WPCD 2 BJ ZCourier3|jTimes New Roman Bold P6G;XPTimes New Romanroom 528 LPT2HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\D$X@HP LaserJet 5Si room 528 LPT2HPLAS5SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\D$XPÍ ÍX01Í Í#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#2B<KTXKCourierTimes New Roman"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?7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP@y.X80,ɒX\  P6G;PA2a=5,u&a\  P6G;&P2e=5,&e4  pG;&"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNI\\>>>\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\"i~'^5>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\"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>lBBn72pK9KKTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicTimes New Roman Bold ItalicLine Draw (Scalable-Cr)"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&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$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyyyyF\yrrygryyrr>3>g\>\\Q\Q>\g33\3g\\\FF3gQy\QF>(>g>0gg>>>0>>>>>>\>\3y\y\y\y\y\yQyQyQyQyQF3F3F3F3g\\\\ggggrQy\\\\rQ\r\y\y\y\yQyQygyQyQyQyQyQ\\\g\ggF3F\F>F\gggy\r3r_r>rFr3ggg\\yFyFyFgFgFgFggrcr3rgggggggyrgrFrFrF\r>ggFr>r\0\\=3=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB\\F\\\\\\07\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBigg>\\7"yyyy\nyc\gnn\a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` 2&p$kE%k%&a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  2)v&th'' v(a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` 2, K) ) * S+a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h 2/D, --.a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2s2/0>11a1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   2:52L334a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 2;l535%7e);a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:\4  pG;Rz-X80,<|X9 xOG;r5dddXXd6X@B @?xxxXX[x6X@B X@1a=5,<4&a9 xOG;&2\YAZD?7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP@y.X80,ɒX\  P6G;PA2a=5,u&a\  P6G;&PB2e=5,&e4  pG;&\C0_=5,%&_*f9 xr G;&XDP:% ,J:\  P6G;JPEH5!,),5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,%BZW*f9 xr G;XTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldT New Roman Italic$UM ``  S-Ԋ#&a Pu&P#  )+ S-  #&I Pu&P#Federal Communications Commission`}(#DA 981512 ă  yxdddy )P3 Before the Federal Communications Commission  S-" Washington, D.C. 20554 ă In the Matter ofR)  S8-R)hCC Docket No. 98104 1998 Annual Access R) Tariff FilingsR) x` `  hh@ )  S-Southwestern Bell Telephone Company@ )hTransmittal No. 2715  Sp-Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No. 73hh@ )  S -_ MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, ORDER DESIGNATING ISSUES FOR  S -L INVESTIGATION , AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION ĐTP  SX-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:B  yO -ԍ AT&T Petition at 8. > For this reason, AT&T challenges as "lenient" what it claims is the Commission's requirement that LECs need only increase their nonprimary line counts to bring them to a level equal to 70% of the Commission's Additional Line Study numbers. AT&T urges the Commission to be less lenient because that study relies on 1995 data and, as the Commission has already acknowledged, nonprimary line demand is" 0*&&88"  S-growing faster than primary line demand.9 {Oh-ԍ Id. at 9.9 AT&T specifically objects that certain LECs did not have  S-faster nonprimary line growth.:Z {O-ԍ Id. at 10.:  S-x 11. AT&T argues that certain LECs have ignored the Commission's attempts in the Access  Sb-Charge Reform Tariffs Investigation Order to bring nonprimary end user common line (EUCL) demands to reasonable levels and that the reported levels are in direct conflict with the Commission's  S-cost causation principles.> yO -ԍ AT&T Petition at 10.> Accordingly, AT&T asks the Commission to order LECs to meet nonprimary residential line count levels that represent at least 100% of an updated 1997 Additional Line  S-Penetration EUCL estimate based upon the methodology in the Access Charge Reform Tariffs  S-Investigation Order.:| {O-ԍ Id. at 11.:  SP - C.xResponses x 12. Several price cap LECs refiled their tariffs, increasing their nonprimary residential line penetration ratios. Frontier now reports line demand for primary residential and singleline business lines and nonprimary residential and BRIISDN lines which results in an nonprimary line penetration  S -ratio of 10% for each of their tariff entities.  {O6-ԍ Frontier Telephone of Rochester, Inc., Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Transmittal No. 9 (filed July 24, 1998);  {O-Frontier Companies Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Transmittal No. 17 (filed July 24, 1998).  SWBT and Nevada Bell have also revised their tariffs to indicate higher nonprimary line penetration ratios, to 12.04% for Southwestern Bell and 16.54%  S8-for Nevada Bell.~\8j  {OB-ԍ Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Tariff F.C.C. No. 73 , Transmittal No.2715 (filed July 28, 1998;  {O -effective July 29, 1998) and Nevada Bell Telephone Co., Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Transmittal No. 248 (filed July 24,  yO- 1998; effective July 29, 1998). ~ Based on these filings, over half of all price cap LECs now report nonprimary residential line penetration rates of 10% or more. x 13. Further, Bell AtlanticNorth, Bell AtlanticSouth, GTE, Sprint LTCs, CBT, Aliant, and  S-Citizens    {O -#X PɒP#э See  NYNEX Telephone Companies (now Bell Atlantic North) Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Transmittal No. 513  {O!-(filed July 23, 1998) ,  Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies (now Bell Atlantic South) Tariff F.C.C. No. 1,  {OZ"-Transmittal No. 1065 (filed July 23, 1998), and Letter from Joseph J. Mulieri, Director, Government Relations  yO$#-FCC, Bell Atlantic, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC (dated July 28, 1998), filed in CC Docket Nos. 97 {O#-181 and 98104. See Sprint Local Telephone Companies Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Transmittal No. 61 (filed July 28,  {O$-1998) and Letter from Pete Sywenki, Director, Federal Regulatory Relations, Sprint LTCs, to Magalie Roman"$0*&&$"  {O-Salas, Secretary, FCC (dated July 27, 1998), filed in CC Docket No. 98104.  See Cincinnati Bell Telephone  {OZ-Company Tariff F.C.C. No. 35, Transmittal No. 725 (filed July 24, 1998) and   Letter from Ted Heckmann, Director Regulatory Affairs, Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co., to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC (dated July  {O-23, 1998), filed in CC Docket No. 98104.  See Citizens Telecommunications Companies Tariff F.C.C. No. 1,  {O-Transmittal No. 51 (filed July 24, 1998),  Transmittal No. 52 (filed July 28, 1998), and Letters from John B. Adams, Senior Attorney, Citizens Communications, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC (dated July 28 and  {OH-29, 1998), filed in CC Docket No. 98104. See Aliant Communications Company Tariff F.C.C. No. 1,  {O-Transmittal No. 19 (filed July 28, 1998) and Letter from Bruce Chapman, Regulatory Policy and Analysis Manager, Aliant Communications Co., to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC (dated July 28, 1998), filed in  {O-CC Docket No. 98104. See GTE System Telephone Companies Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Transmittal No. 255 (filed  {On -July 28, 1998), GTE Telephone Operating Companies Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Transmittal No. 1167 (filed July 28,  {O8 -1998), and Letter from F. Gordon Maxson, Director Regulatory Affairs, GTE Service Corporation, to Magalie  yO -Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC (dated July 27, 1998), filed in CC Docket No. 98104. In these tariff revisions, LECs provide previous definitions as well as their new definitions of a nonprimary residential line. have replaced their nonprimary residential line definitions with definitions based on service" 0*&&88" address or "location," effective January 1, 1999. These carriers indicate that this change will substantially increase their nonprimary line penetration rates from the rates reported in their 1998 annual filings. As a result of its definition modification, Bell Atlantic estimates nonprimary line penetration ratios will increase to 17% for Bell AtlanticSouth and 14% for Bell AtlanticNorth. GTE expects its nonprimary residential line penetration ratio will increase to 9%. Sprint has determined that it will be able to establish a nonprimary line penetration ratio of at least 10% as a result of switching to the new definition. Cincinnati Bell indicates that they expect to identify line counts using their new definition that will lead to a second line penetration ratio of 9.4%. Aliant believes its nonprimary residential penetration ratio will increase to 7%. Citizens maintains that by modifying the way in which they classify nonprimary residential lines from primary lines, they will be able to more than double their second line penetration rate to a level of 5.5%. SNET made no additional filings. #J:\1-98-INV\ORDERS\ALINORD5#  S - &J:\1-98-INV\ORDERS\LINECT5.DSC& D.xDiscussion x  S -x 14. Certain price cap LECs  yO-#X PɒP#э GTE Reply at 5, Sprint LTCs Reply at 3, Bell Atlantic Reply at 10. have argued that by meeting the threshold used in the Access  S -Charge Reform Tariffs Investigation Order " {Ol-#X PɒP#э Access Charge Reform Tariffs Investigation Order at 39.