WPC 2MBVRKZ3|j7jC:,yzXj\  P6G;XP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 5PHPLAS5P.PRS5Xj\  P6G;\0!XXP2> K Z3|j"i~'^5>I\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>\>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\nBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\HP LaserJet 5PHPLAS5P.PRS5c P7\0!XP2S^pK v X4  Њ#XP\  P6Q߈XP#"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'K2^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoYi{xxxl888SS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS>A.SSxSSJJSJS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxIxSxIqIqIrSrS{dgIiSiSgIxSxSxSxSxS{S{S8.SSSS8Sz]SSuSg/g ))  ׃  Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O g ` ` ` Document[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g!  . 2("e'#ek'$'%pc(Document[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g"  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g#  Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g$*    Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g%  ` ` ` 2k+&)')(2*)*Right Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g&8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g'A@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g(0     Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g)J` ` ` @  ` ` ` 2.*++J,,---Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g*S` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g+\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g,e` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g-n` ` `  hhh@  2N1..//0D010Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g.w` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g/F    ׃  Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g0&!"  . Technical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g1&#$  . 232132425E3Technical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g2*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g3''(   Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g4&)*   Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g54+$,     2B6'4748v 159oATechnical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g6&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g7&/0  . MACNormal8;     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#Footnote9Íč2AF:HB;iB<0D=~Dfootnote tex#:'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#header;Ax 4 <D  #FxX  Pg9CXP# reference<;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1=&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#2K>isF?^G@O:IA Jheader2>I ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# heading 3?F` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# footer!@!!#d\  PCP#CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileAW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  B2MBKCrLDLErMFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded DocumentBiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#a2AgendaCa1AgendaAgenda ItemsD7D yP ) I. a3AgendaE2}PF1NGNHOIdPHeadingChapter HeadingFJ d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersG>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheadingH0\ E A.  HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and BoldldeddI+. 2TJPKQL1\RM1SDRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and DateJ X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style offK@@    LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5L 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5Mf 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   2AXN1TO1!VPnRWQWLETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11NL 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14O 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a DocumentPK\ * ăBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedQN X 2\RdsXSjXTAYUE`[HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold LargeRB*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and UnderscoredS V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/marginsTu 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   INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math InvoiceU ,, $0$0  2bV-\W8^X8<_Yt`MEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatVD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math InvoiceW:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math MacroXz 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math InvoiceY+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX 2cZXGb[[b\[b][UcNORMALReturn to Normal TypestyleZSMALLSmall Typestyle[FINEFine Typestyle\LARGELarge Typestyle]2sf^[c_[=d`daXfEXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle^VERY LARGEVery Large Typestyle_ENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header`+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   1adf20nbfcEgdgellStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Marginsb$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5c$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIdJ )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/Tabse )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !2pfbngnh|oipStyle 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsfDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Fontg4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5h$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Pointi$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO 2&|jpkxqlrmwStyle 7Swiss 11.5j$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Pointk$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for Advancedl 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 Beginninggmi )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 2UnX|o]pqsqqStyle 9Initial Codes for Intermediaten )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 Moduleo )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 a4AgendaFE+&Bß-Agenda Items``0/K&(=(&2*&0pa5AgendaFE+&Bß-Agenda Items``0/K&(=(&2*&0q2lrqsqtqiuڈa6AgendaFE+&Bß-Agenda Items``0/K&(=(&2*&0ra7AgendaFE+&Bß-Agenda Items``0/K&(=(&2*&0sa8AgendaFE+&Bß-Agenda Items``0/K&(=(&2*&0ta127 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0u8@   2@vw9x݊ya227 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0vA@` `  ` ` ` a327 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0wJ` ` @  ` `  a427 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0xS` `  @  a527 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0y\` `  @hh# hhh 2Gzr{1|}}ʎa627 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0ze` `  hh#@( hh# a727 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0{n` `  hh#(@- ( a827 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0|w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp a1Paragraph+&Bß-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)&"=(&8oY 2*&0}$ 2ۑ~y2a2Paragraph+&Bß-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)&"=(&8oY 2*&0~/` ` ` a3Paragraph+&Bß-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)&"=(&8oY 2*&0:` ` `  a4Paragraph+&Bß-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)&"=(&8oY 2*&0E` ` `  a5Paragraph+&Bß-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)&"=(&8oY 2*&0P` ` ` hhh 2ڔ Ja6Paragraph+&Bß-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)&"=(&8oY 2*&0[ a7Paragraph+&Bß-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)&"=(&8oY 2*&0f a8Paragraph+&Bß-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)&"=(&8oY 2*&0q a1Order8X X-I.x2]  Gga2OrderAp X-xA.` ` a3OrderJ* X-x` ` 1. a4Order4 X- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. 1.(1)(a) i) a)I.xannotation rK&7>annotation referenceGw. "7>NGI "OaOb#Xv P7XP##Xv P7XP#2vAvv-annotation tK&7>annotation textGw/ "7>NGI "2c(dheading 4heading 4 heading 5heading 5 heading 6heading 6 2v՚vKlv-heading 7heading 7 heading 8heading 8 Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font endnote textendnote text 2@r՜vGe"endnote referenceendnote reference footnote textfootnote text footnote referencefootnote reference toc 1toc 1` hp x (#(#`(#`` hp x (#2r̦toc 2toc 2` hp x (#` (#`` (#`` hp x (#toc 3toc 3` hp x (#` (#` (#` hp x (#toc 4toc 4` hp x (# (# (#` hp x (#toc 5toc 5` hp x (#h(#h(#` hp x (#2v:έtoc 6toc 6` hp x (#(# (# ` hp x (#toc 7toc 7 toc 8toc 8` hp x (#(# (# ` hp x (#toc 9toc 9` hp x (#(#`(#`` hp x (#2<Zvxindex 1index 1` hp x (#` (#` (#` hp x (#index 2index 2` hp x (#` (#`` (#`` hp x (#toa headingtoa heading` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#captioncaption 2ʸl ZdJ_Equation Caption_Equation Caption 1, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.E1.A, B,t ?@65Uppercase Letters1 ?*1÷$t ?.E .Default Para6w]Default Paragraph Font8׏ C*g7ȇ׏E;<2'o qendnote refe6w]endnote referenceg78׏ E*g7ȇ׏E?@footnote ref6w]footnote reference78׏ G*g7ȇ׏ECD_Equation Ca6w]_Equation Captiong78׏ U*g7ȇ׏E_`MACDocument[     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<     #:}D4P XP# T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<     #:}D4P XP# ,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#2bYY8footerinfo'3, '4'46$16c61_$'461L14 <DL!T$#<2PP# 4 <DL!(##XN\  PXP#NORMAL INDEN؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4"    4` hp x (##A\  P'P#   ,JR Z bj ##XN\  P(XP#heading 1 (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4&!"  4 <DL!T$#XN\  P)XP#   4 <DL!(##XN\  P*XP#  heading 2 (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4##$ , 4 <DL!T$#XN\  P+XP#  4 <DL!(##XN\  P,XP# 2sybody text(n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4%& 4 <DL!T$ X #XN\  P-XP# 4 <DL!(##XN\  P.XP#heading 3 (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4#'(  , 4 <DL!T$#XN\  P/XP#  4 <DL!