth between the two  e 2 xcalls.v  nZc(#C\  P6Q6P#э AT&T Br. at 31; Ameritech Br. at 16.v Measurement of minutes of use does not begin until the second call is answered, and  e 2continues for each call until each is disconnected. (  nZ(#C\  P6Q6P#эXSee, e.g., BellSouth Br. at 3233.(#ƈ    X>63. The IXCs challenge the LECs' application of CCL charges to the duration of the time  x$a call waiting call is on hold because, at any given time, only one call is physically transmitted  xto the subscriber using the common line while the other call is held at the LEC end office. The  xHIXCs claim that the availability of the call on hold is insufficient to constitute "use" for CCL  ey2 xcharge purposes.y  nZ(#C\  P6Q6P#эXAT&T Br. at 3234; MCI Br. at 1011.(#Ƅ Further, MCI argues that there is double recovery of either two CCL charges,  eb2if both calls are interstate, or a CCL charge and intrastate charges, if one call is intraLATA.ibH  nZ[(#C\  P6Q6P#эMCI Br. at 1011.i   ?64. The LECs assert that they lawfully assess CCL charges for both calls because two  xseparate calls are delivered to the subscriber over the common line and the common line is  e2 xBalways available to each call. nZ$( xL#C\  P6Q6P#Ѝ Bell Atlantic Br. at 9; Ameritech Br. at 1617; NYNEX Reply at 1617; Pacific Br. at 4; SWBT Reply at 9; GTE Br. at 5. Additionally, they aver that the incomingcall notification tone  xand the subscriber's signals to the end office, triggered by flashing the switchhook, use the"0,N(N(ZZ6"  e2 xcommon line. nZy(#C\  P6Q6P#э Ameritech Br. at 1617; SWBT Br. at 6; SWBT Reply at 8. The LECs also contend that Section 69.2(a)xX nZ (#C\  P6Q6P#эSee para. 36, supra.x requires that access minutes of  xuse be measured until one party to the conversation disconnects and that calls placed on hold are  x$not disconnected. Thus, the LECs argue, if the first call is an interstate, interLATA call placed  xby the subscriber, access minutes of use are measured from the time the IXC acknowledges  xLreceipt of the call until one party to the conversation disconnects. Similarly, the LECs claim, if  xthe second call is an interstate, interLATA call, access minutes of use are measured from the time  ev2the subscriber answers the call until one party to the conversation disconnects.zv nZ (#C\  P6Q6P#э See, e.g., BellSouth Br. at 3234.z  eH2` `  ,h ii. Discussion   x@65. The IXCs have not demonstrated that the LECs are overbilling CCL charges in  xconnection with call waiting. Unlike call forwarding, the call waiting option effectively furnishes  xtwo entirely distinct calls to the subscriber over a common line. The line is used for each call  xin the sense that the subscriber has the benefit of being able to activate that call at any time.  xMoreover, the IXCs' argument ignores the explicit measuring requirements of Section 69.2(a),  e 2 xwhich requires that access minutes of use be counted until one party to a call disconnects. x nZ(#C\  P6Q6P#эSee para. 36, supra. The  xcall placed on hold is not disconnected, however, and thus Section 69.2(a) requires access  xminutes of use to be counted until one party to a call disconnects. Hence, the rule by its terms  xprecludes the intermittent measurement the IXCs advance. Moreover, imposition of two CCL  x8charges at the subscriber's end for the duration of each call does not constitute double recovery  xfor the same use of the same facility, whether both calls are interstate or one is intrastate, because two calls are effectively present.  e2` `  , e. ThreeWay Calling  e2` `  ,h i. Description and Contentions   A66. A subscriber to threeway calling may join two additional parties in a single  xconversation. After establishing a connection with the first party, the subscriber flashes the  ee2 xswitchhook to obtain a dialtone to call the second party.e nZ#( xz#C\  P6Q6P#э AT&T Br. at 28; Bell Atlantic Br. at 9; BellSouth Br. at 34. The subscriber may either have placed or received the first call. While the subscriber is calling the  x$second party, the first call is held by central office equipment at the LEC end office serving the  e72 xthreeway calling subscriber.i7`  nZH'(#C\  P6Q6P#э Bell Atlantic Br. at 9.i Once the second party answers, the subscriber again flashes the"7 ,N(N(ZZb"  xtswitchhook to join both parties in a threeway conversation, prompting central office equipment  e2to bridge the calls. nZb(#C\  P6Q6P#э AT&T Br. at 2930; SWBT Br. at 9.   B67. The IXCs note that the LECs impose two distinct CCL charges for the entire  e2 xduration, even though both calls in a threeway calling conversation share one common line.dX nZ(#C\  P6Q6P#э AT&T Br. at 2829.d  xRThey assert that if both are interstate, interLATA calls handled by the same IXC, it pays two  xCCL charges for a single use of the common line. Similarly, the IXCs claim that if one of the  xinterstate calls is handled by another IXC, the LECs still recover twice, albeit from two different  eH2 xIXCs.H nZ (  #C\  P6Q6P#эAT&T Br. at 2930; MCI Br. at 910. The IXCs do not indicate which of the two IXCs should pay the sole CCL charge that they apparently concede is properly applied in this situation.  The IXCs further allege that the LECs double recover CCL charges for the entire  e12 xduration of the calls, i.e., where one call is intraLATA toll or local exchange and the other is  xinterstate, because the LECs assess both CCL charges and state charges, such as intraLATA toll,  e 2the subscriber's optional service charge, or general contribution. @ nZ(#C\  P6Q6P#Ѝ AT&T Br. at 2930; MCI Br. at 910   lC68. As with call waiting, the LECs maintain that two separate calls are transmitted to the  e 2 xtsubscriber over the common line,  nZ?( x#C\  P6Q6P#Ѝ Bell Atlantic Br. at 10; Ameritech Br. at 16; NYNEX Reply at 16; SWBT Br. at 8; SWBT Reply at 11; Pacific Br. at 5; GTE Br. at 6. and central office equipment is used to join the calls. (  nZ(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#э Bell Atlantic Br. at 10; SWBT Br. at 9; SWBT Reply at 11; Pacific Br. at 5. US  xWest points out that some CPE is also capable of establishing threeway calls, and argues that  x.applying CCL charges to threeway calls facilitated by CPE, but not to those established by the  ey2LECs' service, would discriminate against subscribers who choose to use CPE capabilities.y  nZ(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#э US West Reply at 12. See Section IV.2.a., regarding similar claim in call forwarding.  