#d@ @# of 70% of the Additional Line Study figures, they have met the Commission's expectation of nonprimary line penetration. This belief is erroneous. As  S\-explained in the Access Charge Reform Tariffs Investigation Order, those conservative figures, based on 1995 data, were used only for purposes of assessing the reasonableness of LEC 1996 demand data reported in the midyear tariff filings and in prescribing minimum nonprimary line counts for two  S-carriers whose line counts were found unreasonable.f {O:"-#X PɒP#э Id. at 19.f The Commission's findings and prescribed minimum line counts did not establish a new rule or "safe harbor" for nonprimary line counts in future access tariff filings. Rather, carriers must in each filing determine common line rates in"F0*&&88"  S-accordance with Parts 61 and 69, yOh-#X PɒP#э 47 C.F.R. 61.3(e); 69.152(b)(1), 69.153(c)(1).Ĕ i.e., using projected base period demand. In addition, the annual tariff filings being investigated here represent 1997 line count demand. Given the evidence presented  S-in the Access Charge Reform Tariffs Investigation OrderX {O-#X PɒP#э Access Charge Reform Tariffs Investigation Order at 2022. and that presented by the petitionersx yO<-#X PɒP#э AT&T Petition at 10, MCI Petition at 8.x regarding growth in second lines, we would expect nonprimary residential line counts for 1997 to be significantly higher than the Additional Line Study benchmark used in the previous investigation.  S-x15. Based on the above, we note that SNET continues to report levels of nonprimary residential line penetration rates much lower than expected. We therefore designate for investigation the common line rates of SNET. We seek comment in this investigation on the tentative conclusion that SNET has underrepresented the number of nonprimary residential lines for the purpose of assessing SLCs and PICCs and calculating the CCL. x16. As an initial test of reasonableness, we note that SNET (6.88%) falls far below the simple weighted average of nonprimary line penetration levels for all the price cap LECs (including SNET) of 10.39% as of July 1, 1998 and an estimated 12.42% as of January 1, 1999. We also note that SNET serves urban areas (Connecticut) which should correlate with a higher percentage of second  S -lines. z {O-#X PɒP#э See Access Charge Reform Tariffs Investigation Order at  20. x17. We direct SNET to delineate the manner in which their line count estimates were made.  S -This includes identifying the type of data used (e.g., billing records), the exact time frame for which  S-the data was collected (e.g., November and December, 1997), the counting procedure or estimation  S-technique used (e.g., sampling from two study areas), and sorting criteria (e.g., by account, by service address, by last name) used to arrive at the demand figures submitted in their annual tariff filings. We require SNET to separate the data by the number of lines in each of these categories: (1) primary residential lines; (2) single line business lines; (3) nonprimary residential lines; and (4) BRIISDN lines. x18. In addition, we direct SNET to submit copies, tapes, transcripts or representations of any public documents or public comments made by it or on its behalf regarding the actual or potential amount, growth, marketing of, penetration ratio, or billing procedures used to determine the numbers of primary residential and single line business lines and nonprimary residential and BRIISDN lines. x19. Further, we direct that SNET support with pertinent and verifiable evidence any arguments it offers to justify their relatively low percentage ratios of nonprimary residential and BRIISDN lines to the total of primary residential, singleline business, nonprimary residential and BRIISDN lines. This direction applies to any information that may be offered to explain specific" 0*&&88" difficulties they may have in identifying the distinction between primary and nonprimary residential lines and charging appropriate access fees upon which they are