(##XN\  P0XP# List 4 3 (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4)*  `  ` hp x (##XN\  P1XP#  `  R Z bj ##XN\  P2XP#List 1 3 (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4/+,    ` hp x (# #XN\  P3XP#   ,JR Z bj ##XN\  P4XP#2y_Fe8List 5 3 (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4-.    ` hp x (##XN\  P5XP#   ` hp x (##XN\  P6XP#heading 4 (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4/04 <DL!T$#XN\  P7XP# 4 <DL!(##XN\  P8XP#List 2 4 (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4/12    ` hp x (# #XN\  P9XP#   R Z bj ##XN\  P:XP#heading 5 (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4 344 <DL!T$#XN\  P;XP#  4 <DL!(##XN\  P<XP# 2b{List 1.d (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4/56    ` hp x (# #XN\  P=XP#   R Z bj ##XN\  P>XP#List 2.d (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4/78  `   4 hp x (# #XN\  P?XP#  `  4` hp x (##XN\  P@XP#List 3.d (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4"9:    ` 0 hp x (#0 #XN\  PAXP#   ` hp x (##XN\  PBXP#List 4.d (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4237List 3d (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4/=>7 4  4` hp x (# #XN\  PEXP#  4 #XN\  PFXP#List 5.d (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4"?@  h ` <p x (#0 #XN\  PGXP#  h 4 hp x (##XN\  PHXP#Quote.d (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4"AB  ` `   hp x (##XN\  PIXP#  ` `  ,JR Z bj ##XN\  PJXP#2cfRPage#.d (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4CD4 <DL!T$#XN\  PKXP# 4 <DL!(##XN\  PLXP#body no inde؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4GH 4 <DL!T$#XN\  POXP# 4 <DL!(##XN\  PPXP#para numnumbered indented paragraphs' Y- 1.(i) 1) 1.3pʇ-8=@6I>w&P=(&"9=B@`*&^ʇ-8=tE'=>#d6X@ C@#2J5q  6> PLEADING37LA - Pleading Format - 37-Line w/out Firm Name8g#x6X@`7X@# X  X |0 Xh X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:t@BXhp x (#X01ÍÍX81Í ÍPLDFORMATNY Pleading Format - No Numbered Paperr6#Xw PE37WXP#   X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:9---  -->ԯ XX   9ddddKdd@ ddddKdd@9X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:#Tps7ѐ#101 PARK AVENUE #x6X@`7X@#  `D%;#Tps7ѐ#NEW YORK, NY 10178 #x6X@`7X@#  ` D%?#Tps7ѐ#(212) 8087800 #x6X@`7X@#  `yD%;#Tps7ѐ#FAX (212) 8087897 #x6X@`7X@#  t" `!D%E#Tps7ѐ#NEW YORK #x6X@`7X@# `!D%B#Tps7ѐ#LOS ANGELES #x6X@`7X@# `D%?#Tps7ѐ#WASHINGTON, DC #x6X@`7X@#  `4"D%F#Tps7ѐ#CHICAGO #x6X@`7X@#  `#D%H#Tps7ѐ#MIAMI #x6X@`7X@#  ` D%A#Tps7ѐ#STAMFORD, CT #x6X@`7X@#  `a D%?#Tps7ѐ#PARSIPPANY, NJ #x6X@`7X@#  `d#D%K `k!D%D#Tps7ѐ#HONG KONG #x6X@`7X@#  `"D%E#Tps7ѐ#BRUSSELS #x6X@`7X@#  `$D%N   ({ ` D%<#TGxP7ۜTP#AFFILIATE OFFICES #x6X@`7X@#  `!D%D#Tps7ѐ#NEW DELHI #x6X@`7X@#  `"D%H#Tps7ѐ#TOKYO #x6X@`7X@#  * T XX X 9ddddKdd@ ddddKdd@9MARKETLETTERAll- Marketing Letterhead FormatAZAjFAXNEWDC - New "Letterhead" for Fax Transmittal+##x6X@`7CX@# X   X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersu -2( -Ct )J` ` ` @  ` ` ` 2F\ ~11S&C?C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )S` ` `  @  12S&C@C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )\` ` `  @hhh hhh 13S&CAC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )e` ` `  hhh@ hhh 14S&CBC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )n` ` `  hhh@  2*xKIKKߌ15S&CCC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )w` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp "i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"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""A.SSxSSJR"RNOdxSxS8JSVSSSSS;88VVS++SSdSSxSc]]8VS;"xxSxxqS]^^^z0^88^^^zxzzzggx8E]S^/zU*FJSvggxxxxxzzzzKxggqU^^^zxxxxzzH|lr]d]oJixJc|YoSx^_^eSSiJxJodx]ddd|ixxdd88SS"i~'K2^!.22YN!!!2Y!!!!2222222222!!dYd,YH?EJ?;HJ!'F?[JH9HC6?JH^HHA!!!22!,2,2,!222N2222%'22H22,,2,d222222!222222222H,H,H,H,H,YCE,?,?,?,?,!!!!J2H2H2H2H2J2J2J2J2H2H,J2H2H2H2J292H,H2H,D,D,E2E2J<>,?2?2>,H2H2H2H2H2J2J2!2222!2I822F2>>$?2>>J2:J2J2H2H2YHB$B$C26&6&6&62>$>?2J2J2J2J2J2J2^HH2@,@,@,J2?2J262?2H2<!22!!!WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHHH222!,))22X222YY2#2222Y#!!442Ydd22<g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\nBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\CG TimesTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicCG Times ItalicSymbolTimes New Roman Bold ItalicUnivers CondensedUnivers Condensed BoldAlbertus"i~'K2^ *:DD^Y D^ DDDDDDDDDD ^?^OLIOB?OO%DLO?O?I?O?I?O?ODO?I:I:IDIDOOB>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyyyyF\yrrygryyrr>3>g\>\\Q\Q>\g33\3g\\\FF3gQy\QF>(>g>0gg>>>0>>>>>>\>\3y\y\y\y\y\yQyQyQyQyQF3F3F3F3g\\\\ggggrQy\\\\rQ\r\y\y\y\yQyQygyQyQyQyQyQ\\\g\ggF3F\F>F\gggy\r3r_r>rFr3ggg\\yFyFyFgFgFgFggrcr3rgggggggyrgrFrFrF\r>ggFr>r\0\\=3=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB\\F\\\\\\07\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBigg>\\7"yyyy\nyc\gnn\"i~'^5>M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\nBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%7%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lBTn(nBB(AZZ>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7]x/c81,6rc PE37P ^7jC:, ߈Xj\  P6G;XP&_7nC:,TXn4  pG;X`y.X80, qX\  P6G;P  &ay.\80,5)\4  pG;w5hC:,.Xh*f9 xr G;XXxW!@(#, ^#h@\  P6G;hPH<!,G,< PE37,PyH5!, ~v,5\  P6G;,Pz{,W80,.W*f9 xr G;Xz-b81,Eb&_ x7Xa$G,', _G\  P6G;P {y.X80, qX\  P6G;P  |y.V80,UFV\  PAPd}6jC:,\SXj9 xOG;Xd~z-X80,\ժX9 xOG; j$H/ ,x`HxPP(7P j$L/ ,)Lpw7%r=:,T&rL@ PI37&P2a=5, /&a\  P6G;&P&2e=5,&e4  pG;&0_=5,.8&_*f9 xr G;&XP:% , NIJ:\  P6G;JPd1a=5,\Dd&a9 xOG;&ÍX81Í2 yO-3 X-} Federal Communications Commission FCC 98222  X(#P yxdddy3#X\  P6G;qP# v3 Before the  yO FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  yOaWashington, D.C. 20554 #Xj\  P6G;߈XP#у In the Matter of R) R)  X-Prescribing the AuthorizedO ) hppCC Docket No. 98 166 Unitary Rate of Return for R) Interstate Services of LocalR) Exchange Carriers R)  S -#&a\  P6G;/&P#  Sa -  NOTICE INITIATING A PRESCRIPTION PROCEEDING  S9 -F AND NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING T  S - Adopted: September 8, 1998 Released: October  E%S 5 E%S , 1998 TP Direct Case Submission Date: December 3 E%S0 , 1998 Responsive Submission Date: February 1, 1999 Rebuttal Submission Date: February 22, 1999 NPRM Comment Date: December 3 E%S 0 , 1998 NPRM Reply Comment Date: February 1, 1999  S-By the Commission: Commissioner FurchtgottRoth dissenting and issuing a statement.  S -  TABLE OF CONTENTS ĐTP    S-  Para. No.Đ S-X(#PXxPI. INTRODUCTION pR"(#L 1 XxPII. INITIATING A RATEOFRETURN PRESCRIPTION pR"(#L 2  S-XxX` ` xA.` ` Background ` pR"(#L 2  S-XxX` ` xB.` ` Position of Parties ` pR"(#L 3  S-XxX` ` xC.` ` Discussion ` pR"(#L 5 XxPIII. PRESCRIBING THE RATE OF RETURN pR"(#L 8  SQ!-XxX` ` xA.` ` General Considerations ` pR"(#L 8  S)"-XxX` ` xB.` ` Weighted Average Cost of Capital ` pR"(#L 9  S#-XxX` ` xC.` ` Capital Structure ` p!(#F 10  S#-XxX` ` xD.` ` Embedded Cost of Debt ` p!(#F 12  S$-XxX` ` xE. ` ` Cost of Preferred Stock ` p!(#F 15  S%-XxX` ` xF. ` ` Cost of Equity ` p3"(#I 17  Sa&-XxX` ` X ` ` 1. Background p3"(#I 17  S9'-XxX` ` X ` ` 2. Surrogate Companies p3"(#I 19"9'0*o(o(qq#("Ԍ S-XxX` ` X ` ` 3. Discounted Cash Flow Methodology p3"(#I 22  S-XxX` ` x` ` 4. Risk Premium Methodologies ` p3"(#I 31  S-XxX` ` xG.` ` Other CostofCapital Showings ` p3"(#I 38  S-XxX` ` xH. ` ` Other Factors to Be Considered in Determining the Allowed Rate of Return ` p3"(#I 39  S`-XxX` ` xI.` ` Procedural Matters ` p3"(#I 43  S8-XxX` ` X ` ` 1. Ex Parte Presentations p3"(#I 43  S-XxX` ` X ` ` 2. Procedures For Filing Rate of Return Submissions p3"(#I 44  S-XxX` ` X ` ` 3. Further Information p3"(#I  E%S 50 E%S ԃ XxPIV. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING p3"(#I  E%S 51 E%S ԃ  Sr-XxX` ` xA.` ` Discussion ` p3"(#I  E%S 51 E%S ԃ  SJ -XxX` ` X ` ` 1. Changes to the costofdebt calculation p3"(#I  E%S 51 E%S ԃ  S" -XxX` ` X ` ` 2. Changes to the CostofPreferred Stock Calculation p3"(#I 5 E%S 2 E%S ԃ  S -XxX` ` X ` ` 3. Changes to the LowEnd Adjustment for Price Cap LECs p3"(#I 5 E%S 3 E%S ԃ  S -XxX` ` xB. ` ` Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ` p3"(#I 5 E%S 6 E%S ԃ  S -XxX` ` xC.` ` Comment Filing Procedure ` p3"(#I 6 E%S" 6 E%S" ԃ  S -XxX` ` xD.` ` Further Information ` p3"(#I  E%S$ 70 E%S$ ԃ XxPV. ORDERING CLAUSES p3"(#I  E%S& 71 E%S& ԃ  S-  f I. INTRODUCTION אTP  SB-x` `  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)1. The Commission is required by Section 201 of the Communications Act of  S-1934 to ensure that rates are "just and reasonable."n yO-#X\  P6G;qP#эx47 U.S.C.  201(b).n To ensure that their rates for interstate access are just and reasonable, the Commission prescribes an authorized rate of return for the approximately 1300 incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) that are subject to rateofreturn rather than price cap  S-regulation.^X {O-  \#X\  P6G;qP##X\  P6G;qP#э xThe prescribed rate of return for interstate access is currently 11.25%. See Represcribing the Authorized  {Od- xJRate of Return for Interstate Services of Local Exchange Carriers, Order, CC Docket No. 89624, 5 FCC Rcd 7507,  {O.-7509 para. 13 (1990) (1990 Rate of Return Order).  This Notice initiates a proceeding to represcribe the authorized rate of return forf interstate  Sz-access services provided by ILECs.z~ yO-  #X\  P6G;qP#эxWe intend to codify the rate of return determined here in Part 65 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 65. It marks the first prescription proceeding since we revised the rules governing procedures and methodologies for prescribing and enforcing the rate of return for  S*-ILECs not subject to price cap regulation,\* yO#-  #X\  P6G;qP##C\  PQqP#эxAmendment of Parts 65 and 69 of the Commission's Rules to Reform the Interstate Rate of Return  {Oh$- xReprescription and Enforcement Processes, Report and Order, CC Docket No. 92133, 10 FCC Rcd 6788 (1995)  {O2%-(1995 Rate of Return Represcription Procedures Order). and the first prescription proceeding since the Commission"* 0*&&qql"  S-adopted its price cap rules for local exchange carriers.H {Oh-  #X\  P6G;qP#эxPolicy and Rules Concerning Rates for Dominant Carriers, Second Report and Order, CC Docket No. 87 {O2- xZ313, 5 FCC Rcd 6786, 6804 para. 14749 (1990) (LEC Price Cap Order), Erratum, 5 FCC Rcd 7664 (Com. Car.  {O- x-Bur. 1990),  modified on recon., 6 FCC Rcd 2637 (1991); aff'd sub nom. National Rural Telecom Ass'n v. FCC,  x988 F.2d 174 (D.C. Cir. 1993). We note that SBC Communications, Inc. recently filed a Petition for Section 11  xBiennial Review in which it argues that our rateofreturn represcription procedures are a "vestige of rate of return  {OV- xregulation which is no longer needed under price cap regulation." See 1998 Biennial Regulatory ReviewPetition  xJfor Section 11 Biennial Review filed by SBC Communications, Inc., Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Pacific Bell, and Nevada Bell). This and other proposals made by SBC will be addressed in a future proceeding. In this Notice, we seek comment on the methods by which we could calculate the ILECs' cost of capital. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), attached to the end of the Notice, we propose corrections to errors in the codified formulas for the cost of debt and cost of preferred stock and seek comment on whether this proceeding warrants a change in the lowend formula adjustment for local exchange carriers subject to price caps. x` `  S-T7  II. INITIATING A RATEOFRETURN PRESCRIPTION אTP  S- A.xBackground   SH -x` ` 2. The rate of return we prescribe for ILECs' interstate operations links our regulatory processes and carriers' actual costs of capital and equity. The Commission periodically represcribes this rate to ensure that the service rates filed by incumbent local exchange carriers subject  S -to rateofreturn regulation continue to be just and reasonable.n  yOH-#X\  P6G;qP#эx47 U.S.C.  201(b).n In its 1995 Rate of Return  S -Represcription Procedures Order, h  yO-#X\  P6G;qP##C\  PQqP#эx10 FCC Rcd 6788 (1995).ß the Commission revised its prescription procedures to require that it consider commencing a new rateofreturn prescription proceeding whenever yields on 10year U.S. Treasury securities remain, for a consecutive sixmonth period, at least 150 basis points above or below a certain reference point (the "trigger point"). The reference point is the average of the average monthly yields for the consecutive sixmonth period immediately prior to the effective date of the  S-current rateofreturn prescription. That reference point is currently 8.64 percent.X01Í ÍX0Í Í ?\ yO|-#C\  PQqP#эxThis figure is based on the average monthly yields for the months of March 1990 through August 1990. For the consecutive  S-sixmonth period immediately following the release of the 1995 Rate of Return Represcription  S-Procedures Order, the yields were more than 150 basis points below this reference point. Accordingly, on February 6, 1996, the Bureau issued a Public Notice seeking comment on whether to"p 0*&&qqs"  S-commence a rateofreturn prescription proceeding. Z?\ {Oh-  #C\  PQqP#эxCommon Carrier Bureau Sets Pleading Schedule in Preliminary Rate of Return Inquiry, Public Notice, AAD  xh9628, 11 FCC Rcd 3651 (1996). We note that since the Bureau issued the Public Notice, the yields on the relevant bonds have remained more than 150 basis points below the reference point. Eleven parties filed comments;* ?\ yO-  l#C\  PQqP#эxComments were filed by AT&T Corp. ("AT&T"); Cincinnati Bell Telephone ("Cincinnati"); General  xServices Administration ("GSA"); MCI Telecommunications Corporation ("MCI"); National Exchange Carrier  xAssociation, Inc. ("NECA"); National Rural Telecom Association ("NRTA"); National Telephone Cooperative  xAssociation ("NTCA"); Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies  x("OPASTCO"); Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell ("Pacific/Nevada"); Pacific Telecom, Inc. ("PTI"); and United States Telephone Association ("USTA"). Additionally, Frontier Corporation ("Frontier") filed an Entry of Appearance. * five parties filed  S-replies.X0Í ÍX0Í Í b ?\ yO -#C\  PQqP#эxReplies were filed by GSA; MCI; NECA; NTCA; and USTA.  S- B.xPosition of Parties   S8-x` ` 3. In response to the Public Notice, the commenting ILECs and the organizations representing their interests urge the Commission not to conduct a rateofreturn proceeding. These commenters offer three primary arguments to support their view that the Commission should not begin a rateofreturn prescription proceeding now. First, they assert that the rateofreturn prescription process is designed to target the return on ILEC investments to the risk of the local exchange business and the current cost of capital and that realistic evaluation of the new risk level is not yet possible  SH -because of the uncertain impact of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 H ?\ yO-#X\  P6G;qP#эxTelecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996) ("1996 Act"). and the introduction of  S -competition in the local exchange and exchange access markets. " ?\ {OB-  #C\  PQqP#эxNRTA Comments at 2; Pacific/Nevada Comments at 1. See also Cincinnati Comments at 4; NECA  xiComments at 23; NRTA Comments at 2; NTCA Comments at 3; OPASTCO Comments at 23; Pacific/Nevada  xComments at 1; USTA Comments at 26; NTCA Reply at 2 (stating generally that the 1996 Act created a great deal of uncertainty with respect to overall competition and the financial position of ILECs).  Second, these commenters argue  S -that current volatility in the financial markets contributes to the uncertainty faced by ILECs.k l?\ yO-#C\  P6QqP#эxNECA Comments at 4.k Finally, they argue that conducting a rateofreturn proceeding would require extensive analysis and place substantial demands on the Commission when the Commission is least able to commit the staff and  S -time needed to conduct the analysis required by a prescription effort.[Z ?\ yO!-   #C\  PQqP#эxNECA Comments at 5; NTCA Comments at 23; PTI Comments at 23; USTA Comments at 6; NTCA  {O!- xReply at 34. See also AT&T Comments at 23; Cincinnati Comments at 3; NRTA Comments at 3; Pacific/Nevada Comments at 1.[ Therefore, the commenters  SX-conclude, considering the demands of implementing the 1996 Act and the small segment of the"X0*&&qqK"  S-telecommunications industry affected by rate represcription, ?\ yOh-  #C\  PQqP#эxThe commenters argue that the carriers who remain subject to rate of return regulation account for only 6 x7% of the total ILEC revenue and access lines. AT&T Comments at 3; Cincinnati Comments at 3; NECA Comments  xat 5; NRTA Comments at 3; NTCA Comments at 23; Pacific/Nevada Comments at 2; USTA Comments at 6 (citation omitted). the Commission should decide against proceeding with represcription.  S-x` ` 4.  Two commenters, MCI and GSA, support initiating a rateofreturn prescription proceeding. GSA disagrees that the 1996 Act has created uncertainty for the ILECs by  S8-opening local markets to competition, and argues that the Act has in reality reduced uncertainty by  S-establishing the rules under which competition will be permitted.g?\ yO` -#X\  P6G;qP#эxGSA Reply at 5.g MCI argues that the Commission should examine the relevant data to determine whether and how passage of the Act affected the  S-ILECs' business risk.g@?\ yO-#X\  P6G;qP#эxMCI Reply at 3.g MCI estimates that the ILECs' current cost of capital has fallen to 9.48%, and  S-concludes that a represcription is warranted.u?\ yO-#X\  P6G;qP#эxMCI Comments at Attachment A.u  SH - C.xDiscussion   S -x` ` 5. We agree with MCI and GSA that we should initiate a rateofreturn prescription proceeding at this time. The sustained low yields of the U.S. treasury securities strongly suggest that the current prescribed rate of return is much higher that the rate required to attract capital and earn a reasonable profit. Our duty to ensure that service rates are just and reasonable requires that we undertake a prescription proceeding at this time. Although the ultimate impact of the 1996 Act on the telecommunications industry is not yet known, this does not preclude us from commencing a prescription proceeding. Our rate prescriptions are always prospective, and there is always some degree of uncertainty about the future. Marketbased costofcapital methodologies incorporate the capital markets' assessment of all the forms of risk, including risk associated with a changing legal and regulatory environment.  S@-x` ` 6. Furthermore, contrary to the contention of the ILECs, a rateofreturn  S-prescription proceeding would not unduly tax the Commission's resources. In addition, the 1995 Rate  S-of Return Represcription Procedures Order significantly streamlined the rateofreturn prescription process by eliminating our trialtype procedures that included discovery, possible crossexamination, proposed findings of fact and conclusions, reply findings and conclusions, possible oral argument, and  S|-use of a separated trial staff at the discretion of the Common Carrier Bureau.|` ?\ {O|#-#X\  P6G;qP#эx1995 Rate of Return Represcription Procedures Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 6808 para. 43. Moreover, despite the burden that a prescription proceeding would impose on the Commission, we have an overarching duty under the Act to ensure that the rateofreturn ILECs' rates are just and reasonable. " 0*&&qqk"Ԍ S-x` ` 7. For the reasons described above, we are not persuaded by the commenters that we should delay commencing a prescription proceeding. It is important that our prescribed rate of  S-return correspond to current market conditions. The recent yields on 10year U.S. treasury securities have remained more than 150 basis points below the reference point, suggesting that the prescribed  S`-rate does not coincide with current market conditions. Therefore, we conclude that we should begin a rateofreturn prescription proceeding.  