eK2` `  ,h ii. Discussion   D69. Once again, the IXCs' position overextends the Section 69.105(a) requirement for  x common line use. Threeway calling enables the subscriber to participate in two wholly separate  xcalls at any given time and subsequently to join or link them for conferencing purposes. Both  x*calls may originate or terminate over the subscriber's common line, but the fact that they are  xBtransmitted over that line simultaneously does not negate the independent, beneficial uses of the  x8line by each. Because two calls originate or terminate over the subscriber's common line, both properly incur a CCL charge. "|H ,N(N(ZZ "Ԍ  E70. Nor can we agree with MCI's contention that the LECs' imposition of two CCL  xcharges on the subscriber's end of a threeway calling configuration results in double recovery  x8where one call is an interstate call and the other is subject to an intraLATA toll charge or other  xintrastate charge paid to the LEC for the option. As mentioned above, threeway calling involves  xztwo distinct calls using the same line, even though each call originates or terminates over the  xsame common line. Therefore it is proper for a LEC to assess a CCL charge on an IXC for the interstate call, even if the LEC collects other intrastate charges for the intrastate call. #Xj\  P6G;WXP#  eH2` ` f. Foreign Exchange (FX) Service  e 2` `  ,h i. Description and Contentions   F71. Foreign Exchange (FX) service connects a subscriber ordinarily served by a local  x(or "home") end office to a distant (or "foreign") end office through a dedicated line from the  x~subscriber's premises to the home end office, and then to the distant end office. The "home" end  x>is known as the closed end, while the "foreign" end is known as the open end. In effect, this  e2 x(gives the subscriber a dial tone presence in the distant exchange without additional toll charges.l nZ (#C\  P6Q6P#эAT&T Br. at 1820. l  ey2 xIn interLATA FX service, which is offered by AT&T but not MCI,_XyX nZ(  #C\  P6Q6P#эSee Letter from Frank W. Krogh, Counsel, MCI, to Gerald H. Chakerian, Formal Complaints and  xVInvestigations Branch, Enforcement Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (November 26, 1996). _ the home and foreign end  xoffices are in different LATAs, connected by the IXC's interstate private lines. In intraLATA  xFX service, which is offered by the LECs, the home and foreign end offices are in the same  e42LATA, connected by the LEC's intraLATA, interoffice lines.4x nZ](#C\  P6Q6P#эSee, e.g., AT&T Br. at 67; BellSouth Br. 3536.   ^G72. The IXCs contend that the LECs impose improper CCL charges on originating or  xterminating calls that transit an interLATA FX service subscriber's closed end. The IXCs, noting  e2 xthat the link between the subscriber and the home end office is special access and that the link  e2 xfrom there to the foreign end office is a private line (i.e., together comprising the FX closed end),  xLargue that the links cannot be considered as a common line and so should not be subject to CCL  xcharges. The IXCs support this characterization of the closedend as private or dedicated by  e|2 xreference to court decisionsW| nZ5"(  4#C\  P6Q6P#эAT&T Br. at 20 (citing, inter alia, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. Federal  nZ"(Communications Commission, 737 F.2d 1095, 1105 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (NARUC v. FCC)). W and statements or omissions by the LECs themselves.|`  nZ$(  D#C\  P6Q6P#эId. (citing, e.g., Bell Atlantic's Answer at para. 5; US West response to Interrogatories at 8); MCI Br. at 67. The IXCs  x~also contend that there is no other common line forming part of this service that links a premises  xin the foreign LATA to the foreign end office. Accordingly, they conclude, no CCL charge for"N ,N(N(ZZ|"  e2any part of the closed end is appropriate.E nZy( xB#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#Ѝ AT&T Reply at 1820; MCI Reply at 9. AT&T does not clearly distinguish these two possible locations  nZA( xof the unjustified common line charge. It describes the following FX scenario in Attachments 2 and 3 to its main  xjbrief: A subscriber in home LATA 2 obtains a telephonic presence in foreign LATA 1 by purchasing interLATA  x.FX service, and places a call to, or receives a call from, a party in LATA 3. AT&T apparently contends that for  x.calls following this pattern, the LECs impose CCL charges, either originating charges for calls initiated by the  xsubscriber or terminating charges for calls received by the subscriber, at the foreign end office in LATA 1, even  nZ)( xthough no common line facilities are employed in that LATA. AT&T Br. at 19. At other points, however, AT&T  xBseems to argue that the LECs impose CCL charges at what traditionally has been termed the "closed end" the  xprivate lines connecting the subscriber to the home end office and, possibly, on to the foreign end office. AT&T Reply at 1920.E   H73. BellSouth and GTE object to any consideration of AT&T's claims regarding  xinterLATA FX service, arguing that AT&T did not allege any violations involving interLATA  e2 xFX service in its complaint and raised them for the first time in its briefs.`  nZ(#C\  P6Q6P#эBellSouth Reply at 1314; GTE Reply at 12 n.21. Bell Atlantic, on  e2 xjthe other hand, states that only issues pertaining to interLATA FX service are raised in AT&T's  ev2complaint.uv  nZ(#C\  P6Q6P#эBell Atlantic Br. at 10 n.22.u   d#Xj\  P6G;WXP#I74. Regarding the merits of AT&T's claim, BellSouth argues that CCL charges for  e12 xinterLATA FX service are properly imposed at the distant end office1  nZb(#C\  P6Q6P#эThis is LATA 1 in AT&T's threeLATA example described in note 180, supra. because the Commission  e 2 xhas not exempted calls between interstate switched access services from CCL charges.   nZ( x#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#э BellSouth Reply at 14 n.43 (i.e., the closed end is special access and the open end is Feature Group A switched access).  Other  x$LECs argue that the threeLATA scenario described in Attachments 1 and 2 to AT&T's brief is  xnot the most efficient or cost effective means for making interLATA calls, and is so rare that it  e 2 xis virtually nonexistent. h nZ(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#э Ameritech Reply at 10; US West Reply at 8; cf. NYNEX Reply at 14. In addition, the LECs state that CCL charges are properly assessed  e 2 xat the open end of an interLATA FX call,X  nZg ( x#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#э Bell Atlantic Br. at 10; Ameritech Reply at 910; NYNEX Reply at 13; SWBT Reply at 12. SWBT, for  nZ/!( xexample, notes that a CCL charge at the foreign end office is required by Section 69.105(b)(2); SWBT Reply at 1415. and that they do not assess CCL charges at the  e 2closed end.  nZp$(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#э See, e.g., Ameritech Reply at 9; SWBT Reply at 12.   J75. IntraLATA FX service, in contrast to interLATA FX service, is provided by the"y!,N(N(ZZ"  e2 x$LECs, and the subscriber and distant end office are within the same LATA. nZy(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#э See, e.g., AT&T Br. at 19. The IXCs assert  x~that the LECs unlawfully apply CCL charges at the distant end office point because private lines  xconnect the subscriber to the home end office, and private lines also run between the two end  e2 x4offices.X nZ(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#э Id. at 1921. The IXCs claim that, because the lines connecting the subscriber to the home end  xoffice cannot be used to make calls without also using the intraLATA FX function, such lines  e2are not common facilities.j nZ& ( x~#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#э Id. at 21. MCI does not clearly distinguish between interLATA and intraLATA FX, but it incorporates by reference all of AT&T's arguments on both types. MCI Br. 67; MCI Reply at 9. j   BK76. The LECs contest the IXCs' characterization of the connection between the  xintraLATA FX service subscriber and the home end office and in some cases the link from  xthere to the foreign end office as a "private line." They maintain that an FX service subscriber  x4purchases basic local exchange service, including common line, and that FX service merely  e 2 xzextends the subscriber's local loop to a different local calling area within the same LATA.