based. Such information may include, but is not limited to, particular geographic and demographic variables such as household population statistics, per capita number of residential lines per service area compared with that of the state (if not the same), studies on demand growth or population changes, state utility commission requirements, and company specific evidence on billing systems or inventory control. x20. In refiling their annual tariff submissions SWBT, Nevada Bell, and Frontier raised their nonprimary line penetration ratios, and reclassified some residential lines from primary to nonprimary. Reclassification of these lines should result in the recovery of more revenues through SLCs and PICCs and less through the CCL, but should not change total common line revenues for the 1998 tariff year. To ensure that the maximum allowable common line revenues remains unchanged, the relevant rate inputs must be recalculated using a weighted average of the increased nonprimary lines and decreased primary lines. If this is done correctly, CCL revenues should fall because LECs now collect a portion of this revenue through flat rated charges assessed on the higher number of nonprimary lines. Frontier used this weighted average technique in their submission and lowered their CCL rates substantially. SWBT and Nevada Bell did not follow this procedure and increased their maximum permitted common line revenues as a result of the residential line reclassification. We therefore designate for investigation the common line rates of SWBT and Nevada Bell. We seek comment in this investigation on the tentative conclusion that SWBT and Nevada Bell have failed to properly adjust their revenue inputs due to a change in their primary and nonprimary residential line counts.  S@-P &J:\1-98-INV\ORDERS\LINECT5.DSC& IV. TRANSITION TO THE THREEPART TANDEM SWITCHED TRANSPORT RATE  S-+STRUCTURE TP  S- &J:\1-98-INV\ORDERS\UNITARY.729& A.xBackground  Sx-x21. In the Access Charge Reform Order, the Commission required price cap LECs to offer a three part rate structure for the transmission component of tandemswitched transport, effective July 1,  S*-1998.`* {O-ԍ Access Charge Reform Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 16057.` Incumbent LECs are required to provide tandemswitched transport under a threepart rate structure as follows: (1) a perminute charge for transport of traffic over common transport facilities between the LEC end office and the tandem office; (2) a perminute tandem switching charge; and (3) a flatrated charge for transport of traffic over dedicated transport facilities between the serving wire  S-center and the tandem switching office.3Z {O!-ԍ Id.3 The price cap LECs must calculate the revenue impact of the restructuring and adjust other rates in the trunking basket, targeting the transport interconnection charge (TIC) first, to achieve revenue neutrality. " 0*&&88'"Ԍ S-  $| ` $| B.xPleadings  S-x22. In their comments on the price cap LEC annual access filings, AT&T and MCI claim that  S-the revenue impact of the three part rate structure $| ` $|  should not be based on projected transport demand.^  yO-ԍ AT&T Petition at 2124; MCI Petition at 1213.^  S`-ACTA argues that LEC estimates of tandem switched transport demand are unreasonable.=!`X yOX-ԍ ACTA Comments at 2.=  S-x23. Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, NYNEX, SBC, SNET and Sprint appear to use actual 1997 base  S-year demand to calculate the revenue impact of the three part rate structure." yOp -ԍ Bell Atlantic (NYNEX) at 510; BellSouth at 23; SBC at 5; SNET at 23; Sprint at 89. GTE and U S West  S-appear to use actual demand as of a more recent date in calendar year 1998.q#x yO -ԍ GTE Annual Access Filing at Exhibit 2, note 1; U S West Reply at 1213.q Ameritech forecasts demand by projecting IXC optimal network circuit reconfigurations that it claims will take place under  Sp-the new rate structure.A$p yO-ԍ Ameritech Reply at 56.A  S - C.xDiscussion  S -x24. The price cap LECs employed different methodologies to calculate the revenue impact of the three part rate structure. Whether projecting or recasting demand for tandem switched transport services, each LEC has, in effect, attempted to estimate the demand and revenue impacts of the three part rate structure. We do not designate this issue for investigation. However, we intend to monitor the permitted revenues of the trunking basket for each of these LECs. If, by the next annual tariff filing, we find that actual