S-  8III. PRESCRIBING THE RATE OF RETURN  S-TP  S- A.xGeneral Considerations   SH -x` ` 8.  We prescribe a rate of return in order to ensure that rateofreturn8 carriers' rates for interstate access services are "just and reasonable." Carriers subject to rateofreturn regulation, however, may also provide interstate interexchange services. For such carriers, our prescribed rate of return is applied to their interexchange access services as well. We seek comment  S -on whether the same prescribed rate should be applied to rateofreturn carriers' interstate access and interexchange services, or whether the prescribed rate should be adjusted when applied to provision of interexchange services. Commenters supporting the application of different rates should indicate how the prescribed rate for interstate interexchange services should be determined. We also seek comment on whether the rate of return prescribed for interstate access should also be used for other purposes, including determination of universal service support.  S- B.xWeighted Average Cost of Capital   S@-x` ` 9. The weighted average cost of capital is used to estimate the rate of return that the ILECs must earn on their investment in facilities used to provide regulated interstate services in order to attract sufficient capital investment. Our rules specify that the composite weighted average cost of capital is the sum of the cost of debt, the cost of preferred stock, and the cost of equity, each  S-weighted by its proportion in the capital structure of the telephone companies.x?\ {O-#C\  PQqP#эxSee 47 C.F.R.  65.305.x The formulas for determining the cost of debt, cost of preferred stock, and capital structure are codified in sections  SP-65.302, 65.303, and 65.304, respectively of the Commission's rules.vPZ?\ {OJ-#C\  P6QqP#эxId.  65.302304.v Each of these components are calculated using routinely collected data from the Automatic Reporting Management Information  S-System (ARMIS) reports.X?\ yO -  #C\  PQqP#эxARMIS is the automated system developed in 1987 for collecting financial and operating information from  xcertain carriers. The data used for purposes of determining the cost of debt, cost of preferred stock and capital structure are contained in the FCC ARMIS Report 4302.  The rules do not include a formula for calculating the cost of equity. Instead, they state that "the cost of equity shall be determined in prescription proceedings after giving" 0*&&qq." full consideration to the evidence in the record, including such evidence as the Commission may  S-officially notice."n?\ yO@-#C\  PQqP#эx47 C.F.R.  65.301.n  S- C.xCapital Structure  S`-  S8-x` `  10. Prior to the 1995 Rate of Return Represcription Procedures Order, Part 65 of the Commission's rules prescribed a method of computing the capital structure of all ILECs based on  S-a composite of the capital structures of the Regional Bell operating companies (RBOCs).X?\ yO -#C\  P6QqP#эx51 FR 1808 (January 15, 1986) as amended 51 FR 4598 (February 6, 1986). In the  S-1995 Rate of Return Represcription Procedures Order, the Commission revised its methodology to use  S-instead the capital structure of all ILECs with annual revenues of $100 million or more. This capital structure methodology was codified in order to "simplify future represcription proceedings without  SL -sacrificing needed accuracy."L ?\ {O-#C\  PQqP#эx1995 Rate of Return Represcription Procedures Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 6841 para. 121. The proportion of each costofcapital component in the capital structure is equal to the book value of that particular component divided by the book value of the sum  S -of all components. z?\ yO-#C\  P6QqP#эxThe formula for calculating the particular component in the capital structure is  yO- ` ` Book Value of particular component (#(#X x` ` Book Value of Debt + Book Value of Preferred Stock + Book Value of Equity  For example, the proportion of debt in the capital structure is equal to the book value of debt divided by the sum of the book value of debt, equity, and preferred stock.   S -x` `  11. In Appendix B, we calculate the ILECs' capital structure based on 1997 data  S\-contained in the ARMIS 4302 reports. Based onARMIS data, the ILECs' capital structure is 42.88%  S4-debt, .14% preferred stock and 56.98% equity.4* ?\ yO-  #X\  P6G;qP#эxDuring this proceeding, we plan to use the most recent available ARMIS reports to calculate the ILECs' capital structure.  S- D.xEmbedded Cost of Debt   S-x` `  12. The cost of debt is based on the sale of bonds and other debtrelated securities  Sl-to finance telephone operations.{Zl ?\ {O!-  [#C\  PQqP#эxThe debt of a company may be longterm (i.e., debt with a term of one year or more) or shortterm (all debt  xiother than longterm). Under the Commission's rules for calculating the cost of debt, the cost of shortterm and longterm debt can be combined.{ Prior to the 1995 Rate of Return Represcription Procedures Order, Part 65 of the Commission's rules required each of the RBOCs to perform detailed calculations to determine their embedded cost of debt based upon data contained in their Form 10K or 10Q  S-statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In the 1995 Rate of Return"0*&&qq4"  S-Represcription Procedures Order, the Commission altered the methodology to be used in a prescription proceeding for calculating the embedded cost of debt, using data submitted in ARMIS  S-report 4302 by all ILECs with annual revenues of $100 million or more. The Commission definedX0Í ÍX0Í Í  S-embedded cost of debt to be the total annual interest expense divided by average outstanding debt.B?\ yO-#C\  PQqP#эxEmbedded Cost of Debt = Total Annual Interest Expense x` `   Average Outstanding Debt  xTotal annual interest expense is defined as the total interest expense for the most recent two years for all local  {O- xwexchange carriers with annual revenues of $100 million or more (see infra para. 51 for a tentative conclusion on the  xxneed to correct this definition). Average outstanding debt is defined as the average of the total debt for the most  xrecent two years for all local exchange carriers with annual revenues of $100 million or more. 47 C.F.R.  65.302.   S:-x` `  13. In Appendix B, we calculate the ILECs' embedded cost of debt based on 1997  S-data contained in the ARMIS 4302 reports filed by reporting ILECs.n?\ yO-#C\  P6QqP#эx47 C.F.R.  65.302.n Based on this data, the ILECs'  S-cost of debt is 7.35%. b ?\ yO-  #X\  P6G;qP#эxDuring this proceeding, we plan to use the most recent available ARMIS reports to calculate the ILECs' embedded cost of debt.  S-x` `  14. In response to the Public Notice, USTA observed that the total debt calculation  Sr-as contained in the Appendix to the Public Notice was performed incorrectly.h!r ?\ yO-#C\  PQqP#эxUSTA Reply at 6.h USTA pointed out  SJ -that Unamortized Debt Issuance Expense should be deducted from, rather than added to, total debt." J J ?\ yO4-  #C\  PQqP#эxThis account is reported under "Noncurrent Assets" in Table B1 (Balance Sheet), Row 1407 of ARMIS  x4302. Based on this tentative conclusion, total debt would be calculated as the sum of Rows 420 (total longterm  xdebt), 4020 (notes payable), 4050 (current maturities longterm debt), and 4060 (current maturities capital leases); less the amount in Row 1407. We tentatively conclude that USTA is correct. The calculations contained in Appendix B reflect this tentative conclusion. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.  S - E. xCost of Preferred Stock   SZ-x` ` 15. The 1995 Rate of Return Represcription Procedures Order revised the methodology for calculating the cost of preferred stock to be consistent with the calculation of the cost of debt and directed that the calculation be based on data routinely submitted by ILECs with annual revenues of $100 million or more rather than by the RBOCs, as was done in the 1990 rateofreturn"2"0*&&qq" proceeding. The methodology for calculating the cost of preferred stock is to divide total annual  S-preferred dividends by the proceeds from the issuance of preferred stock.#B?\ yO@-#C\  PQqP#эxCost of Preferred Stock =  Total Annual Preferred Dividends  x` `  Proceeds from the Issuance of Preferred Stock  xTotal annual preferred dividends is defined as the total dividends on preferred stock for the most recent two years  {O`- xfor all local exchange carriers with annual revenues of $100 million or more (see infra para. 52 for a tentative  xconclusion on the need to correct this definition). The term "proceeds from the issuance of preferred stock" is  xdefined as the average of the total net proceeds from the issuance of preferred stock for the most recent two years for all local exchange carriers with annual revenues of $100 million or more. 47 C.F.R.  65.303.   S-x` ` 16. In Appendix B, we calculate the ILECs' cost of preferred stock based on 1997  S`-data contained in the ARMIS 4302 reports.n$`?\ yO -#C\  P6QqP#эx47 C.F.R.  65.303.n According to this ARMIS data, the ILECs' cost of  S8-preferred stock is 3.52%.%8b ?\ yO:-  #X\  P6G;qP#эxDuring this proceeding, we plan to use the most recent available ARMIS reports to calculate the ILECs' cost of preferred stock. x` `  S- 8F. xCost of Equity   S-x 1.` ` Background   SH -x` ` 17. Prior to the 1995 Rate of Return Represcription Procedures8 Order, Part 65 of the Commission's rules required the RBOCs to prepare two historical discounted cash flow estimates and submit state costofcapital determinations to assist the Commission in calculating the ILECs' cost  S -of equity.&X ?\ yO,-  #C\  PQqP#эxPart 65 formerly required RBOCs to provide each state costofcapital determination that is applicable to  x;that firm's intrastate exchange carrier operations as of the date of the filing and include a copy of the state decision and any exceptions with that filing. In the 1995 Rate of Return Represcription Procedures Order, the Commission concluded that the methodology for estimating equity costs, as well as the data to be used in applying particular methodologies, flotation costs, and periods of compounding, should be determined anew in each proceeding. Accordingly, Part 65 no longer prescribes a methodology for determining ILECs' cost of  S4-equity.'4?\ {O-#C\  PQqP#эx1995 Rate of Return Represcription Procedures Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 683031 paras. 9091.  S-x` ` 18. In this section, we propose several methods for estimating the cost of equity for interstate services. We seek comment on each of these methods and invite commenters to propose additional methodologies. Commenters should discuss whether in this proceeding we should use only one or more than one methodology to estimate this component of the carriers' cost of capital.  SD-Commenters preferring the use of more than one methodology are requested to specify how we should weigh the results of these methods to estimate the cost of equity. We expect that in the direct cases," l'0*&&qqD" parties will use the results from the cost of equity methods they propose. We note that we will use  S-Standard and Poors Compustat PC Plus database(?\ yO@-#C\  PQqP#эxCompustat PC Plus is provided by Standard & Poor's Compustat, Englewood, Colorado. as our source for financial data in this proceeding.  S- x2.` ` Surrogate Companies(#`  S`-  S8-x` ` 19. The methods of estimating the cost of equity that we identify in this Notice use  S-stock prices and other measures of investor expectations regarding the ILECs' interstate services.)^X?\ {O -  m#C\  PQqP#эxAmendment of Parts 65 and 69 of the Commission's Rules to Reform the Interstate Rate of Return  {O - xReprescription and Enforcement Processes, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 92133, 7 FCC Rcd  {O -4688, 4694 para. 48 (1992) (1995 Rate of Return Represcription Procedures NPRM). Because ILECs do not issue stock or borrow money solely to support interstate service, investor expectations that would affect the cost of equity for interstate services cannot be measured directly. For this reason, we must select a group of companies facing risks similar to those encountered by the  Sr-rateofreturn ILECs*r~?\ yO-  #C\  P6QqP#эxThis group would include price cap ILECs to the extent they receive universal service distributions calculated on a rate of return basis. in providing interstate service for which we can estimate the cost of equity.+r?\ {O-#C\  PQqP#эx1995 Rate of Return Represcription Procedures NPRM, 7 FCC Rcd at 4694 para. 48. Risk is the uncertainty associated with the ability of an investment to generate the return expected by  S" -investors. ," h ?\ yO*-  #X\  P6G;qP#эxRoger A. Morin, Regulatory Finance Utilities' Cost of Capital, pp. 46 & 287 (Public Utilities  yO-Reports, Inc., 1994) ("Morin").  As was done in the 1990 proceeding, once the surrogates are selected, their firmspecific data are applied to the costofequity methodologies selected herein, and average or median returns for the surrogate group are calculated in order to determine a zone of reasonableness for cost of equity.  S -x` ` 20. We seek comment on what group of companies we should select as appropriate surrogates for estimating the cost of equity for interstate services. In 1986, the  S2-Commission adopted the RBOCs as a surrogate group of firms for the interstate access industry.-2 ?\ {O-#X\  P6G;qP#эx1990 Rate of Return Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 7516 para. 76. Ě In 1990, the Commission again concluded that, despite their diversification into nonregulated businesses,  S-the RBOCs were still the most appropriate surrogates. s.R ?\ {O-#X\  P6G;qP#эxId. at 7517 para. 85.s Further, the Commission concluded that most competitive, nonregulated businesses are riskier than the regulated interstate access business and  S-therefore, the RBOCs are riskier as a whole than their regulated telephone operations. As a result, the Commission determined that the costofequity estimate for an RBOC as a whole may overstate the cost of equity for interstate access alone and considered this potential overstatement when determining  S-the costofequity estimates.|/?\ {O%-#X\  P6G;qP#эxId. at 7517 paras. 8486, 178.| In the 1995 Rate of Return Represcription Procedures Order, the" v/0*&&qqS" Commission found that the level of risks that RBOCs face was no longer similar to the risk confronting carriers subject to rateofreturn regulation and therefore the RBOCs' risk may not provide  S-the best data upon which to base a uniform rateofreturn prescription.0?\ {O-#C\  PQqP#эx1995 Rate of Return Represcription Procedures Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 6818 para. 63. With the uncertainty following the passage of the 1996 Act, however, the RBOCs' cost of equity may no longer overstate that of rateofreturn carriers. As a result, we tentatively conclude that the RBOCs, more than any other group of companies, once again constitute the best surrogate for carriers subject to rateofreturn regulation. We tentatively conclude that the RBOCs' current risk most closely resembles the current risk encountered by the rateofreturn carriers. The RBOCs and rateofreturn ILECs both provide  S-interstate services, their primary business is still the provision of telephone service and neither is subject to any meaningful competition for regulated telecommunications services in their service area. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. In addition, we seek comment whether we should incorporate the financial data of any other publicly traded ILEC in the costofequity analysis.  S -x` ` 21. In the 1990 proceeding, although we concluded that the RBOCs were the most  S -appropriate surrogate, we made a downward adjustment to the estimated cost of equity to account for the fact that the RBOCs' interstate access business was less risky than their business as a whole. We seek comment on whether a similar adjustment should be made in this proceeding. Specifically, we seek comment on whether the RBOCs' interstate access business today is more or less risky than their operations as a whole. In the 1990 proceeding, ILECs submitted stock analysts' reports in support of  S-their argument that the proposed DCF formula did not account for the growth in cellular operations.1Z?\ {O-#C\  P6QqP#эx1990 Rate of Return Order, 5 FCC at 7518 para. 90. In responding, commenters should submit stock analysts' reports indicating the relative riskiness of the  S-RBOCs' lines of business.  Sh- x3.` ` Discounted Cash Flow Methodology  S@-  S-x` ` 22. Under the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) methodology, a firm's cost of equity  S-is calculated according to a formula involving the annual dividend and price of a share of its common stock, along with the estimated longterm dividend growth rate. The standard DCF formula is the annual dividend on common stock divided by the price of a share of common stock (termed the  Sx-"dividend yield") plus the longterm growth rate in dividends.2x?\ yO-#X\  P6G;qP#эxThe general equation is:  yOKx` `  Ke = D/P + G, where:  yO$!Kx` `  Ke = cost of equity x` `  D = annual dividend on a share of common stock x` `  P = price of a share of common stock x` `  D/P = dividend yield on a share of common stock x` `  G = longterm growth rate in dividends  x` `  "P 20*&&qq"Ԍ S-x` ` 23. Growth Rate. The DCF method requires an estimate of the longterm growth  S-rate. In both the 1986 and 1990 proceedings, the Commission used the Institutional Brokers Estimate  S-Service ( IBES) as the source of the median forecast of longterm growth.3?\ {O-#C\  PQqP#эx1995 Rate of Return Represcription Procedures NPRM, 7 FCC Rcd at 4696 para. 63. In this proceeding, the Commission will use the S&P Analysts Consensus Estimates ( ACE) of growth in longterm earnings per share as part of the database we obtain from Standard & Poor's. We seek comment on whether ACE provides information comparable to IBES and whether ACE estimates should be used for purposes of this proceeding.  S-x` ` 24. Quarterly Dividend. In both the 1986 and 1990 proceedings, we rejected the ILECs' arguments that the quarterly dividend should be compounded to account for the payment of dividend on a quarterly, rather than annual, basis for three reasons: (1) compounding is reflected in the revenue requirement because the Commission uses a midyear rate base; (2) the adjustment adds a complexity that is not offset by increased accuracy; and (3) the parties did not establish that analysts  S -and investors actually use quarterly compounding models nor did the parties demonstrate how using  S -the quarterly model may affect the market price.4^ Z?\ {O-  #C\  PQqP#эxAuthorized Rates of Return for the Interstate Services of AT&T Communications and Exchange Telephone  {O- xCarriers, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, CC Docket No. 84800 Phase II, 104 FCC 2d 1404,  {Ob-1431 (1986) (Phase II Reconsideration Order); 1990 Rate of Return Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 7515 para. 72. For these reasons, we tentatively conclude that we should not use quarterly compounding in the DCF formula. We seek comment on this tentative  S -conclusion. x` `  S4-x` ` 25. Flotation Costs. Flotation costs are the outofpocket expenses associated with issuing stock as well as any temporary reduction in the market value of the stock attributable to the  S-issuance of additional shares.5?\ {O-#C\  PQqP#эx1990 Rate of Return Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 7515 para. 73. In the 1986 proceeding, the Commission provided a onetime, costofequity adjustment of ten basis points for flotation costs, but stated that no subsequent upward  S-adjustments should be permitted.6\?\ yOH-  =#C\  PQqP#эxAuthorized Rates of Return for the Interstate Services of AT&T Communications and Exchange Telephone  {O- xJCarriers, Report and Order, CC Docket No. 84800, Phase II, 51 Fed. Reg. 1795 at para. 43 (Jan. 15, 1986) (Phase  {O-II Order); see also Phase II Reconsideration Order, 104 FCC 2d at 1432, para. 62. In the 1990 proceeding, the Commission concluded that it would not include an adjustment for flotation costs for three reasons: (1) the RBOCs were not issuing stock at that time; (2) no evidence suggested that past costs remain unrecovered; and (3) the Commission's  S-treatment of flotation costs had not adversely affected the carriers' stock prices.76 ?\ {O -#C\  P6QqP#эx1990 Rate of Return Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 7516 para. 75. We concluded that if carriers were concerned about recovery of flotation costs, they could seek a change in the  S-Commission's prescribed accounting system.g8 ?\ {O6$-#C\  PQqP#эxId.g We reaffirm these prior decisions, and tentatively conclude that in this proceeding we should make no adjustments to our estimate of the costofequity" Z 80*&&qq" component of ILECs' cost of capital to compensate for flotation costs. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. x  S-x` ` 26. Classic DCF Calculation. The "classic" DCF method uses the expected annual dividend for the next year, the current share price and the currentexpected longterm earnings growth  S:-rate to calculate the cost of equity. In the Phase II Reconsideration Order, the Commission adopted  S-this version of the DCF methodology.9?\ {O|-#C\  PQqP#эxPhase II Reconsideration Order, 104 FCC 2d at 1407. In 1990, the Commission required the RBOCs to submit the "classic" DCF methodology as applied to the RBOCs, the S&P 400, and a group of large electric utilities and this method was given the greatest weight in calculating the cost of equity in the 1990  S-proceeding.:Z?\ {O -#C\  PQqP#эx1990 Rate of Return Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 7512 paras. 4243. The S&P 400 and large electric utilities were used as equity market benchmarks to determine whether the estimates calculated for the RBOCs were reasonable. We tentatively conclude that this "classic" form of the DCF should also be applied to the group of surrogate companies selected as a result of this proceeding. Consistent with our analysis in 1990, we tentatively conclude that the "classic" DCF formula more accurately estimates the cost of equity than does the historical DCF method, discussed below. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and ask the parties to comment on the weight to be given to this methodology. In addition, we tentatively conclude that the S&P 400 (now termed the S&P Industrials) and the large electric utilities should be used as equity  S\-market benchmarks against which the RBOCs' costofequity estimates can be evaluated. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. Finally, in the 1990 proceeding, for purposes of our costofequity benchmark analysis, the S&P 400 and large electric utilities groups were screened to exclude those companies that did not pay dividends, had less than five analyst estimates of longterm earnings growth reported by IBES, and had DCF costofequity estimates less than the yield on 10year treasury  S-bonds.;?\ {O -  #X\  P6G;qP#эxReprescribing the Authorized Rate of Return for Interstate Services of Local Exchange Carriers, Order, CC Docket No. 89624, 5 FCC Rcd at 544. (Com. Car. Bur. 1990) We seek comment on whether these screens are still appropriate and, if not, what screens, if  Sl-any, should be used and why. x` `  S-x` ` 27. In 1990, the primary costofequity conclusions were based on a series of then S-recent monthly DCF estimates for the RBOCs.<F?\ {O-  #C\  P6QqP#эx1990 Rate of Return Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 75289 para. 187. The Commission gave the most weight to the monthly DCF estimates for January through July 1990. The Commission used the average of the monthly high and low stock prices for each month of the period under analysis to establish the current stock price. The Commission found that "these monthly periods are sufficiently long to eliminate the  S|-possibility that a particular price may be an aberration, but recent enough to assure that data from past  ST-periods do not obscure trends."s=T?\ {O#-#C\  PQqP#эxId. at 7514 para. 63.s We tentatively conclude that using the average of the monthly high and low stock prices as inputs to the "classic" form of the DCF will provide reliable estimates of the current stock price. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. In reacting to this tentative" 2 =0*&&qqk" conclusion, commenters should discuss the time for which the DCF calculation should be made. For example, the commenters might propose the most recent quarter available or each month's estimate  S-during the pendency of the case as was done in the 1990 proceeding.s>?\ {O-#C\  P6QqP#эxId. at 7512 para. 42.s x` `  S`-x` ` 28. Finally, as part of the specification of the "classic" DCF model in the 1990 proceeding, we determined that the expected dividend should be calculated by multiplying the current annualized dividend by one plus onehalf the analysts' estimated longterm growth rate due to timing  S-differences among the companies as to the date of their dividend increases.-?Z?\ {O -  #C\  P QqP#эxUnder this methodology, the expected dividend is calculated by D*(1+.5G).  Id. at 7514 paras. 6466. For  {O -the source of the growth rate see supra para. 23. - The Commission concluded that if the dividend yield was to be determined "at a point during the year just before the  S-carriers were to announce a dividend increase, it might be accurate to grow the dividend rate by a full  Sp-year's expected growth."@p?\ {O-#C\  P QqP#эx1990 Rate of Return Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 7512 para. 42. The Commission, however, found that RBOCs' dividends had "been  SH -increased in the six months prior to the analysis and the stock prices used in the analysis reflected  S -these higher dividends."aA H?\ {O-#C\  PQqP#эxId.a Multiplying the dividend by the full growth rate would overstate the estimated annual growth in dividends and increase the DCF estimated cost of equity. Because we have no reason to believe that all companies in the surrogate group will declare dividend increases simultaneously, we tentatively conclude that we should increase the dividend by onehalf the estimated annual growth. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.  S0-x` ` 29. Historical DCF Calculation. At least two other variations of DCF that in the past we have considered using to estimate ILECs' cost of equity rely upon historical data to compute that cost. In both variations, the cost of equity is calculated as the sum of D/P + G, where D is the average annual dividend during the two calendar years preceding the prescription filing and P is the average daily price of the RBOCs' common stock during each trading day during the two calendar  Sj-years preceding the prescription proceeding.tBZj?\ {O-  #C\  PQqP#эxId. at 7511 para. 36. Before they were amended, the Part 65 rules required a prescription filing on January  xZ3, or the next regular day of business when January 3 fell on a Saturday or Sunday, of every evennumbered year. Former  65.102 (c).t In the first variation, G would be the annual rate of growth in dividends derived from the slope of the ordinary least squares linear trend line of quarterly dividends that were declared during the two calendar years preceding the prescription proceeding. In the second variation, G would be the simple average of the IBES median longterm growth rate  S-estimates of earnings during the two calendar years preceding the prescription filing.C ?\ {Of#-#C\  PQqP#эx1990 Rate of Return Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 7511 para. 36. In the 1990 and 1995 proceedings, the Commission rejected both these variations of the historical DCF  Sz-methodology because they average inputs over a period neither short enough to reflect current market"z C0*&&qq"  S-conditions nor long enough to reveal historical trends.D?\ {Oh-  #C\  PQqP#эxId. at 7512 paras. 4748. See also 1995 Rate of Return Represcription Procedures NPRM, 10 FCC Rcd 4695 para. 56. For these reasons, the 1995 Rate of Return  S-Represcription Procedures Order does not mandate use of historical DCF as part of a rateofreturn  S-proceeding.E"?\ {Ov-#C\  P6QqP#эxSee former 47 C.F.R.  65.303. We tentatively conclude that this DCF methodology should be given no weight in this proceeding. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.  S<-x` ` 30. In the 1990 proceeding, parties presented several variations of the general DCF  S-formula.F?\ {Oh -#X\  P6G;qP#эx1990 Rate of Return Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 752021 paras. 121132. We seek comment on whether there are other variations to the DCF methodology that we should now consider using in this proceeding. Commenters proposing different versions should explain in detail how the various parameters would be estimated, including how long the period from which we draw data for analysis should be, why they believe this is a reasonable period to use and identify the source of the data on which the DCF calculation would draw. Finally, commenters should indicate the weight to be given the methodology they propose.  S - x4.` ` Risk Premium Methodologies   S -x` ` 31. Risk premium methodologies can also be used to calculate the cost of equity. In this section we discuss two types of risk premium methodologies. The first was termed traditional  S\-risk premium analysis in the 1990 proceeding and we will continue to use that term.wG\F?\ {OB-#X\  P6G;qP#эxId. at 752223 para. 135.w The second type of risk premium analysis is the Capital Asset Pricing Model ("CAPM"). These two methods share fundamental similarities in that they select a "risk free" investment such as longterm United States Treasury bonds and add a risk premium to return on that "risk free" investment to derive a costofequity estimate. The differences between the two methods arise in the manner by which the risk premium is calculated. Under a more traditional risk premium methodology, the risk premium is  Sl-typically estimated as the historical or estimated spread between equity security returns and bond yields. Under the CAPM methodology, the risk premium is formally quantified as a linear function of  S-market risk (beta).qH?\ yO-#C\  P6QqP#эxMorin at 305.q hh@  S-x` ` 32. Traditional Risk Premium Analyses. This methodology estimates the cost of equity as the current yield on a "risk free" investment, such as longterm U.S. Treasury bonds, plus an  S~-historical or expected equity risk premium.OI"~h ?\ {O#-  /#C\  P+QqP#эx1990 Rate of Return Order at 7522 para. 133; 1995 Rate of Return NPRM, 7 FCC Rcd at 4697 para. 68.  yOP$K xUnder the historical risk premium methodology the cost of equity estimate (Ke) = Kd + historical bondequity spread,  yO%K xwhere Kd  is the incremental cost of debt. The expected risk premium methodology is Ke = Kd + expected risk  yO%-premium. Morin at 271278.O As noted in the 1995 Rate of Return Represcription"~R I0*&&qq"  S-Procedures NPRM, "[t]raditionally, such analyses have determined the risk premium by comparing  S-historically realized returns on stocks and bonds."J?\ {OB-#C\  P.QqP#эx1995 Rate of Return Represcription Procedures NPRM, 7 FCC Rcd at 4697 para. 68. In the 1990 Order, we stated: XxA bond's yield is simply the discount (interest) rate that makes the present value of its contractual cash flow equal to its market value. Since the cash flows are fixed, if the bond goes up in price, the yield must go down. An increase in the price of the stock, however, may leave the stock's expected return unchanged if the price rose to adjust for higher anticipated profits rather than lower investor perceived risk. Risk premium analyses solve this problem by comparing the past returns (capital gains, dividends and interest, divided by the market price) on stocks and bonds. The historic premium in return on stocks over bonds is assumed to be a stable and accurate forecast of  SJ -investor's expectations about the future premium.KJ Z?\ {OD -#C\  P1QqP#эx1990 Rate of Return Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 7522 para. 133.   S -x` `  33. Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). Under the CAPM, the variance of the company's stock price is measured relative to the market as a whole to adjust the premium. Similar to  S -traditional risk premium methodologies, the CAPM calculates a cost of equity equal to the sum of a riskfree rate and a risk premium. In the CAPM formula, however, the risk premium is proportional  S\-to the security's market risk and the market price of the risk.L\?\ yOK#C\  P6QqP#эx` ` Ke = RF + (RM RF), where:  yOxKx` ` Ke = cost of equity estimate  yO@Kx` ` RF = risk free rate  yOKx` ` RM = required return of the overall market  yO- ` x` ` Beta() = an estimate of the difference in risk of the stock for which the cost of equity estimate x` `  is being made and the overall risk of stock market investments. xMorin at 3023.  S -x` ` !34. Historical Risk Premium. In the 1995 Rate of Return Represcription  S-Procedures NPRM, the Commission found that risk premium analyses, including the CAPM, could be used to estimate the cost of equity for interstate access. The Commission, however, was concerned  S-about the use of historical stock and bond yields to estimate the risk premium.M ?\ {O-#X\  P6G;qP#эx1995 Rate of Return Represcription Procedures NPRM, 7 FCC Rcd at 4697 paras. 7172. The Commission found that the results obtained from a historical analysis depend on the period chosen and therefore questioned whether the Commission should rely on historical stock and bond yields to calculate a risk  S -premium.sN N ?\ {O$-#C\  P6QqP#эxId. at 4697 para. 72.s We seek comment on whether such historical data should be relied upon in this  S-proceeding. Commenters supporting the use of historical data should clearly indicate from what time period such information should be drawn, explain why they believe this is a reasonable period to use,"N0*&&qq" and identify the source of these data. Commenters should also indicate the appropriate weight to be  S-given such analyses. x` `  S-x` ` "35. Expected Risk Premium. With regard to the issue of expected risk premiums,  Sb-we seek comment on how such estimates should be determined. In the 1995 Rate of Return  S<-Represcription Procedures NPRM, we suggested that relying on stock market data such as the DCF costofequity estimates for the S&P 400 may provide a forwardlooking risk premium for purposes of  S-calculating both the traditional risk premium cost of equity and the CAPM cost of equity.sO?\ {OV-#X\  P6G;qP#эxId. at 4698 para. 74.s Commenters proposing the use of expected risk premiums should clearly specify how they would determine the expected risk premium estimates. In addition, commenters should identify from what  Sv-period such information should be drawn, explain why they believe this is a reasonable period to use, and identify the source for these data. Commenters proposing the use of expected analyses should indicate the weight they would give to these analyses.  S -x` ` #36. RiskFree Rate. As indicated above, both models require the selection of a  S -riskfree rate. United States Treasury securities are regarded as virtually risk free.dP Z?\ yO-#X\  P6G;qP#эxMorin at 35.d We seek  S -comment on whether we should use U.S. Treasury securities as the investment we use to define risk free for purposes of calculating the Risk Premium and CAPM costofequity estimates. On the one hand, the yields on shortterm U.S. Treasury bills (with maturities from 90 days to one year) may measure the riskfree rate but may not consider longterm inflationary expectations that are embedded  S-in bond yields and stock returns.iQ?\ {Or-#X\  P6G;qP#эxId. at 279.i On the other hand, longterm U.S. Treasury bonds (maturities from 10 to 30 years) incorporate longterm inflationary yields, but because of their long maturities, also  S-include an interestrate risk premium that is not embodied in the more shortterm securities such as T Sp-bills.aRp|?\ {O-#C\  P6QqP#эxId.a We seek comment on how we should set the riskfree rate. In responding, commenters should state the length of maturity for U.S. Treasury securities that should be used in this calculation and  S -explain why securities of this maturity length should be used. Commenters should also indicate whether the data used to compute the riskfree rate should be historical or forwardlooking.  S-x` ` $37. Beta. The CAPM methodology also requires the estimation of a security's risk, or "beta." Beta is a measure of a security's price sensitivity to changes in the stock market as a  SZ-whole. In the 1990 proceeding, parties proposed using betas calculated by ValueLine.SZ?\ {O"-#C\  P6QqP#эx1990 Rate of Return Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 7523 para. 139. The  S4-Commission found that because ValueLine betas are adjusted to raise the level of betas less than one  S-and lower the level of betas greater than oneT?\ yON%-  k#C\  P6QqP#эxThe betas are adjusted on the theory that the beta will regress towards the market mean value of 1.0 over time and represents an attempt to estimate a forwardlooking beta. such betas were not consistent with the theory of" T0*&&qqk"  S-CAPM.U?\ {Oh-#C\  P6QqP#эx1990 Rate of Return Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 7523 para. 139. We seek comment on whether we should reconsider the use of adjusted betas for purposes of the CAPM methodology. We seek comment on whether S&P betas should be used for this proceeding. x` `  S`- G.xOther CostofCapital Showings  S-x ` ` %38. In the 1990 Rate of Return proceeding, state costofcapital determinations  S-were used as a check on the results obtained through our quantitative analysis.VZ?\ {O -#C\  P@QqP#эxId. at 7511 para. 40, 7513 paras. 5053, 7528 para. 180. Although state costofcapital determinations are no longer required filings in a federal prescription proceeding, we tentatively conclude that such information continues to serve as a valuable check on the results obtained by applying the methods described above to the surrogate group of companies selected.  SH -Therefore, we plan to consider the information contained in the most recent National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners ("NARUC") publication "Utility Regulatory Policy in the United  S -States and Canada."AW ?\ yO-  #X\  P6G;qP#эxUtility Regulatory Policy in the United States and Canada, Compilation 19951996, 1996 Washington, D.C. National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, tables 115116.A Specifically, this resource provides the overall rates of return on rate base for telecommunications companies prescribed recently by the state commissions as well as the related  S -prescribed costofequity returns. We seek comment on our proposed use of this source. In responding, commenters should indicate any concerns they may have regarding the validity of the information contained in the document. Commenters should file any data that they believe are more reliable. x` `  S- H. XxOther Factors to Be Considered in Determining the Allowed Rate of Return (#  S-x` ` &39. As part of this proceeding, the Commission will identify a "zone of  Sh-reasonableness"X\hD?\ {OL-  N#C\  P6QqP#эxAs noted in the 1990 Rate of Return Order, "[t]he courts have also recognized that there is a zone of  xreasonableness within which reasonable rates may fall, and that we are entitled to exercise our judgment in selecting  {O-a rate of return within that zone." 1990 Rate of Return Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 7532 para. 213. for the cost of equity and the overall cost of capital for interstate access services. Once these "zones of reasonableness" have been determined, the Commission will prescribe an authorized rate of return that lies within the costofcapital "zone of reasonableness." In determining the "zone of reasonableness" for cost of equity in the 1990 proceeding, the Commission reviewed the range of DCF estimates among the RBOCs to ensure that all ILECs had adequate access to capital,  S-and concluded that the range of reasonable costofequity estimates should be bounded on the lower end by the RBOC average DCF estimate for the month with the highest RBOC average DCF estimate,  SP-and by that estimate increased by 40 basis points as the upper bound.}YPh ?\ {OX$-#C\  POQqP#эxId. at 752829 paras. 187188. } This resulted in an estimated costofequity range based on unadjusted RBOC data of 12.6% to 13.0%. The Commission also accepted the parties' argument that, while the RBOCs' prices reflected the growth potential of their" Y0*&&qqk" cellular radio services, analysts' earnings growth estimates did not, resulting in understated DCF  S-estimates. Accordingly, the Commission adjusted the DCF inputs to address this concern.zZ?\ {O@-#C\  PLQqP#эxId. at 7528 para. 178.z The Commission offset this adjustment because the interstate access business was expected to be less risky  S-than the RBOCs' business as a whole.s[Z?\ {O-#C\  P6QqP#эxId. at 7517 para. 86.s As a result of these three adjustments, the Commission established a "zone of reasonableness" for interstate access cost of equity of 12.5% to 13.5% and a "zone of reasonableness" for cost of capital of 10.85% to 11.4%.  S-x` ` '40.  In determining the authorized rate of return to be set within the costofcapital "zone of reasonableness," the Commission also considered two other factors. First, the Commission made an allowance for infrastructure development after noting that concern over investment in new telecommunications technologies warranted selecting an authorized rate of return in the upper range of  SH -the zone of reasonable costofcapital estimates.t\H ?\ {O-#C\  P6QqP#эxId. at 7530 para. 203.t Second, the Commission considered the ILECs' argument that competition in interstate access increased the ILECs' risk, but was only partially reflected in the quantitative costofcapital analysis. The Commission concluded, however, that the marketbased costofcapital estimates captured risks from competition in interstate access, and  S -therefore declined to make an adjustment on this basis.{] ~?\ {O-#C\  P6QqP#эxId. at 7531, para. 207.{ Based on these factors and a concern that capital costs could fluctuate in the future, the Commission prescribed a rate of return of 11.25%,  SX-which was located near the upper end of the "zone of reasonableness."v^X?\ {O-#C\  P6QqP#эxId. at 7531 para. 2156.v  S-x` ` (41. Similar to the 1990 proceeding, the Commission will consider other factors in determining the "zone of reasonableness" of cost of equity. Specifically, we seek comment on whether an adjustment should be made to account for actual or potential changes in the telecommunications marketplace as a result of the 1996 Act. We seek comment on how we should calculate such an adjustment. We also ask commenters to propose other adjustments deemed necessary in determining the costofequity "zone of reasonableness" and to explain why they believe these adjustments to be  S-necessary. Commenters should also propose where within the costofcapital "zone of reasonableness" the authorized rate of return should be set and why. For example, we note that mergers have occurred  S-among the telecommunications companies.-_?\ yO !-  #X\  P6G;qP#э xMost notably, on April 1, 1997, Pacific Telesis Group was acquired by SBC Communications, Inc., and on August 19, 1997, the NYNEX Telephone Companies merged with the Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies.- We seek comment on whether adjustments should be made to account for the effects of proposed or completed mergers. In addition, we seek comment on whether we should consider adjustments to account for the ILECs' entry (or anticipated entry) into the long distance market. Finally, we note that the 1996 Act creates an exemption from obligations"P _0*&&qq"  S-otherwise imposed by the Act for qualifying ILECs serving rural areas.q`?\ yOh-#X\  P6G;qP#эx47 U.S.C.  251(f)(1).q We seek comment on whether the rural exemption should be a factor we weigh in determining whether any adjustment should be made.  S`-x` ` )42.  We also seek comment on whether any of the adjustments made in the 1990 proceeding are still necessary in estimating the current authorized rate of return for interstate access services. Commenters arguing in favor of retaining one or more of these adjustments should state whether the level of adjustment should increase, decrease, or remain the same and identify the characteristics of the current market for telecommunications that warrant our making such adjustment. x` `  Sp- 9I.xProcedural Matters  S -x1.` ` Ex Parte Presentations   S -x` ` *43. 9This is a permitbutdisclose notice and comment proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided that they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules. See generally 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).  S - x2.` ` Procedures For Filing RateofReturn Submissions   S-x` ` +44. All relevant and timely direct case submissions, responses, and rebuttals will be considered by the Commission. In reaching its decision, the Commission may take into account information and ideas not contained in the submissions, provided that such information or a writing containing the nature and source of such information is placed in the public file, and provided that the fact of the Commission's reliance on such information is noted in the final Order disposing of this proceeding.  S-x` ` ,45. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 65.103(b)(c) and (d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  65.103, interested parties may file direct case submissions on or  SS-before December 3 E%S0 , 1998, responsive submissions on or before February 1, 1999 and rebuttal  S+-submissions on or before February 22, 1999. Pursuant to Section 65.104, 47 C.F.R.  65.104, the direct case submission of any participant shall not exceed 70 pages, responsive submissions shall not exceed 70 pages, and rebuttal submissions shall not exceed 50 pages. Comments may be filed using  S-the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See  S-Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24,121 (1998). In addition, a copy of each rateofreturn submission, other than the initial submission, shall be served on all participants who have filed a designation of service notice pursuant to  65.100(b).  S!-x` ` -46. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the  S"-Internet to . Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this"s#X`0*&&qq$" proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet email. To get filing instructions for email comments, commenters should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message, "get form 63.  Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance  S -Requirements. The proposals in this NPRM would not increase not decrease incumbent LECs' administrative burdens.  S"-x` ` ?64.  Federal Rules that may Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed  S~#-Rule.. None. "X$o0*&&qq%"Ԍ S-x` ` @65.  Any significant alternatives minimizing impact on small entities and are  S-consistent with stated objectives. None.  S- C.xComment Filing Procedure   S<-x` ` A66. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before December 3, 1998, and reply comments on or before February 1, 1999. Comments will be limited to 50 pages, not including appendices. Reply comments will be limited to 30 pages, not including appendices. We invite parties  S-to submit comments on these issues in conjunction with comments to the Notice Initiating a  Sv-Prescription Proceeding. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing  SP -System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking  S( -Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24,121 (1998).  S -x` ` B67. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the  S -Internet to . Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet email. To get filing instructions for email comments, commenters should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message, "get form