+ @ nZ( x#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#Ѝ Ameritech Br. at 18; Ameritech Reply at 10; BellSouth Br. at 41; SWBT Br. at 10; Pacific Br. at 67; GTE Reply at 11.+  xThus, the LECs argue that intraLATA FX service is a type of local exchange service. They  x*assert that, although dial tone and other functions are performed at the distant end office, the  x^subscriber's connection to the home end office is, ultimately, used for local as well as  e 2 xinterexchange access.  nZ(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#э See NYNEX Reply at 1415; BellSouth Br. at 4142; SWBT Reply at 13, 15; Pacific Br. at 67. Moreover, some LECs state that they assess CCL charges for the line  xbetween the subscriber and the home end office, not the private line connecting the two end  ey2offices.my(  nZR( x #C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#э SWBT Reply at 13; cf. NYNEX Reply at 15 (records usage associated with the common line to subscriber, not at distant end office as indicated in AT&T Br. at Attachments 4 and 5).m   ^L77. The LECs emphasize that intraLATA FX service is a local exchange service, and  xthey argue that the authorities on which AT&T relies for its claim that all FX services use private  e2 xRlines are distinguishable because these sources involve interstate, interLATA FX service.  nZN!(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#э BellSouth Reply at 1516.  x8BellSouth, for instance, contends that an end user's selection of the FX option does not alter the  xfact that the subscriber's premises are connected to a Class 5 office in the home LATA, or the  e2 xfact that the option is basically local exchange service. nZ%( x#C\  P6Q6P#Ѝ BellSouth Br. at 41; see BellSouth Br. at 4246 (discussing the local service nature of intraLATA FX service). Finally, SWBT argues that CCL""h,N(N(ZZ"  e2charges are warranted because FX calls use the home end office switching equipment.s nZy(#C\  P6Q6P#э SWBT Br. at 10; SWBT Reply at 15.s  e2` `  , ii. Discussion   M78. First, we disagree with BellSouth and GTE that AT&T failed to raise allegations  xconcerning interLATA FX service in its complaints. Although AT&T's complaints could have  x4been clearer on this point, we find that it raised both interLATA and intraLATA FX service  xsufficiently to put the LECs on notice that both services were at issue. We note that AT&T  xincluded diagrams in its complaint depicting both services, and, reading the text of the complaint  xNin conjunction with these diagrams, we believe it is clear that AT&T complained of both  e 2 x>services. X nZ# (#C\  P6Q6P#э See, e.g., US West Complaint at 89 & Attachment D. Moreover, the remaining LECs did not object on this ground in their briefs, and  e 2several responded to AT&T's allegations on the merits as to both services.  nZ( x(#C\  P6Q6P#э In addition, MCI's complaint against Ameritech does appear to raise the interLATA FX service issue. MCI  xFComplaint at 10, para. 9(d). (Because MCI does not offer interLATA FX service, it could not be in the position of  xthe IXC for the FX customer who originates a call from the home LATA 2 to the forgeign LATA 1 in AT&T's  xthreeLATA scenario. MCI could, however, be in the position of the IXC carrying a call originating in LATA 3 to the FX customer's dialtone presence in foreign LATA 2 in that scenario.)   @N79. There is no question that the closed end of interLATA FX service is a dedicated  xVfacility consisting of LEC special access and other dedicated LEC or IXC components that  xRis directly linked to the foreign central office, because the line cannot be used to call anyone  xtwithin the home LATA without incurring interLATA toll charges. Accordingly, the LEC should  x$not impose a CCL charge specifically attributable to this facility as if it were a common line to the foreign office, and, it appears, none of the LECs do.   6O80. On the other hand, a CCL charge is appropriate at the open end of an interLATA  xFX line. A call with one terminus at the closed end transits the foreign central office on the open  xNend and ultimately may link over a common line to any station in the foreign exchange or,  xpotentially, to any station on the entire public switched network. Thus any completed interLATA  x FX call, whether originating or terminating on the FX subscriber's closed end, will have an  xLactuallyused common line at the terminus of the open end. Our conclusions here are consistent  xdwith Section 69.105(b)(iii) of the Commission's rules, which provides that "[a]ll open end minutes  e2 xpon calls with one open end (e.g., an 800 or FX call) shall be treated as terminating minutes."  x:This rule recognizes that the sole CCL charge for an FX call is the one attributable to the  xcommon line of the nonsubscriber who originates a call to, or receives a call from, the FX  x8subscriber, and it provides that, even if a call originates at the open end, the single CCL charge  xLshould be deemed as terminating in order to be charged at the higher terminating rate. We note,  xhowever, that calls placed according to AT&T's threeLATA scenario are not subject to CCL  xpcharges for the link between the foreign end office and the IXC's POP in LATA 1 on the side" #,N(N(ZZ"  xenroute to LATA 3, because it is not a common line; the only common line on the open end is the termination in LATA 3.   P81. As to intraLATA FX service, we find that the IXCs have not demonstrated that the  x~LECs are violating Section 69.105(a) of our rules. We disagree with the IXCs' characterization  x&of the line between the subscriber and the LEC as a "private" line. Unlike the case of an  xinterLATA FX line, the intraLATA FX line connects an end user to a LEC end office in the  xsame LATA and can be used in common for local exchange, intraLATA toll, and interLATA toll  x$calls. The various authorities that the IXCs cite to support their characterization of FX service  e12 xas a private line service address only interLATA FX.1 nZ (#C\  P6Q6P#эSee, e.g., NARUC v. FCC, 737 F.2d at 1105. Those decisions do not discuss or define  xthe nature of intraLATA FX service. In addition, the subscriber's inability to make local calls  x*without also triggering the intraLATA FX service function, a point on which AT&T heavily  xrelies, is not dispositive. It appears that in many cases, the subscriber may indeed make tollfree  e 2 xBcalls within the entire LATA. X nZ( x^#C\  P6Q6P#э See BellSouth Br. at Exhibit 10 (affidavit of Richard Merriman, Manager, Pricing, Bell South Telecommunications, Inc.). In any event, we think that this factor may aid in understanding  xthe call configuration, the role of the LECs, and the difference between interLATA and  xintraLATA FX service, but it does not mean that the connection necessarily functions as a private line for the purpose of CCL charge analysis.  