demand has differed significantly from estimated demand we will perform further analysis to determine if this has resulted in unreasonable rates in the trunking basket. &J:\1-98-INV\ORDERS\UNITARY.729&  Sh-ji V. RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION TO SUSPEND AND INVESTIGATE  S@-PRICE CAP LEC TARIFF FILINGS ĐTP  S- A.xBackground  S-x25. On June 29, 1998, the Common Carrier Bureau found that the issues raised by AT&T and MCI in their petitions and the issues identified by the Bureau in the tariff revisions filed by the price  SP-cap LECs raised substantial questions of lawfulness that warranted investigation of these tariffs.l%P {O#-ԍx1998 Annual Access Suspension Order, at  36.l Accordingly, the Bureau suspended the tariff revisions filed by Aliant, Ameritech, Bell AtlanticNorth,"( * %0*&&88" Bell AtlanticSouth, BellSouth, CBT, Citizens, Frontier, GSTC, GTOC, Nevada Bell, Pacific Bell,  S-SNET, SWBT, Sprint LTCs, and US West, and set them for investigation.g& {O@-ԍx1998 Annual Access Suspension Order, at  10.g  S- B.xDiscussion  S8-x26. Pursuant to Sections 1.108 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, we reconsider on our own motion our decision to suspend and investigate the annual access tariff filings of Aliant, Ameritech, Bell AtlanticNorth, Bell AtlanticSouth, BellSouth, CBT, Citizens, Frontier, GSTC, GTOC, Pacific Bell, Sprint LTCs, and US West. These LECs have explained to our satisfaction the  S-issues raised in the 1998 Annual Access Suspension Order about their tariffs or have revised their  Sr-tariffs to our satisfaction. Accordingly, we decline to investigate Aliant, Transmittal Nos. 17 and 19;  SJ -Ameritech, Transmittal Nos. 1160, 1163, 1166, and 1167; Bell AtlanticNorth, Transmittal Nos. 505,  S" -507, 508, 513, 1179, and 1180; Bell AtlanticSouth, Transmittal Nos. 1057, 1059, and 1065;  S -BellSouth, Transmittal Nos. 465, 467, and 470; CBT, Transmittal Nos. 722 and 725; Citizens,  S -Transmittal Nos. 49, 51, and 52; Frontier, Transmittal Nos. 7, 9, 15, and 17; GSTC, Transmittal Nos.  S - 247, 248, 254, and 255; GTOC, Transmittal Nos. 1155, 1156, 1165, and 1167; Pacific Bell,  S -Transmittal Nos. 1988, 1990, 1991, and 1997; Sprint LTCs, Transmittal Nos. 57, 58, and 61; and US  SZ-West, Transmittal Nos. 926, 927, 928 and 935.  S -x27. SNET  In addition, we reconsider on our own motion our decision to suspend and investigate the parts of SNET's tariff filings not related to common line rates, and the parts of Nevada Bell's and SWBT's tariff filings not related to the carrier common line charge. As noted above, we are only investigating SNET's nonprimary line penetration ratios, and these figures only affect common line rates. Similarly, we are only investigating whether Nevada Bell and SWBT properly adjusted their tariff filings to incorporate their amended nonprimary line counts, and this only affects their CCL  S-charges. Accordingly, we remove from suspension the other parts of SNET's Transmittal Nos. 712  S-and 714, Nevada Bell's Transmittal Nos. 241, 242, 245, and 248, and SWBT's Transmittal Nos.  S- 2705, 2707, 2708, and 2715.  SR-gF VI. RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION TO SUSPEND AND INVESTIGATE  S*- RATEOFRETURN LEC TARIFF FILINGS ĐTP  S- A.xBackground  S-x28. In its petition, AT&T argued that Sugar Land Telephone Company, Century Telephone Company of Ohio, ALLTEL of Missouri, and ALLTEL of Georgia understated their demand level for Local Switching, Transportation Interconnection Charge (TIC), and Information Surcharge, for the  S -period January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1996.' Z yO $-ԍ #X PɒP#AT&T June 23 Petition at 3738.#x@ [X@#і AT&T applied a regression model analysis" '0*&&88u!"  S-that indicated a higher demand level forecast was appropriate.( {Oh-ԍ #X PɒP#Id. at 37.#x@ [X@#ч By AT&T's calculation, the LECs'  S-demand forecasts will result in proposed rates $20,004,830 higher than appropriate.)Z {O-ԍ #X PɒP#Id.#x@ [X@#ц  S-x29. In the 1998 Annual Access Suspension Order, the Commission found that AT&T's petition raised substantial questions of lawfulness regarding the rateofreturn LECs' forecasted test S:-period demands.*: {O -ԍ #X PɒP#1998 Annual Access Suspension Order, at  7. #x@ [X@#Ѿ We suspended and initiated an investigation of the tariffs filed by Century Telephone Company of Ohio, Transmittal Nos. 2 and 3; and Sugar Land Telephone Company,  S-ALLTEL of Missouri and ALLTEL of Georgia, Transmittal No. 61.+~ yO -ԍ Sugar Land, as well as all other ALLTEL companies, filed under ALLTEL's Transmittal No. 61. Century of Ohio filed under CenturyTel Operating Companies Transmittal Nos. 2 and 3.  S- B.xDiscussion  SJ -x30. Pursuant to Sections 1.108 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules,,J  yO-ԍ #X PɒP#47 C.F.R.  0.291, 1.108.#x@ [X@#ї we reconsider on our motion our decision to suspend and investigate the tariffs of Sugar Land Telephone Company, Century  S -Telephone Company of Ohio, ALLTEL of Missouri, and ALLTEL of Georgia. After further review of the rate of return LECs' tariffs, we conclude that their statistical methodology was reasonable and that they adhered to the Commission's rules in constructing demand. Accordingly, we decline to investigate Century Telephone Company of Ohio, Transmittal Nos. 2 and 3; and Sugar Land Telephone Company, ALLTEL of Missouri and ALLTEL of Georgia, Transmittal No. 61.  S- VII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS ĐTP  S- A.xFiling Schedules  SB-x31. This investigation will be conducted as a notice and comment proceeding. We have designated CC Docket No. 98104. The following companies are the parties designated to this investigation: SNET, Nevada Bell, and SWBT.  S-x32. These parties shall file their direct cases no later than August 29, 1998. The direct cases must present the parties' positions with respect to the issues described in this Order. Pleadings responding to the direct cases may be filed no later than September 15, 1998, and must be captioned "Oppositions to Direct Case" or "Comments on Direct Case." The companies may each file a "Rebuttal" to oppositions or comments no later than September 23, 1998." f ,0*&&88k"Ԍ S-ԙx 33. An original and six copies of all pleadings shall be filed with the Secretary of the Commission. In addition, parties shall file two copies of any such pleadings with the Competitive Pricing Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Room 518, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties shall also deliver one copy of such pleadings to the Commission's commercial copying firm, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036. Members of the general public who wish to express their views in an informal manner regarding the issues in this investigation may do so by submitting one copy of their comments to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 222, Washington, D.C. 20554. Such comments should specify the docket number of this investigation. Parties are also encouraged to submit their pleadings electronically through the Electronic Tariff Filing System.  SH -x!34. All relevant and timely pleadings will be considered by the Commission. In reaching a decision, the Commission may take into account information and ideas not contained in pleadings, 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 reliance on such information is noted in the order.  SX- aB.xEx Parte Requirements  S -x"35. This tariff investigation is a "permit-but-disclose proceeding" and subject to the "permit-but-disclose" requirementsa under Section 1.1206(b) of the rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.1206(b), as  S-revised. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must contain a summary of the substance of the presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments  SC-presented is generally required.]-C {O-ԍ See 47 C.F.R. 1.1206 (b)(2), as revised. ] Other rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in Section 1.1206 (b), as well.  S-   S-1 VIII. ORDERING CLAUSES T  SS-TPx#36. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 204 (a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  204 (a) and through the authority delegated pursuant to Sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R.  0.91 and 0.291, the tariff  S-revisions filed by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Transmittal No. 2715, ARE SUSPENDED  S-for one day and an investigation IS INSTITUTED .  Sc-x$37. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 204(a) and 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  204(a), 154(i), and through the authority delegated pursuant to Sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91 and  S -0.291, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, SHALL KEEP ACCURATE ACCOUNT of all amounts received that are associated with the rates that are subject to this investigation. "" Z-0*&&88$"Ԍ S-x%38. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 203(c), 204(a), 205, and 403 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 203(c), 204(a), 205, and 403, and Sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, the  S-issues set forth in this Order ARE DESIGNATED FOR INVESTIGATION .  S8-x&39. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Nevada Bell, SNET, and SWBT SHALL BE parties to this proceeding.  S-x'40. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each local exchange carrier that is a party to this  S-proceeding SHALL INCLUDE , in its direct case, a response to each request for information that it is required to answer in this Order.  S -x(41. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 0.91, 0.291 and 1.108 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, 1.108, we reconsider on our motion our decision in the  S -1998 Annual Access Suspension Order to suspend and investigate the tariff filings of Aliant,  S -Transmittal Nos. 17 and 19; Ameritech, Transmittal Nos. 1160, 1163, 1166, and 1167; Bell Atlantic S -North, Transmittal Nos. 505, 507, 508, 513, 1179, and 1180; Bell AtlanticSouth, Transmittal Nos.  SZ- 1057, 1059, and 1065; BellSouth, Transmittal Nos. 465, 467, and 470; CBT, Transmittal Nos. 722 and  S2-725; Citizens, Transmittal Nos. 49, 51, and 52; Frontier, Transmittal Nos. 7, 9, 15, and 17; GSTC,  S -Transmittal Nos. 247, 248, 254, and 255; GTOC, Transmittal Nos. 1155, 1156, 1165, and 1167;  S-Pacific Bell, Transmittal Nos. 1988, 1990, 1991, and 1997; Sprint LTCs, Transmittal Nos. 57, 58, and  S-61; and US West, Transmittal Nos. 926, 927, 928 and 935.  Sj-x)42. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 0.91, 0.291 and 1.108 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, 1.108, we reconsider on our motion, to the extent  S-indicated in paragraph  SNET27  above, our decision in the 1998 Annual Access Suspension Order to suspend  S-and investigate the tariff filings of Nevada Bell, Transmittal Nos. 241, 242, 245, and 248; SNET,  S-Transmittal Nos. 712 and 714; and SWBT, Transmittal Nos. 2705, 2707, 2708, and 2715.  S|-x*43. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 0.91, 0.291 and 1.108 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, 1.108, we reconsider on our motion our decision in the  S,-1998 Annual Access Suspension Order to suspend and investigate the tariff filings of Century Telephone Company of Ohio, Transmittal Nos. 2 and 3; and Sugar Land Telephone Company, ALLTEL of Missouri and ALLTEL of Georgia, Transmittal No. 61. x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@James D. Schlichting x` `  hh@Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau"" -0*&&88 $"  S- 'J:\1-98-INV\ORDERS\APPENDIX.DOC' 2 #&a Pu&P#APPENDIX T TP  S- Filings made by Local Exchange Carriers   S8-xApril 2, 1998  S-Aliant Communications Company hh@hppTariff Review Plan  S-Ameritech Operating Companies hh@hppTariff Review Plan  S-Bell Atlantic Operating Companies hh@hppTariff Review Plan  Sp-BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.hh@hppTariff Review Plan  SH -Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company hh@hppTariff Review Plan  S -Citizens Telecommunications Companies @hppTariff Review Plan  S -Frontier Communications of Minnesota and IowahppTariff Review Plan  S -Frontier Communications of Rochester @hppTariff Review Plan  S -GTE System Telephone Companies hppTariff Review Plan  S -GTE Telephone Operating Companies hppTariff Review Plan  SX-Nevada Bell @hppTariff Review Plan  S0-New York Telephone Company @hppTariff Review Plan  S-NYNEX Telephone Companies hppTariff Review Plan  S-Pacific Bell hh@hppTariff Review Plan  S-Southern New England Telephone @hppTariff Review Plan  S-Southwestern Bell Telephone Company hppTariff Review Plan  Sh-U S West Communications, Inc. @hppTariff Review Plan  S-xJune 16, 1998  S-Aliant Communications Company @hppTransmittal No. 17  S-Alltel Telephone Services Corporation @hppTransmittal No. 61  Sx-Ameritech Operating Companies @hppTransmittal No. 1160  SP-Bell Atlantic Operating Companies @hppTransmittal No. 1057  S(-BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. @hppTransmittal No. 465  S-CenturyTel Operating Companies @hppTransmittal No. 2  S-Chillicothe Telephone Company @hppTransmittal No. 61  S-Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company @hppTransmittal No. 722  S-Citizens Telecommunications Companies hppTransmittal No. 49  S`-Dunkirk and Fredonia Telephone Company hppTransmittal No. 25  S8-Frontier Communications of Minnesota and IowahppTransmittal No. 15  S -Frontier Communications of Rochester @hppTransmittal No. 7  S -GTE System Telephone Companies hppTransmittal No. 247  S!