eb2 `  ` ` Q82. Therefore, we agree with the LECs' view that the connection between the  x$subscriber and the home end office in intraLATA FX service, however it may be denominated,  x8is the functional equivalent of a common line for purposes of determining CCL charge liability.  xHIt is a dedicated line used merely to extend the subscriber's connection to a more distant end  x`office in the same LATA, in order to obtain dialtone and various other features available in that  xdistant office. Our findings are also consistent with the Common Carrier Bureau's approach to  e2 xintraLATA FX service in Bill Correctors. nZ9(#C\  P6Q6P#э Bill Correctors, Inc. v. Pacific Bell, 10 FCC Rcd at 2305. In that case, the defendant LEC was assessing two  xEUCL charges on intraLATA FX calls: one based on the line between the end user and the home  xend office, and a second based on the line connecting the home and distant end offices. In ruling  xtthat only one EUCL charge was appropriate, the Bureau stated that in the case of intraLATA FX  x8service, "it is clear that only one access point exists; the access point has simply been linked to  ee2the customer's serving office by a regular loop joined to an FX line."de@ nZV"(#C\  P6Q6P#э Id. at 2308.d  e 2 B. Section 203  e2` ` 1. Contentions "$,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ  <ԙR83. The IXCs also allege that the LECs' assessment of CCL charges in the manner  x alleged in their complaints is not authorized within their tariffs and therefore violates Section 203  x of the Communications Act, which prohibits carriers from assessing charges that are greater, less,  e2 xjor different than specified in their tariffs.! nZ4( x#C\  P6Q6P#э AT&T's complaints and briefs contain three counts for violations of Section 69.105 of the Commission's  nZ( xFRules, Section 203 of the Act, and Section 201(b) of the Act. See AT&T Complaint against, e.g., Bell Atlantic (E x95006) at 1215; AT&T Br. at 34, 1314. MCI's complaints subsume the Part 69 arguments under just two counts,  xLone for Section 203 of the Act and one for Section 201 of the Act, while its brief refers to the same threeway  nZT( xbreakdown as AT&T. See MCI Complaint against BellSouth (E95007) at 1820; MCI Complaint against Ameritech (E9535) at 2123; MCI Br. at 14.! According to the IXCs, all of the LECs' tariffs state  xthat they assess CCL charges for use of common lines. The IXCs then conclude that the LECs'  xactual practices are contrary to the terms of these tariffs because the LECs apply CCL charges  ev2to calls or portions of calls that do not in fact use a common line.xv@ nZg (  #C\  P6Q6P#эAT&T Br. at 9 (citing Bell Atlantic Tel. Cos. Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Section 3.1; Ameritech Operating Cos.  xTariff F.C.C. No.2, Section 3.1; Nevada Bell Tel. Co. Tariff F.C.C. No.1, Section 3.1; NYNEX Tel. Cos. Tariff  xxF.C.C. No. 1, Section 3.1; Pacific Bell Tel. Cos. Tariff F.C.C. No. 128, Section 3.1; GTE Tel. Operating Cos. Tariff  xF.C.C. No. 1, Section 12.2.1; BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. Tariff F.C.C. No 1, Section 3.1; Southwestern Bell  xVTel. Cos. Tariff F.C.C. No. 73, Section 3.1; US West Communications Tariff F.C.C. No. 5, Section 3.1); AT&T  xReply at 1516; MCI Br. at 3 (citing Ameritech Operating Cos. Tariff F.C.C. No.2, Section 3.1; BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. Tariff F.C.C. No 1, Section 3.1).   S84. The LECs respond that their tariff references to common line use merely reflect the  xlanguage contained in the Commission's access charge rules, which they argue do not require  e 2 xtcommon line use as a predicate to imposing CCL charges.  nZK(#C\  P6Q6P#Ѝ See, e.g., Ameritech Br. at 1112; NYNEX Br. at 1113; BellSouth Reply at 56; Pacific Reply at 5. Moreover, the LECs point to tariff  x`provisions not cited by the IXCs that they argue make clear that they assess CCL charges for the  e 2 xbroader category of switched access service minutes of use.  nZ(#C\  P6Q6P#э Ameritech Br. at 1112; NYNEX Br. at 13; BellSouth Reply at 56. For example, BellSouth notes that  x\Section 3.5 of its tariff, captioned "Determination of Usage Subject to Carrier Common Line  xAccess Service Charges," states that except as otherwise provided, "all Switched Access Service  e 2 xprovided to the customer will be subject to Carrier Common Line Access Service charges."  nZ(#C\  P6Q6P#э BellSouth Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Section 3.5; BellSouth Reply at 5.  xSimilarly, NYNEX notes that Section 3.8.5 of its tariff applies CCL charges to "all originating  xand terminating access minutes of use." Furthermore, its tariff Section 2.6 defines "access  eb2 xminutes" as "use of exchange facilities" recorded at the switch.b0 nZC#( x#C\  P6Q6P#Ѝ NYNEX Telephone Companies Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Sections 3.2, 3.8.5; NYNEX Br. at 13; NYNEX Reply  nZ $(at 12; see also Pacific Reply at 5. Moreover, the LECs emphasize  xthat their tariffs specify any exemptions from application of the CCL charge, and none identify  e42as excepted calls involving the optional services at issue in these proceedings.4 nZm'(#C\  P6Q6P#э Ameritech Br. at 12; NYNEX Reply at 12; BellSouth Reply at 5. "4%,N(N(ZZ "Ԍ e2ԙ` ` 2. Discussion  e2  ^T85. We do not agree with the IXCs' claims that the LECs' application of CCL charges  x to optional service calls is so contrary to the clear language of their tariffs as to constitute a  xviolation of Section 203 of the Act. The tariff provisions on which the IXCs rely set forth  xgeneral descriptions of the LECs' common line access service that are generally modeled on, and  xtherefore consistent with, the various Part 69 requirements that we have discussed in Section  e_2 xIV.A.1, supra. Due to the generality of these tariff provisions taken by themselves, however, we  x do not conclude that the LECs' practices that we have rejected under Section 69.105(a) and  xrelated Commission rules and orders also violate the tariffs themselves. On the other hand, some  xof the tariff provisions raised by the LECs as counterexamples do appear to be inconsistent with  xour main conclusions in this order insofar as they imply that all switched access minutes that are  xnot explicitly excepted from the CCL charge must be subject to that charge notwithstanding the  e 2 x\absence of common line use.S   nZN(   #C\  P6Q6P#эThe provisions that the LECs specifically cited in their briefs in this connection are: Ameritech Operating  xCos. Tariff F.C.C. No. 2, Sections 3.3.2, 3.2.3; BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Sections  x3.3.2, 3.5, 3.8.1, 3.8.2, 3.9.1; NYNEX Tel. Cos. Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Sections 3.2.3, 3.5.6, 3.8.2, 3.8.5; Pacific Bell Tel. Cos. Tariff F.C.C. No. 128, Section 3.8.5; Nevada Bell Tel. Co. Tariff F.C.C. No.1, Section 3.8.5.S Therefore, we direct all the defendant LECs' to modify their tariffs as needed to properly reflect our present findings.  e2 C. Section 201(b)  eb2` ` 1. Contentions   U86. The IXCs' final claim is that the LECs' CCL rates and related practices are unjust and  xunreasonable under Section 201(b) of the Act. AT&T contends that the LECs' CCL rates: (1)  x(violate Commission rules; (2) result in double recovery; and (3) charge for common line facilities  e2 xthe IXCs do not use, all in violation of Section 201(b).a nZP(#C\  P6Q6P#э AT&T Br. at 14.a MCI argues that, because CCL charges  xjmust track actual common line usage and must not be imposed in a duplicative manner under the  xCommission's rules and orders, the LECs' CCL charges and practices should be found unjust and  e2 xunreasonable, in violation of Section 201(b).i@ nZ(#C\  P6Q6P#эMCI Br. at 5, 14.i The LECs do not specifically address the IXCs'  xSection 201(b) claims beyond their argument that they have properly interpreted and applied Part  e|269.| nZ"(#C\  P6Q6P#э See, e.g., NYNEX Reply at 11 n.24; US West Reply at 4.  eN2` ` 2. Discussion   V87. The Commission is empowered to promulgate rules and prescribe rate and practice" &` ,N(N(ZZH"  xxstandards for common carriers to ensure that all "charges, practices, classifications and regulations  e2 xfor and in connection" with their common carrier offerings are just and reasonable. nZb(#C\  P6Q6P#э See, e.g., 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 201, 203, 205. Conduct  e2 xjthat violates the rules and policies established by the Commission for this purpose is, therefore,  e2 xvunjust and unreasonable. We have determined that certain LEC practices violate Section  x69.105(a) of our rules in connection with calls involving call forwarding, interLATA FX, voice  x8mail and fax processing services, with respect to CCL charges that do not reflect origination or  xtermination of interstate calls. Thus, we also find that these unlawful practices violate Section 201(b) of the Act.  e12  l W88. The IXCs have failed, however, to establish that the LECs improperly assessed CCL  xcharges in connection with call waiting, threeway calling, or intraLATA FX service. As we  xJhave explained, these practices comport with the Part 69 rules, and the IXCs have not  xdemonstrated that they are otherwise unjust or unreasonable within the meaning of Section  x201(b). The IXCs contend that the LECs obtain "windfall" double recovery and bill in the  xabsence of common line use in connection with these services. As discussed above, however,  xwe have determined that the LECs lawfully impose CCL charges for calls involving these  xtservices based on common line use, and properly measure the associated access minutes of use.  xThus, we find no Section 201(b) violations with respect to callwaiting, threeway calling and intraLATA FX service.  e2 \V. DEFENSIVE CLAIMS ă  e2  A. Necessity for Rulemaking Proceeding  e2  e2` ` 1. Contentions   lX89. As discussed above, the LECs maintain that current Commission rules do not require  xthem to assess CCL charges in the manner the IXCs contend. Furthermore, they argue that their  x*application of CCL charges to the optional services at issue is consistent with longstanding,  xindustrywide practice. Accordingly, the LECs claim that the IXCs' approach is a drastic  xdeparture from present standards and would impose substantial costs on the LECs to develop new  xbilling capabilities. They assert, therefore, that such a change may only be considered in a  e 2rulemaking proceeding and imposed prospectively., X nZ"( x#C\  P6Q6P#Ѝ See generally Bell Atlantic Reply at 3 n.7; NYNEX Br. at 8; NYNEX Reply at 3, 1819; BellSouth Br. at 4, 14, 4850; SWBT Br. at 56; Pacific Reply at 910; GTE Br. at 1112; GTE Reply at 14.,  e2` ` 2. Discussion   Y90. We reject the LECs' assertion that we should decline to adjudicate a formal complaint  xBbecause similar issues might arise in a prospective rulemaking. Our duty to address a properly""',N(N(ZZ !"  e2 xBfiled complaint is a matter of statutory obligation. nZy(#C\  P6Q6P#эSee Section 208(a) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  208. The IXCs have raised questions regarding  xHthe LECs' past assessment of CCL charges and are entitled to a determination of whether the  xLECs violated the Act or our rules and orders in any way. As the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has observed:    Agencies do have a fundamental choice whether to interpret and apply federal  ~statutes through adjudication or through rulemaking. But they cannot avoid their  responsibilities in an adjudication properly before them by looking to a  rulemaking, which operates only prospectively. The choice an agency has  tbetween different methods of 'making law' is simply irrelevant when the agency  e 2is called upon as an adjudicator to apply existing law to a complaint.. X nZ# ( xP#C\  P6Q6P#Ѝ AT&T v. FCC, 978 F.2d 727, 732 (D.C. Cir. 1992), cert. denied sub nom. MCI Telecommunications Corp.  nZ (v. AT&T, 509 U.S. 913, 113 S. Ct. 3020 (1993) (citations omitted)..  x  As noted above, the entire access charge system was recently the subject of a rulemaking in  e 2 xwhich all the parties in this proceeding were participants.  nZ6(#C\  P6Q6P#эSee note 4, supra.Ć Both sides had the opportunity to  xaddress the issues concerning the need for prospective changes in our access charge scheme in that proceeding.  ey2   B. Impossibility of Measurement  eb2  eK2` ` 1. Contentions   ^Z91. Some of the LECs submit that it would be inappropriate to hold them liable to the  x~IXCs for the alleged noncompliance with Section 69.105(a) because it would be impossible or  e2 x~unreasonably difficult to measure CCL access minutes of use in the manner the IXCs promote.@ nZ( x#C\  P6Q6P#э See, e.g., BellSouth Br. at 4748 & Exhibit 6 (Exhibit 6 is an extensive description of switch software modifications to record the necessary data and implement billing).   xThey contend that current systems cannot screen calls, or segments of calls, as needed to suppress  e2 x\the CCL charges that the IXCs contest nZ !(#C\  P6Q6P##C\  P6Q6P#э Ameritech Br. at 2122; NYNEX Br. at 5; SWBT Br. at 5; GTE Br. at 1011. and that developing new methods for such purposes  e2may be unreasonably expensive. (  nZ#( x#C\  P6Q6P#э See, e.g., Ameritech Br. at 34, 2122. Ameritech submits a study indicating substantial costs of up to  x$17.5 million, just for itself, to develop and install the software capability for identifying the associated minutes of  xFuse, and it alleges that there would be additional costs for measuring capabilities and billing system modifications.  xAmeritech argues that costs of new systems must be balanced against relatively low estimated damages to the IXCs.  nZ&( xAmeritech then estimates that its approximate damages to AT&T are e.g., less than $.5 million per year for the years"k',N(N(&"  nZX( x19931995 (for all optional services except FX and interLATA forwarding arrangements). See id. at Attachments  nZ ( xD & E; see also US West Reply at 5. GTE also claims that a decision in favor of the IXCs would force the LECs to disable the optional services to prevent mounting damage claims. GTE Br. at 1011. "(,N(N(ZZ4"Ԍ  Nԙ[92. The IXCs respond that the LECs voluntarily chose to measure and record calls using  xa particular method and "their deliberate choices to disable themselves from properly measuring  e2 x common line usage" is no defense. nZ3(#C\  P6Q6P#эXAT&T Br. at 45, 1516; MCI Br. at 45.(#Ƈ Moreover, the IXCs argue that the LECs concede that  xcurrent switches already record the necessary information and that the costs of developing any  xVnew or additional measuring capabilities is not unreasonable when compared to the damages to  e2 xLIXCs resulting from the overbilling that occurs as a result of the IXCs' practices.YX@ nZ~ ( xV#C\  P6Q6P#э AT&T Br. at 5; AT&T Reply at 27 (referring to BellSouth Ex. 6). AT&T states, without elaboration, that  xBits annual damages, excluding FX and voice mail/fax services, are approximately $60 million. AT&T Br. at 36; AT&T Reply at 27.Y Finally, the  xIXCs argue that the Commission has permitted use of "reasonable estimation techniques" to  xmeasure traffic and ensure compliance with requirements of the Act and Commission rules and  eH2orders.[H`  nZY(#C\  P6Q6P#э Id.[  e 2` ` 2. Discussion   X\93. The LECs offer no authority for a finding that obstacles to compliance with our rules  e 2 xrelieve them of liability for noncompliance.X  nZv(  b#C\  P6Q6P#эPursuant to Sections 206208 of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  206208, any person may file a complaint to the  xPCommission against a carrier to recover monetary damages incurred as a consequence of that carrier's violation of the Act or the Commission's rules and orders. In any event, they have not demonstrated that,  x.in a subsequent damages phase of this proceeding, it would be impossible to obtain reasonable  xestimates of damages through sampling and other techniques, especially in light of our finding  e2 xof liability for less than all of the disputed optional services.X nZQ( x<#C\  P6Q6P#э  Although the existing estimates by AT&T and Ameritech vary widely and may be largely incommensurable,  xthese initial approximations indicate that further efforts may yield acceptable precision and lead to effective mechanisms for implementing credits to the IXCs for overbilling.  In addition, the LECs have failed  xto support their claims that corrective measures would be unduly expensive to develop and  eb2 x.implement relative to projected overbillings. b0 nZC#( x#C\  P6Q6P#э Ameritech is the only LEC that supplied underlying data concerning estimated costs to modify its switches  nZ $( x>on a prospective basis (see Ameritech Br. at Attachment E), and these data appear to reflect no more than a  xpreliminary analysis. Moreover, estimation techniques similar to those we have just noted for retrospective damages may likewise be applicable to prospective adjustments. Whatever uncertainties there are in the present  xrecord regarding both retrospective and prospective measurement of the alleged overbillings, as  x`well as adjustment mechanisms to remedy them, are insufficient to negate liability, but rather go"4),N(N(ZZ*" to questions better addressed in the damages phase of this proceeding.  e2 C. Unclean Hands  e2` ` 1. Contentions   ]94. Bell Atlantic and Pacific argue that the complaint should be dismissed because AT&T  xhas "unclean hands." They assert that AT&T provides most of the equipment and software the  xLECs use to measure CCL access minutes of use, but failed to provide capabilities for identifying  xRand suppressing CCL minutes of use in the manner it now claims is required by Commission  e 2 x.rules.  nZ (#C\  P6Q6P#э See Bell Atlantic Br. at 1213; Bell Atlantic Reply at 4; Pacific Br. at 12. Pacific also alleges that AT&T is contractually obligated to indemnify Pacific against  e 2 xzany liability for the billing practices AT&T challenges.d X nZ (#C\  P6Q6P#э Pacific Br. at 13.d Bell Atlantic seeks damages from  e 2 xAT&T in the event Bell Atlantic is found liable for any CCL overcharges.m  nZ(#C\  P6Q6P#э Bell Atlantic Answer at 10.m In response, AT&T  xstates that the LECs never requested that AT&T develop or provide different means for  e 2measuring CCL minutes of use. x nZ( x~#C\  P6Q6P#Ѝ AT&T Reply at 3233; see also AT&T Br. at 15 (arguing that LECs must exercise best efforts to comply with rules, including use of "reasonable estimation procedures").  e2` ` 2. Discussion   ^95. We lack jurisdiction over the merits of Pacific's indemnification claim and Bell  eK2 xAtlantic's counterclaim for damages.K nZ(#C\  P6Q6P#э See MCI v. AT&T, 59 F.3d at 1419. These are claims made to the Commission by carriers  x8either against their customer or against their equipment supplier, neither of which is cognizable  e2 x\under Title II. Nonetheless, even assuming, arguendo, that the equitable doctrine of unclean  e2 xLhands should ever bar a Section 208 complaint,aX`  nZ(  #C\  P6Q6P#ЍBut see Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. Int'l Parts Corp., 392 U.S. 134, 138 (1968) (noting "the  xBinappropriateness of invoking broad common law barriers to relief where a private suit serves important public purposes.").a the record does not support its application in  x these cases. As we have said, the LECs are responsible for calculating CCL charges, and should,  e2 xtherefore, have taken steps to correct any inability to properly do so.x  nZ $(#C\  P6Q6P#э See supra Section III.B.2.x Because they did not  xrequest that AT&T enhance or modify the equipment it supplied, we find no basis for finding that AT&T unreasonably failed to provide more capable technology. "*,N(N(ZZj"Ԍ e2 D. Damages Issues  e2 ` ` 1. Contentions   _96. The LECs submit that the IXCs have not been damaged by their CCL billing  xpractices. They state that CCL rates are set by dividing a fixed sum of common line costs, less  xVthe amount to be recovered from EUCL charges, by estimated demand for access minutes of use  x("demand minutes"). The perminute CCL rate, they note, is set at whatever level is necessary  xto recover the fixed common line costs. According to the LECs, if the IXCs were correct and  x2no CCL charge should have applied to calls involving the optional services, the LECs would have  xexcluded estimated demand minutes associated with such calls in calculating the perminute CCL  xrate. Moreover, they claim, a reduction in demand minutes would have resulted in a  xHcorresponding increase in the perminute CCL rate. Therefore, the LECs conclude, the IXCs  xpwould have contributed the same totals to CCL cost recovery, albeit based on fewer demand  e 2minutes.&  nZ7( xt#C\  P6Q6P#Ѝ See Ameritech Br. at 34, 1921; Ameritech Reply at 1314; NYNEX Br. at 56; BellSouth Br. at 1314; US West Br. at 1112; SWBT Br. at 1113; Pacific Br. at 1314; Pacific Reply at 10.&   |`97. The LECs seek to offset any damages that the Commission might otherwise award  xto the IXCs based on this alleged lack of financial injury. In addition, Ameritech suggests that  xLthe absence of economic harm to the IXCs is a public policy consideration that the Commission  eK2 xfshould weigh in ruling on the LECs' liability.K  nZ(#C\  P6Q6P#э Ameritech Br. at 34, 1921; Ameritech Reply at 1314. Finally, Pacific contends that the IXCs have  xfailed to establish damage as an element of its claim and we must, therefore, dismiss the  e2complaint.| nZ~(#C\  P6Q6P#э Pacific Br. at 13; Pacific Reply at 1011.|   a98. The IXCs respond, first, that the LECs have supplied no factual basis for the  xconclusion that the LECs' demand estimates used in setting annual access rates precisely took into  xaccount the allegedly improper noncommon line usage. In this connection, the IXCs note that  xthe Commission has frequently observed that the LECs' annual demand projections have been  e2 xLinadequately supported guesses, with a conservative bias, to justify higher rates.@ nZ (#C\  P6Q6P#эAT&T Br. at 3537 (citing, e.g., Annual 1987 Access Tariff Filings, 2 FCC Rcd 866, 877 (1986)). In addition,  xthe IXCs argue that awarding damages for rates that were allegedly low would violate the "filed  ee2 xrate doctrine," the rule against "retroactive ratemaking," and related principles.Ae nZ#(  #C\  P6Q6P#эId. at 3738 (citing, e.g,, Maislin Industries, U.S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 497 U.S. 116 (1990); Arkansas  nZ$(Louisiana Gas Co. v. Hall, 453 U.S. 571 (1981)).A Moreover, the  xIXCs claim that allowing offsets to some, but not all, IXCs for unlawfully high access rates"N+( ,N(N(ZZ"  e2 x~would result in unreasonable discrimination.A nZy(  .#C\  P6Q6P#эId. at 3839 (citing MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission, 59 F.3d 1407,  nZA( x1419 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1240, 116 S. Ct. 1890 (1996). In that proceeding, the court reversed  xand remanded a number of Commission orders awarding damages for violations of the Commission's rateofreturn  xVprescription to the extent that the Commission included limited offsets in the damages calculations. The court  xdetermined that the Commission's awards of offsets amounted to adjudications of carriers' rights against their customers, which the Commission has no authority to do. A Finally, the IXCs contend that the determination  e2of a carrier's rights against a customer is beyond the Commission's jurisdiction.@ nZ(#C\  P6Q6P#эId. at 3839 (citing MCI v. AT&T, 59 F.2d at 141819); MCI Br. at 1114.  e2` ` 2. Discussion   b99. First, we disagree with Pacific's contention that dismissal is justified if no damage  xhas been proven. We may not dismiss a complaint based on a lack of direct damage to the  e_2 xcomplainant.e_ nZ(#C\  P6Q6P#э 47 U.S.C.  208.e Lack of direct damage to the complainant does not bar a Section 208  eH2 xcomplaint.H`  nZY(  X#C\  P6Q6P#эSection 208(a) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  208, provides that "[n]o complaint shall at any time be dismissed because of the absence of direct damage to the complainant." Furthermore, when a complainant in a bifurcated case can establish that it has been  xHassessed a charge prohibited by Commission rules, that is a sufficient showing of damage to  x`enable the complainant to proceed to the damages phase and endeavor to quantify its injury. As  xdiscussed above, the IXCs have demonstrated that the LECs have imposed CCL charges in  e 2violation of section 69.105(a), and we have in fact bifurcated these cases.p  nZU(#C\  P6Q6P#э See note 6, supra.p  e 2  &c100. Second, the LECs' remaining arguments relate to the proper amount of any damage  xawards, not whether the LECs have imposed CCL charges in violation of the Communications  xAct or the Commission's rules. Therefore, we will not entertain these contentions here. Instead,  ey2 x the LECs may raise them again in the damages phases.yH  nZr( x#C\  P6Q6P#Ѝ This includes the "counterclaims" filed by Ameritech and SWBT, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Bell Atlantic's "counterclaim," and AT&T's responses to these issues. Further, in light of the fact that the  xLECs suggest that damages offsets may be appropriate because of an alleged lack of financial  xinjury to the IXCs, we remind the parties, when presenting damages arguments in the later stages,  e42 xto be mindful of the court's opinion in MCI v. FCC to the extent their claims resemble offsets  e2of the kind addressed there. nZn$(#C\  P6Q6P#э MCI v. FCC, 59 F.3d at 141920. See note 240, supra.ĩ  e2  e2 xVI. PROCEDURAL ISSUES ă",0,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ e2 ÙA. AT&T Motion to Strike Declaration  e2   rd101. AT&T has moved to strike the declaration, submitted by Bell Atlantic, of Albert  xtHalprin, a former Chief of the Commission's Common Carrier Bureau. The declaration purports to explain the Commission's intent in promulgating the access charge rules.   e102. AT&T's request is granted and the declaration will be stricken from the record. The  e_2 x$Commission's orders speak for themselves._ nZ(  B#C\  P6Q6P#эSee, e.g., Modified Final Judgement, 524 F.Supp. 1381, 138687; Fox Television Stations, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 2246 (1995). Furthermore, we find that the declaration would  xnot alter our conclusions for all the reasons explained at length in this order, particularly Section  e12IV.A.1.b., supra.  e 2 B. Prior Staff Procedural Rulings   e 2` ` 1. Contentions   f103. US West and Bell Atlantic object to the Enforcement Division's rulings on certain  xjprocedural matters. First, the staff directed AT&T and the LECs to file their initial briefs at the  ey2 xsame time.y  nZJ(#C\  P6Q6P#э See Letter Ruling (AT&T), Aug. 1, 1995. US West asserts that this unfairly required it to present its principal response to  eb2 xAT&T's allegations without adequate knowledge of AT&T's claims.cb nZ(#C\  P6Q6P#э US West Br. at 2.c Second, US West  x$contends that the staff erred in denying its motion to compel an answer to its "Interrogatory No.  e42 xR3."4@ nZ%( xt#C\  P6Q6P#Ѝ Id. at 37. Interrogatory No. 3 asked AT&T to identify "all" documents that relate "in any way" to the way  xin which CCL charges are to be assessed, including memoranda concerning, or analyses of, FCC access charge rules,  xdating back to 1982. The staff denied the request on grounds that it was overbroad, and the burden a response would  xxhave imposed on the complainant outweighed US West's need for the discovery. Moreover, the staff stated that the  x2discovery was unwarranted to the extent it encompassed documents relating to damages because the case had been bifurcated.  Third, Bell Atlantic has moved to strike AT&T's reply brief as untimely because Bell  e2Atlantic did not receive notice of the staff's extension of the filing deadline.u  nZ ( x#C\  P6Q6P#Ѝ The staff established briefing schedules at a status conference on July 17, 1995, and memorialized them in  x.the August 1 Letter Ruling. Reply briefs were due December 8, 1995. On December 4, the staff extended the  xdeadline, by one week, to December 15, 1995. Letter from Thomas D. Wyatt, Chief, Formal Complaints and  x2Investigations Branch, Enforcement Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to counsel for all parties (Dec. 4, 1995). u  e2` ` 2. Discussion   g104. We reject these LEC claims. Each of these staff rulings was consistent with"-h,N(N(ZZl"  xCommission rules, and well within this agency's discretion to manage a complaint proceeding,  xzincluding discovery and briefing schedules, in a manner that may aid in the disposition of the  e2 xcase.X nZK( x#C\  P6Q6P#Ѝ See, e.g., 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), (j); 47 C.F.R.  1.729, 1.732, 1.733; cf. Sprint Communications Co.,  nZ( xL.P. v. FCC, No. 941667 (D.C. Cir. February 23, 1996); American Message Centers v. FCC, 50 F.3d 35 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Beyond this, none of the rulings have prejudiced these LECs. For example, our rules  e2 xcontemplate simultaneous briefs,j nZT(#C\  P6Q6P#э 47 C.F.R.  1.732(c).j and US West already had notice of both the factual and legal  xarguments in AT&T's complaint, as well as copies of materials AT&T might rely on in its brief. Of course, US West was also permitted to file a reply brief.  e_2  Ԇh105. We likewise discern no prejudice to Bell Atlantic from the filing extension_x nZ ( x#C\  P6Q6P#Ѝ Since we find Bell Atlantic suffered no prejudice, we need not address its claim that the notice was defective.  eH2 xbecause, inter alia, AT&T's counsel did not review the LECs' replies until after he filed AT&T's  e12 xHreply brief.RX1 nZ( x#C\  P6Q6P#э Letter from Peter H. Jacoby, counsel for AT&T, to Thomas Wyatt, Chief, Formal Complaints and  xVInvestigations Branch, Enforcement Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (January 18, 1996).R Thus, AT&T did not, as Bell Atlantic states, have the "benefit" of reading the  xflatter's reply in preparing its own reply. Accordingly, we deny the request to strike AT&T's reply.   i106. As an alternative remedy, Bell Atlantic seeks leave to file a Supplemental Reply.  xAlthough the allegedly deficient extension was not detrimental to Bell Atlantic, in the interest  x4of fairness and to further our goal of developing a complete record, we grant Bell Atlantic's request and have included the Supplemental Reply in the record.  eK2 VII. DAMAGES ă   j107. As noted above, we have bifurcated these proceedings. Thus, the IXCs may,  xpursuant to 47 C.F.R.  1.722(b), file supplemental complaints for damages within 60 days of  xthe release date of this order. With respect to damages, we note that in their original complaints,  e2 x the IXCs stated that the measure of their damages ought to be the difference between the  xamounts they actually paid to the LECs for CCL charges and the amount they would have paid  e2 xBhad the LECs properly assessed CCL charges for the optional services at issue, plus interest.  nZK$(#C\  P6Q6P#э See, e.g., AT&T Complaint at 16 (E9507); MCI Complaint at 2324 (E9616).  xWe agree that this is an appropriate measure of damages. Further, we direct AT&T to explain". ,N(N(ZZ"  e2 xin detail nZy( x~#C\  P6Q6P#э At a minimum, AT&T should describe the following: (1) the calculations and formulae that were used in  xthe study; (2) the call records from which data were taken for use in the study; (3) the basis on which AT&T isolated  xcalls "associated with numbers for which the data showed more than one call during a particular time period (the  x'overlap');" (4) the basis upon which AT&T determined that there were causes for the "overlap" other than double  xbilling, including a description of the other causes; (5) the basis upon which AT&T concluded that the duration of  xZthe "overlap" represented double billing; (6) the methodology by which AT&T calculated the "average" CCL charge;  xP(7) the basis upon which AT&T selected an "average" CCL for one year and why it selected the particular beginning  x8and ending dates for that year; and (8) the reason for AT&T's selection of "traffic over its network for a 14day  xperiod in 1994" as a basis for its study, including the basis for its selection of the particular beginning and ending dates of the 14day period. in its supplemental complaint the methodology that it used in its study of the LECs'  e2 xtCCL billings described in its original complaints,`  nZ (#C\  P6Q6P#э See, e.g., AT&T Complaint at 1011 (E9507). and to state the results of that study by LEC  x\with respect to those optional services for which we have found a violation and which were  xjincluded in the study. We likewise direct MCI to state the methodology and results of any study it has conducted, or intends to conduct, concerning damages.  ev2  e_2" VIII. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES ă  Xl  SSk108. For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the IXCs have made persuasive  (showings that the defendant LECs' imposition of CCL charges for unused common lines in  (connection with call forwarding, interLATA FX, voice mail, fax processing, and paging services  (Hviolates Section 69.105(a) of our rules and Section 201(b) of the Act. We further conclude,  (,however, that the IXCs have failed to meet their burden of establishing that the LECs'  (imposition of such charges in connection with call waiting, threeway calling, and intraLATA  (FX services at issue are unlawful under Section 69.105(a) of the rules and Section 201(b) of the  (NAct. The IXCs will have the opportunity to pursue their damages claims in supplemental complaint proceedings pursuant to Section 1.722 of our rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.722.  XSSl109. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 203(c),  (208, and 415, of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i),  (V154(j), 201(b), 203(c), 208, 415, and Section 69.105(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.   (X69.105(a), that the abovecaptioned complaints filed by AT&T Corp. and jointly by MCI  (Telecommunications Corporation, Western Union International, Inc., and Telecom*USA ARE GRANTED to the extent discussed above and otherwise ARE DENIED.  XNSSm110. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions to dismiss of Bell Atlantic, NYNEX,  e2and Pacific ARE DISMISSED as moot.    XSSn111. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that AT&T Corp.'s motion to strike the declaration,  (submitted by Bell Atlantic, of Albert Halprin, a former Chief of the Commission's Common Carrier Bureau, IS GRANTED."7/ ,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ XtԙSSo112. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the objections of US West regarding the  (fsimultaneous briefing schedule and its motion to compel an answer to its Interrogatory No. 3 ARE DENIED.  X^SSp113. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bell Atlantic's motion to strike AT&T Corp.'s  (*reply brief as untimely IS DENIED and its motion for leave to file a Supplemental Reply IS  ev2GRANTED.   XSSq114. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that AT&T Corp., consistent with our directions in  e12 (jparagraph 107, MAY FILE a supplemental complaint for damages within 60 days of the release date of this order. SS  XDSSr115. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MCI Telecommunications Corporation, Western  e 2 (Union International, Inc., and Telecom*USA, consistent with our directions in paragraph 107,  (jointly MAY FILE a supplemental complaint for damages within 60 days of the release date of this order. SS   4[[pFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION SS   4[[pMagalie Roman Salas SS   4[[pSecretary