-GTE Telephone Operating Companies hppTransmittal No. 1155  S"-ICORE @hppTransmittal No. 14  Sp#-Illinois Consolidated Telephone Company @hppTransmittal No. 101  SH$-John Staurulakis, Inc. (JSI) @hppTransmittal No. 31  S %-Lufkin-Conroe Telephone Exchange, Inc. @hppTransmittal No. 39 " %-0*&&88)"Ԍ S-Minnesota Independent Equal Access Corporation hppTransmittal No. 11  S-National Exchange Carrier Association @hppTransmittal No. 800  S-Nevada Bell @hppTransmittal No. 241  S-New York Telephone Company hppTransmittal No. 1179  S`-NYNEX Telephone Companies hppTransmittal No. 505  S8-Pacific Bell hh@hppTransmittal No. 1988  S-Puerto Rico Telephone Company @hppTransmittal No. 30  S-Roseville Telephone Company @hppTransmittal No. 57  S-South Dakota Network, Inc. @hppTransmittal No. 7  S-Southern New England Telephone @hppTransmittal No. 712  Sp-Southwestern Bell Telephone Company hppTransmittal No. 2705  SH -Telephone Utilities Exchange Carrier Association hppTransmittal No. 153  S -U S West Communications, Inc. @hppTransmittal No. 926  S -Utelco, Inc. hh@hppTransmittal No. 6  S -Virgin Islands Telephone Corporation @hppTransmittal No. 37  S -Winterhaven Telephone Company @hppTransmittal No. 5  S -Wood County Telephone Company hppTransmittal No. 28 Note: Iowa Network Services filed a letter stating that it had made all calculations and no rate changes were necessary.  S-xJune 19, 1998  S-Southwestern Bell Telephone Company hppTransmittal No. 2707  Sh-Sprint Local Telephone Companies @hppTransmittal No. 57  S@-U S West Communications, Inc. @hppTransmittal No. 927  S-xJune 22, 1998  S-GTE System Telephone Companies hppTransmittal No. 248  Sx-GTE Telephone Operating Companies hppTransmittal No. 1156  S(-xJune 23, 1998  S-New York Telephone Company hppTransmittal No. 1180  S-NYNEX Telephone Companies hppTransmittal No. 507   S`-xJune 24, 1998 x  S -Anchorage Telephone Utility @hppTransmittal No. 97  S!-xJune 25, 1998  Sp#-Ameritech Operating Companies @hppTransmittal No. 1163  S %-xJune 26, 1998" %-0*&&88&"Ԍ S-ԙAlltel Telephone Services Corporationhh@hppTransmittal No. 61  S-Ameritech Operating Companies @hppTransmittal No. 1160  S-Anchorage Telephone Utilityhh@hpp Transmittal No. 97  S-Bell Atlantic Operating Companies @hppTransmittal No. 1057  S`-BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. @hppTransmittal No. 465  S8-CenturyTel Operating Companieshh@hppTransmittal No. 3  S-Chillicothe Telephone Companyhh@hpp Transmittal No. 61  S-Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company @hppTransmittal No. 722  S-Frontier Communications of Minnesota and IowahppTransmittal No. 15  S-Frontier Communications of Rochester @hppTransmittal No. 7  Sp-GTE System Telephone Companies hppTransmittal Nos. 247, 248  SH -GTE Telephone Operating Companies hppTransmittal Nos. 1155, 1156  S -Illinois Consolidated Telephone Company@hppTransmittal No. 101  S -LufkinConroe Telephone Exchange, Inc.@hppTransmittal No. 39  S -NYNEX Telephone Companieshh@hppTransmittal Nos. 505, 507  S -Pacific Bell hh@hppTransmittal No. 1986  S -Puerto Rico Telephone Companyhh@hppTransmittal No. 30  SX-Roseville Telephone Companyhh@hppTransmittal No. 57  S0-Southern New England Telephone @hppTransmittal No. 712  S-Southwestern Bell Telephone Company hppTransmittal No. 2705  S-Sprint Local Telephone Companieshh@hppTransmittal No. 58  S-U S West Communications, Inc. @hppTransmittal No. 926  S-Virgin Islands Telephone Corp.hh@hppTransmittal No. 37  S@-xJune 29, 1998  S-Bell Atlantic Operating Companies @hppTransmittal No. 1059  S-BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. @hppTransmittal No. 467  S-CenturyTel Operating Companies @hppTransmittal No. 3  Sx-NYNEX Telephone Companies hppTransmittal No. 508  SP-Pacific Bell hh@hppTransmittal No. 1990  S(-Roseville Telephone Company @hppTransmittal No. 58  S-Sprint Local Telephone Companies @hppTransmittal No. 58  S-U S West Communications, Inc. @hppTransmittal No. 928  S-  S-xJune 30, 1998  S8-Nevada Bell` `  hh@hppTransmittal No. 242  S -Pacific Bell` `  hh@hppTransmittal No. 1991  S -Southwestern Bell Telephone Company@hppTransmittal No. 2708  S"-xJuly 10, 1998  SH$-Ameritech Operating Companieshh@hppTransmittal No. 1166 " %-0*&&88&"Ԍ S-xJuly 14, 1998  S-Nevada Bell` `  hh@hppTransmittal No. 245  S`-xJuly 23, 1998  S-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: