WPC 2BVTZ #|P )6?xxxXbXx6X@DQX@HP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MXHPLA5SMX.WRSx  @,,,-&9X@20@ ZPv#|P HP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MXHPLA5SMX.WRSx  @,,,-&9X@ X4#X\  P6G;/P#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#Xj\  P6G;XP#a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` 2Mpbkk=a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  2vti a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` 2   +  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 2B  i B a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2tDRa1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   22Aa3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 23ea8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:4X>5}R?whitewhite2.$US?? ??USWFG Letter HeadingWFG Letter Heading3 NORMAL4a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf5$ 2cB6@7@8A9Aa2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf6/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf7:` ` `  a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf8E` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf9P  ` ` ` hhh 2`E:B;IC<D=Da6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf:[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf;f  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfE?)F@FArGa2IndentedLeft-indented text>?C ? A.` ` a3IndentedLeft-indented text?HP ? ` ` 1. a4IndentedLeft-indented text@Qp- ? ` `  a.` 'a5IndentedLeft-indented textA[ܽ ? ` `  '(1) hh-2KBWHCIDIEsJa6IndentedLeft-indented textBdK ? ` `  'hh-(a)4a7IndentedLeft-indented textCl݇ ? ` `  'hh-4i)h:a8IndentedLeft-indented textDu-b ? ` `  'hh-4:a)ppAa1InterrogatoresStarts with A. at margin, 1 at first indentEUZZI.2MFIKGKHxLIMa129f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PF8@   a229f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PGA@` `  ` ` ` a329f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PHJ` ` @  ` `  a429f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PIS` `  @  2QJMKNLtOM=Pa529f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PJ\` `  @hh# hhh a629f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PKe` `  hh#@( hh# a729f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PLn` `  hh#(@- ( a829f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PMw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2SNAQOqQPq3RQqRa1AgendaE+7?tAgenda Items4 B7=(7 A@*7N%GH*  a2AgendaE+7?tAgenda Items4 B7=(7 A@*7OIJa3AgendaE+7?tAgenda Items4 B7=(7 A@*7PKLa4AgendaE+7?tAgenda Items4 B7=(7 A@*7QMN2 URqGSSqSTq)TUqTa5AgendaE+7?tAgenda Items4 B7=(7 A@*7ROPa6AgendaE+7?tAgenda Items4 B7=(7 A@*7SQRa7AgendaE+7?tAgenda Items4 B7=(7 A@*7TSTa8AgendaE+7?tAgenda Items4 B7=(7 A@*7UUV2WV=UWpUXq,VYeVhead1 #V'd#2p}wC@ #Document[8]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CC -2( -Ct )BW` ` ` Document[4]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CCW -2( -Ct )BX  . Document[6]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CCe -2( -Ct )BY  2.YZe4W[W\p,X]XDocument[5]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CCs -2( -Ct )BZ  Document[2]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CC -2( -Ct )B[*    Document[7]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CC -2( -Ct )B\  ` ` ` Right Par[1]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )B]8@  2[^`Y_Y`Za4[Right Par[2]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )B^A@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CC -2( -Ct )B_0     Right Par[3]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )B`J` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )BaS` ` `  @  2!_b\c\d]eP^Right Par[5]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )Bb\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )Bce` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers  -2( -Ct )Bdn` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )Bew ` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 2afS_g `h`iaDocument[1]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CCE -2( -Ct )BfF34   ׃  Technical[5]C^iTechnical Document StyleCCS -2( -Ct )Bg&56  . Technical[6]C^iTechnical Document StyleCCa -2( -Ct )Bh&78  . Technical[2]C^iTechnical Document StyleCCo -2( -Ct )Bi*9:    2CdjakzblcmcTechnical[3]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC} -2( -Ct )Bj';<   Technical[4]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )Bk&=>   Technical[1]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )Bl4?$@     Technical[7]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )Bm&AB  . 2fnudo}dpweqeTechnical[8]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )Bn&CD  . Paragraph[1]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bo$ab Paragraph[2]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bp/cd` ` ` Paragraph[3]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bq:ef` ` `  2~irfsbgt huhParagraph[4]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BrEgh` ` `  Paragraph[5]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BsPij` ` ` hhh Paragraph[6]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bt[kl Paragraph[7]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bufmn 2pviwzjxlynParagraph[8]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bvqop toc 1toc 1w` hp x (#44` hp x (#toc 2toc 2x` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#toc 3toc 3y` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#2wzq{$s|Bu}v`wtoc 4toc 4z` hp x (#4 <4 <` hp x (#toc 5toc 5{` hp x (#4<4<` hp x (#toc 6toc 6|` hp x (#44` hp x (#toc 7toc 7} 2~x&zD|b~toc 8toc 8~` hp x (#44` hp x (#toc 9toc 9` hp x (#44` hp x (#index 1index 1` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#index 2index 2` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#2ЂNtoatoa` hp x (#` hp x (#captioncaption;1#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#_Equation Caption_Equation Caption11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#endnote referenceendnote reference44#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#2p@qe!e1S&C5C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )qr` ` ` 2S&C6C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )s t . 3S&C7C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct ) uv 4S&C8C^fDocument StyleNF2CC! -2( -Ct ) wx 2Mp 5S&C9C^fDocument StyleNF2CC/ -2( -Ct )*yz   6S&C:C^fDocument StyleNF2CC= -2( -Ct ){|` ` ` 7S&C;C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK -2( -Ct )8}~@  8S&C<C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersY -2( -Ct )A@` ` `  ` ` ` 2e9S&C=C^fDocument StyleNF2CCg -2( -Ct )0    10S&C>C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersu -2( -Ct )J` ` ` @  ` ` ` 11S&C?C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )S` ` `  @  12S&C@C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )\` ` `  @hhh hhh 2_M ԍ13S&CAC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )e` ` `  hhh@ hhh 14S&CBC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )n` ` `  hhh@  15S&CCC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )w` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 16S&CDC^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )F   ׃  2̑717S&CEC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&  . 18S&CFC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&  . 19S&CGC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )*    20S&CHC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )'   2LBǓ21S&CIC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&   22S&CJC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )4$     23S&CKC^fTechnical Document StyleCC+ -2( -Ct )&  . 24S&CLC^fTechnical Document StyleCC9 -2( -Ct )&  . 2}~25S&CMC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CG -2( -Ct )$ 26S&CNC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CU -2( -Ct )/` ` ` 27S&COC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cc -2( -Ct ):` ` `  28S&CPC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cq -2( -Ct )E` ` `  2̙C29S&CQC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )P` ` ` hhh 30S&CRC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )[ 31S&CSC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )f 32S&CTC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )q 2̚nDefault ParaC^fDefault Paragraph Font2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#_Equation CaC^f_Equation CaptionF2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#endnote refeC^fendnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>>#PP##PP#footnote refC^ffootnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>#PP#2Ġ6ZTdtoa headingtoa heading` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#1, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.E1.A, B,t ?@65Uppercase Letters1 ?*1÷$t ?.E .footnote tex6footnote text̺=(?. 0&ܺ*?.ںd 0E2(2pqfeסe<33`O5hT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5h.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 34`O5iT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5i.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  . 35`O5jT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5j.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  36`O5kT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5k.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  2Ӣpf֣h37`O5lT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5l.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>*   38`O5mT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5m.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 39`O5nT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>8@   40`O5oT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>A@` `  ` ` ` 2ѧ5ʥn41`O5pT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5p.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>0    42`O5qT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>J` ` @  ` `  43`O5rT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>S` `  @  44`O5sT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>\` `  @hh# hhh 2¨[45`O5tT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>e` `  hh#@( hh# 46`O5uT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>n` `  hh#(@- ( 47`O5vT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 48`O5wT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5w.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>F *  ׃  2G̫Q49`O5xT(G2PTechnical Document Stylex.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 50`O5yT(G2PTechnical Document Styley.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 51`O5zT(G2PTechnical Document Stylez.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>*    52`O5{T(G2PTechnical Document Style{.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>'   2H}53`O5|T(G2PTechnical Document Style|.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&   54`O5}T(G2PTechnical Document Style}.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>4$     55`O5~T(G2PTechnical Document Style~.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 56`O5T(G2PTechnical Document Style.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 2j}49̱57`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>$ 58`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>/` ` ` 59`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>:` ` `  60`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>E` ` `  2E61`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>P` ` ` hhh 62`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>[ 63`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>f 64`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>q 2F65`O5T(G2PDefault Paragraph Font5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>OO#P P##P P#66`O5T(G2P_Equation Caption^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>OO#PP##PP#67`O5T(G2Pendnote reference^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>RR#PP##PP#68`O5T(G2Pfootnote reference^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>R#PP#2xpzqe[69 _5(_>7footnote text _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tZP70 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t` ` ` 71 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  . 72 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  2eWpZ73 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  74 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t*   75 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t` ` ` 76 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+t8@   2N77 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tA@` `  ` ` ` 78 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t0     79 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tJ` ` @  ` `  80 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tS` `  @  2F81 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+t\  ` `  @hh# hhh 82 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+te  ` `  hh#@( hh# 83 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tn ` `  hh#(@- ( 84 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2qP85 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tF *  ׃  86 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&  . 87 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&  . 88 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t*    28|89 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t'   90 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&   91 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t4$     92 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&   . 2P3}593 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&!"  . 94 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+t$#$ 95 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+t/%&` ` ` 96 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+t:'(` ` `  2< }97 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+tE)*` ` `  98 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+tP+,` ` ` hhh 99 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+t[-. 100_5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+tf/0 2nF8F~L101_5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+tq12 102_5(_>7Default Paragraph Font5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tw3w4#PP##PP#103_5(_>7_Equation Caption _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tw5w6#PP##PP#104_5(_>7endnote reference _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tz7z8#PP##PP#2dBlxl105_5(_>7footnote reference _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tz9:#PP#Document 8Document 8 Document 4Document 4  Document 6Document 6 2lllnDocument 5Document 5 Document 2Document 2 Document 7Document 7 Right Par 1Right Par 1` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#2*H8(Right Par 2Right Par 2` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#"5^*8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZ*8888C8SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS8S888SAxSx]AN:*KS8JSSSSS.4}}S2S}288JJS88SS8J82N8\\^C`^SS`*8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZv8SJSS8]888JJ:S8A8xx*8SSSS!S8.S^8SC\228`K*824S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff8888xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS\SSSSSSS"5^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CCCCPCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYzYzYzYdddddPdCdCCCdNdoNNF2ZdCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CCCCPCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYdddooPoNoNCNoddȐoNNF2ldCddddddd<d<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd"5^2Nodd8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdNdzzozzzC8CrdCddYdYCdo88d8odddNN8oYdYNF,Fr2CCCCPCdddddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddoooozYddddzYdzddddYYYYYdddooPdNdNCNdddoNNF2ddNdddddd5vvvX`Nv6X@DQN@.46OB1XGNO\  P6QNP54OB1XE>UNO*f9 xQNX6UXJW/6X@DQ/@6p3bbbXb6X@DQ@>vvvX@ZNv6NhQNHt>vvvX7Nv `NQN6Q%GGGXzcG6X@DQc@l66TB1X(@NT4  pQN.7V /'Xc/\  P6QcPU5QB1XdNQ9 xyQNUXm/6NhQ/HCdddddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddoooozYddddzYdzdddd2    X' SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH CONCURRING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART   V4 Re:XApplications of Ameritech Corp., Transferor, and SBC Communications, Inc., Transferee, For Consent to Transfer Control of Corporations Holding Commission Licenses and Lines Pursuant to Sections 214 and 310(d) of the Communications Act  XH4and Parts 5, 22, 24, 25, 63, 90, 95, and 101 of the Commission's Rules, CC Docket 98141.(# By this Order, the Commission imposes legally dubious, overbroad, potentially unenforceable, privately negotiated conditions on a merger that it is statutorily unauthorized to review, and assessment of which was governed by no clear procedural or substantive standards. The item itself is the endresult of an extraordinarily elaborate procedural  X 4approach to the review of license transfers that is entirely sui generis that is, never before applied and unlikely ever again to be followed; such a process raises an unfortunate appearance of disparate and unfair treatment of these applicants for license transfers. Accordingly, I concur only in the narrow decision to grant SBC and Ameritech authorization to transfer lines pursuant to section 214 and licenses pursuant to section 310(d). I cannot support the reasoning of the Order and must dissent in full from the adoption of the conditions on these license and authorization transfers.  X4I.The Conditions Are Inconsistent With The Communications Act  The conditions imposed in this Order are, in my opinion, of highly questionable legal validity. In particular, many of the conditions are inconsistent with specific sections of the Communications Act. To be sure, the Communications Act grants the Commission authority to condition  X;4license transfer and section 214 authorizations. This authority is not without its limits, however. Rather, section 303(r) provides that "except as otherwise provided in this Act, the  X4Commission . . . shall . . . prescribe such . . . conditions, not inconsistent with law, as may be  X4necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act." 47 U.S.C. section 303(r) (emphasis added). And section 214(c) states that the Commission "may attach to the issuance of [a 214] certificate such terms and conditions as in its judgment the public convenience and necessity may require." Although this provision contains no express language limiting conditions to enforcement of the Act, it is certainly not in the public interest to adopt conditions violative of federal communications law. At a minimum, then, we cannot impose conditions under either section 303(r) or section 214(c) that contradict the Act itself. "r$0*0*0*"" The conditions in this Order do just that, however. Of especial legal concern are those  X4related to carriertocarrier promotions.L, XK4ԍ#XP\  P6QXP#See generally Comments of AT&T Corp. on Proposed Conditions, CC Docket No. 98141, at pages. 1518 & Appendix A at pages. 8287. These conditions limit the number of services and facilities that may be offered to competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) on a promotional basis. Once the caps are reached, some CLECs will be unable to obtain the same promotional deals as other CLECs. Quite simply, carriertocarrier promotions will not be available on an equal basis to all requesting carriers. In this way, then, the conditions  X_4violate the "nondiscriminatory access" requirement of section 251(c)(3),z_dL, Xt 4ԍ#XP\  P6QXP#See also 47 C.F.R. section 51.313(a).z as well as the resale  XH4nondiscrimination requirement of 251(c)(4)(B).tHL, X4ԍ#XP\  P6QXP#See also id. section 51.603(a).t  Moreover, the caps directly conflict with the "pickandchoose" provision of section  X 4252. Section 252(i) requires incumbent LECs to "make available [to a CLEC] any . . . service, or network element" provided to any other CLEC "upon the same terms and conditions," regardless of the level of offering to others. For the reasons given above, the  X 4guarantee of that section will be unfulfilled as a result of the caps.L L, X;4ԍ#XP\  P6QXP##XP\  P6QXP#Th#XP\  P6QXP#e caps also violate the Commission's own implementation of that provision.  See 47  X&4C.F.R. section 51.809(a).#C\  P6Q/P#L Apart from the caps themselves, the underlying discounts on loop rates also offend  X{4sections 252(i) and 251(c)(3).{f L, X4ԍ#XP\  P6QXP#See also id. sections 51.809(a), 51.313(a). These discounts discriminate among CLECs in terms of prices and offerings by creating a situation in which a CLEC that uses an ILEC's unbundled switch gets one rate for the loop, but a CLEC that uses its own switch gets a  X64discount on the very same loop. Cf. American Tel. and Tel. Co. v. Central Office Tel., Inc., 524 U.S. 214 ("[T]he policy of nondiscriminatory rates is violated when similarly situated customers pay different rates for the same services. It is that nondiscriminatory policy which lies at the heart of the Communications Act.") (internal quotation omitted). The conditions relating to the separate affiliate for the offering of advanced services are also arguably inconsistent with the Act. Those conditions are built around section 272, which requires structurally separated corporations for Bell operating companies, but only in  X4connection with the provision of specific enumerated services. See 47 U.S.C. section 272  Xk4("Separate Affiliate; Safeguards"). Advanced telecommunications services is not included in that list. Referring to these affiliates as section 272 affiliates, as the Order does, is thus off  X?4the statutory mark. "? 0*(("ԌFinally, the arbitration conditions appear to take away from the States authority expressly conferred upon them by section 252. That provision purposefully carves out a significant role for the States in the procedures for negotiation, arbitration, and approval of  X4interconnection agreements. See id. section 252(a)(2)(voluntarily negotiating parties may "ask a State commission to participate in the negotiation and to mediate any differences arising in  X4the course of the negotiation"); id. section (b)(1) (negotiating parties "may petition a State  Xz4commission to arbitrate any open issues"); id. section (d)(1)(setting standards for State commission determination of just and reasonable rates for interconnection and network  XN4elements); id. section (e) (State commission must approve interconnection agreements).  X94Under section 252, the FCC becomes involved in this process only when a State commission  X$ 4fails to fulfill its duties. Id. section (e)(5). This Order, however, inserts the FCC into the process of negotiating agreements to which SBC/Ameritech is a party and even specifies the terms and conditions of those agreements. For example, in the conditions regarding surrogate line sharing, the Commission  X 4actually sets rates for charges for those services. See Appendix A at para. 8(b). These rates are set by the FCC, not State commissions, and they are set without any of the process required by section 252. The condition regarding OSS, by which the FCC sets discounts for those services and also requires the restructuring of those charges, suffers from the same  XY4general flaws. See id.at paras. 18, 35; see also id. at para. 45 (requiring SBC/Ameritech to offer to amend interconnection agreements regarding unbundled loops), para. 47 (requiring SBC/Ameritech to offer to amend interconnection agreements regarding resale discounts). These conditions thus operate to circumscribe State involvement in the agreement process,  X4contrary to section 252.vL, Xx4ԍ#XP\  P6QXP#Moreover, these conditions, by which the FCC takes over aspects of the role granted exclusively to State commissions, create great potential for confusion in the implementation of the conditions. If a rate or discount set by this Order is thought to be unjust or unreasonable, in which forum should that claim be brought? Section 252 makes State commissions the arbiters of such questions, and yet these conditions seem to impute such authority to the FCC.  X4II.The Conditions Are Disproportionate To The Alleged Potential Harms  X4 In addition to violating the various nondiscrimination directives and State commission provisions of the Communications Act, the conditions are flawed on the merits. As an initial matter, the regulatory concerns cited by the Commission lack an express statutory basis. As a result, the harms that the Order identifies are vague and, in my view, too speculative to justify the imposition of conditions on the merged entity. Even assuming those harms, however, the conditions fail to materially remedy them. In this way, the vast breadth of the conditions is unwarranted by either the record in this proceeding or economic theory. "0*(("  X4A.#NO\  P6Q GNP#` ` The  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A.Transaction Does Not Violate The Specific Terms Of Any Extant  U4` ` Communications Statute or Regulation  >4ԲX# Nv6X@DQ `N@#(#  W}4# NO\  P6Q GNP#Commission regulations take up many bookcases. For a license transfer to run afoul of a specific administrative rule therefore is not an improbable outcome. Given the breadth of our regulation in this area, it is remarkable that the Order never asserts that the transfer of licenses between SBC and Ameritech would violate any specific substantive provision of the Communications Act or any Commission regulation. Remedies for such harms, of course, would be easily and clearly prescribed: the transferee would be obliged to bring the license transfers into compliance with existing rules. X(# How does a regulated entity fall out of compliance, and then revert back into compliance, with a vague idea that has no written rules to define compliance or noncompliance? One must have meetings to discuss and to invent standards that did not previously exist. Indeed, the entire unsavory process of the meetings that ensued from the allegation of  WE4statutorily unfounded concernsgE X4ԍ#XP\  P6QXP#See infra Part VI.g could have been avoided had the Commission's concerns been directly linked to existing written rules. A natural but unfortunate result of regulatory "concerns" that do not derive directly from express Congressional determinations is a vague and speculative agency understanding of the harms purportedly caused by the merger. I turn to those harms below.  X4*footnote textX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:*)footnote reference##A6X@CJWA@##Xv6X@C `X@# # NO\  P6Q GNP#Firms integrate precisely because there are efficiencies to be gained from integration, and often those"-' 0*((%" efficiencies enhance consumer welfare. Regulation can diminish the value of integration by imposing additional costs on integrated firms, but regulation can never fully remove the incentives to coordinate without permanently severing one company from the other. If it is efficient for an integrated firm to have a certain set of internal prices for internal transactions and a certain set of external prices for external transactions, it is not obvious how any regulatory scheme of structural separation would remove the incentive of the firm to replicate those efficient pricing schemes, at least approximately. Even nondiscriminatory pricing rules with third parties may simply incent the company to establish transfer pricing policies that transfer income from one subsidiary to another, but protect some degree of coordination. Consequently, while the separate subsidiary requirement for advanced services may be well intended to remedy a specific alleged harm of discrimination in the provisioning of advanced services, I am skeptical about the efficacy of corporate structural solutions; in my view, they do little more than provide some highpaying jobs to lawyers and accountants who deal in corporate restructuring and to raise the costs of doing business for the firm and its customers.  Wz 4 Finally, while the discounts to data CLECs might make it more attractive for them to enter certain markets, they cannot logically be aimed at discrimination against those companies. Assuming that it were economically rational and feasible for the combined entity to discriminate against CLECs in the provision of advanced services, that still does not explain why a 50% discount is warranted for certain CLECs. Is the presumption that the discrimination would come in the form of charging data CLECs twice as much as they charge other CLECs, hence the 50% discount requirement for those CLECs? The Commission does not appear to be advancing any such claim. Unless makes some sort of an argument like that one, however, there is again no relation back to the purported harm of discrimination against rivals in the provision of these services. Notably, many of the parties whose intersests are supposedly protected by the conditions have taken the view that they would be better off without them. The conditions, they say, grant them less protection than that which the Communications Act already affords them, and thus may well ultimately disadvantage these parties. Thus, the supposed beneficiaries of these conditions have opposed them on the record. This curious disalignment of interests is further evidence of the lax connection between the regulatory means and the purported ends here. In sum, the conditions, which impose heavy burdens on SBC/Ameritech, are vastly disproportionate to any real and demonstrably likely harm that would flow from the fact of the  Wr4merger.y vrg X!4ԍ#XP\  P6QXP#Further undermining the need for the conditions is the availability of other remedies for the harms alleged remedies that this Order overlooks. With particular respect to the harms of reduced competition and increased incentives to discriminate, federal and state antitrust law is fully applicable. Indeed, the SBC/Ameritech merger was reviewed extensively by the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. Surely, yhe Antitrust Division considered these questions of competition and discrimination in the course of its extensive investigation. y This is an unfortunate byproduct of regulatory concerns that are tied to the Communications Act in only the loosest of ways."X  0*((;"  W4III.The Conditions Impose Undue Administrative Burdens And Costs On The  W4Commission And Participants In The Telecommunications Market The conditions are problematic in yet another regard: by creating a set of complex rules uniquely applicable to the merged company, and that company only, the Order imposes tremendous administrative burdens on the Commission, as well as participants in the market for telecommunications services. The Communications Act divides common carriers into specific categories. Under section 251, a telecommunications carrier can be a local exchange carrier or an incumbent local  W4exchange carrier. Along with each classification come specific responsibilities. See 47 U.S.C.  W 4section 251(a)(b) ("Obligations of All Local Exchange Carriers)(emphasis added); id. section 251(c) ("Additional Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers""). By this order, however we create a new, standalone category of local exchange carrier, with particularized obligations apart from those set forth in section 251, comprised of only SBC/Ameritech. Creating a fourth regulatory category of carrier under the Act is, for the following reasons, unduly costly. A review of the appendix of conditions attached to this Order reveals the great numerosity, length, and intricacy of the conditions. That Appendix lists 30 separate conditions, each with its own subset of interpretive statements, definition, and clarifications, which take up  W4more than 70 pages of text. To really apply and enforce these conditions, the Commission would seem to need to create a separate "SBC/Ameritech" division in the Common Carrier Bureau. Within that division would be teams responsible for overseeing the company's arbitration proceedings; auditing the company; administering the carriertocarrier discounts; receiving and processing the company's reports on their advanced services rollout; reviewing  W`4complaints regarding access to cable in multiunit dwellings, etc. Moreover, given that this sort of regulation is entirely companyspecific, the Commission would have to absorb even more staff resources for each subsequent set of mergerspecific conditions it applied to other merged entities. In short, this sort of regulation is very costly to administer, a point that the Order fails to consider in its analysis of the efficiency of these conditions with respect to the Commission's future efforts to regulate. Those who deal with SBC/Ameritech in the market for telecommunications services must also now familiarize themselves with this unique set of rules. Most players in this market have an understanding of what they are entitled to, as a matter of federal law, when dealing with CLECs. Now, however, they will need to learn (or spend money on lawyers and accountants who will figure out) what their special rights and/or duties might be when doing business with SBC/Ameritech. This places additional, and substantial, transaction costs on market participants. A set of industrywide rules instead of highly complex rules for individual companies is much more efficient for those who do business in that industry. And each time the Commission conditions similar mergers with similarly uniquely applicable conditions, the companies will have to map those new rules as well. Pretty soon you have an entire regulatory system of individualized duties, rather than general rules, and the inefficiency created by the SBC/Ameritech rules increases exponentially. "' 0*(( &"ԌIn and of themselves, these conditions place a substantial and direct tax on FCC resources. They also impose significant indirect costs on other participants in the telecommunications industry. And, if this regulatory model is followed in future merger reviews, the costs of such regulation will only compound.  W~4IV.The Conditions Are Either Voluntary And Unenforceable, Or Involuntary And  Wd4Judicially Reviewable Throughout this Order, the performance of the conditions by SBC/Ameritech is referred  W4to as "voluntary" action. See, e.g, supra at para. 1 (describing "proposed conditions" as "representing a set of voluntary commitments"). There are only two possible responses to this assertion. Either the conditions are therefore unenforceable as a matter of law and judicially unreviewable, or the conditions are not voluntary but governmentmandated and, thus, their extrastatutory nature in fact injures the applicants and renders the conditions subject to the full panoply of judicial review. Often, the Commission will term a standard or condition voluntary when, in point of fact, the conditions are the result of intense governmental pressure on regulated entities. The  W.4actual voluntariness of action under such conditions is often questioned, see, e.g., A. Ryan, "Don't Touch that VChip," 87 Geo. L. J. 823, 826831(1999) (concluding that industry adoption of television ratings was result of government coercion), and I have joined in that  W4skepticism, see "Voluntary Standards Are Neither," Speech Before the Media Institute (Nov. 17, 1998) (www.fcc.gov). If SBC/Ameritech's adherence to these conditions in the context of agency review of its transfer applications is not really a matter of choice for instance, if the agency intends to enforce, either directly or indirectly, the conditions then the conditions take on the force of law. And, as administrative law experts have observed, "even agency statements that purport to be nonbinding can have coercive effects through more subtle, less formal means. To the extent that an agency possesses significant discretionary power over a class of regulatees or beneficiaries, many are likely to "comply" "voluntarily" with an agency's "nonbinding"  W4statement of its preferred policies." Davis & Pierce, I Administrative Law Treatise 232 (3d ed. 1994) As binding obligations, as opposed to voluntary commitments, the conditions would be judicially reviewable and subject to all the provisions of the Communications Act and the Administrative Procedures Act. And if that is true, all the legal deficiencies of the conditions described above are potentially in play. On the other hand, if the regulations are indeed voluntary, then the company is under no binding legal obligation to perform them. The conditions would therefore be entirely symbolic, doing nothing to effectuate the Commission's purported goals. At first blush, it might be unclear why the Commission would consciously undermine the enforceability of its own carefully crafted conditions, which it seems to believe in the public good. Characterizing the conditions as "voluntary," however, allows the Commission to achieve other strategic goals: shoring up the item against claims of lack of statutory authority"' 0*((%" and minimizing the possibility of judicial review of that authority. As I have previously explained: XThe use of voluntary standards allows administrative agencies better to skirt statutory limits on their authority, an offense to the concept of administrative agencies in possession of only those powers delegated to them by Congress. . . . It is no coincidence that the commitments extracted from regulated entities in the guise of voluntary standards tend to be things that the agency lacks statutory authority straightforwardly to require. Voluntary standards, as opposed to duly promulgated rules, can all too easily be used to bootstrap jurisdictional issues: got jurisdiction to approve or disprove the transfer of licenses but no express statutory authority to require unbundling of the licensee's product offerings? Just make it a "optional" condition of the license transfer, add water, mix, and you have fresh jurisdiction to regulate a whole new area. The problem with this approach . . . is that it renders superfluous Congressional attempts to delineate our areas of responsibility. (# X(# XThere is another reason that agencies might prefer voluntary standards to rules: they are harder to challenge in a court of law. Judicial review of the statutory basis for "voluntary" standards may be difficult to obtain because such guidelines, being technically non-binding, may never formally be announced or enforced against any regulatee. (# "Voluntary Standards Are Neither," Speech Before the Media Institute (Nov. 17, 1998) (www.fcc.gov). In this Order, the Commission tries to walk a tightrope between the two alternatives as to the legal status of the conditions, referring to the conditions as "voluntary commitments" but  W(4hinting elsewhere that it fully expects SBC/Ameritech to carry them out. See, e.g., supra at  W4para. 4 ("[A]ssuming the Applicants' ongoing compliance with the conditions described in this  W4Order, we find that the proposed transfer of licenses and lines from Ameritech to SBC serves  W4the public interest."); id. at para. 360 ("We expect that SBC and Ameritech will implement each of these conditions in full, in good faith, and in a reasonable manner."). It is simply not  W4possible to have it both ways, however: either the commitments are de facto standards and subject to judicial review, or they are legally unenforceable and thus meaningless as a practical  W|4matter.za|g X!4ԍ#XP\  P6QXP#Equally bizarre is the reference to penalties for noncompliance with the conditions as  X"4"voluntary payments to the U.S. Treasury." See, e.g., supra at para. 413. More worrisome, however, is the vagueness of the actual language regarding the recipient of payments for outofterritory violations. Such payments are to be made not to the U.S. Treasury, as are all the other penalties, but "to a fund to provide telecommunications services to underserved areas, groups, or persons." Appendix A at para. 59(d). Is this meant to suggest that the payments could be directed to a group, whether public or private, politically neutral or partisan, of the"j' 0*((-'" FCC's choice? The language does not, on its face, prevent such inappropriate possibilities. z"|b0*((7"  W4V.The Commission Lacks "Merger" Review Authority In addition the legal problems associated with the nature of the conditions themselves, it is important to step back and recall that, as I have repeated pointed out, this Commission  W4possesses no statutory authority to review "mergers" writ large. See generally Separate  W4Statement of Harold W. FurchtgottRoth, In re Applications for Consent to the Transfer and Control of Licenses and Section 214 Authorization from Tele-Communications, Inc., Transferor,  WN4To AT&T Corp., Transferee, CS Docket No. 98-178 (Feb. 17, 1999). Rather, the Communications Act charges the Commission with a much narrower task: review of the proposed transfer of licenses under Title III from Ameritech to SBC, and consideration of the transfer of common carrier lines between those parties. Nothing in section 310(d) or section 214 the provisions pursuant to which these applications were filed speaks of jurisdiction to approve or disapprove the merger that has occasioned Ameritech's desire to  W 4transfer licenses and section 214 authorizations.a bg X4ԍ#XP\  P6QXP#The Commission does possess authority under the Clayton Act, which prohibits  X4combinations in restraint of trade, to review mergers per se. See 15 U.S.C. section 21 (granting FCC authority to enforce Clayton Act where applicable to common carriers engaged in wire or radio communication or radio transmission of energy). If the Commission intends to exercise authority over mergers and acquisitions as such, it ought to do so pursuant to the Clayton Act, with its carefully prescribed procedures and standards of review, not the broad licensing provisions of the Communications Act.  To be sure, the transfer of the licenses and authorizations is an important part of the merger. But it is simply not the same thing. The merger is a much larger and more complicated set of events than the transfer of FCC permits. It includes, to name but a few things, the passage of legal title for many assets other than Title III licenses, corporate restructuring, stock swaps or purchases, and the consolidation of corporate headquarters and personnel. Clearly, then, asking whether the particularized transactions of license transfers and section 214 transfers would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity entails a significantly more limited focus than contemplating the industry-wide effects of a merger between the transferee and transferor. For instance, in considering the transfer of licenses, one might ask whether there is any reason to think that the proposed transferee would not put the relevant spectrum to efficient use or comply with applicable Commission regulations; one would not, by contrast, consider how the combination of the two companies might affect other competitors in the industry. One might also consider the benefits of the transfer, but not of the merger generally. And one might consider the transferee's proposed use and disposition of the actual Title III licenses, but one would not venture into an examination of services provided by the transferee that do not even" 0*((" involve the use of those licenses. By using sections 214 and 310 to assert jurisdiction over the entire merger of two companies that happen to be the transferee and transferor of radio licenses and international  W4resale authorizations, the Commission greatly expands its regulatory authority under the Act.g X4ԍ#XP\  P6QXP#The exercise of power not authorized in the Communications Act is not just an independent wrong: it also creates a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The APA requires a reviewing court to "hold unlawful and set aside agency action" that is "in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations." 5 U.S.C. section 706(2)(C).   W~4 Because the very premise of this Order is that it must analyze the competitive effects of the "merger," in contravention of the plain language of sections 214 and 310, I cannot sign on to its reasoning.  W4VI.The Order Was Adopted Pursuant To Extraordinary Procedures That Create  W4An Appearance of Impartial Decisionmaking The abovediscussed conditions attached to this "merger" decision did not simply spring fullblown into being. They are the end result of an unusually protracted and entirely novel process for reviewing applications for consent to transfer of section 214 and 310 authorizations. In particular, these applications were reviewed in an unprecedented fourpart process. More than one year ago, SBC/Ameritech petitioned the Commission for consent to  W,4transfer licenses and authorizations to the new corporate entity. I characterize the initial  W4application as opposed to the subsequent filing of proposed conditions, see supra at paras. 4243 as the truly voluntary action in this matter. SBC and Ameritech submitted these applications of their own free will, without coercion or threat from third parties. All of these transfer requests were bundled by the Common Carrier Bureau into one public notice, and the Commission received voluminous public comments on the applications. In accordance with both statute and precedent, the Commission could have, based on that round of public comment, which included opposition to the applications, made one of three statutorilydelineated decisions: it could have granted the license transfer and authorizations petitions; granted the license transfers subject to conditions; or, if unable to find the application  W4consistent with the public interest, designated them for hearing. See 47 U.S.C. section 309(d)(2). Such outcomes allow the parties and the public to know whether, in the Commissions judgment, the public record supports the license transfer applications, or precisely what conditions would provide a basis to transfer the licenses, or exactly why the public record does not support such a finding at all. At the time, neither the Bureau nor the Commission had issued any finding relating to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the license transfer applications. Instead, the Chairman of the FCC chose a fourth and unprecedented option; he sent a public letter to the two companies"D!40*(( "  W4suggesting that there were generalized public interest "concerns" with the applications .))I>*footnote reference)#I>*)footnote reference## A6X@CJWA@# X34*footnote text` hp x (#@ HPX #(*)footnote reference##A6X@CJWA@#ۍ)'))(*footnote reference)#Xx6X@DQbX@##XP\  P6QXP#See Letter from William E. Kennard to Richard C. Notebaert, Chairman & CEO, Ameritech Corp. and Edward E. Whitacre, Jr., Chairman & CEO, SBC Communications, Inc., CC Docket No. 98141 (Apr. 1, 1999).#Xv6X@C `X@#  W4# NO\  P6Q GNP#That letter never cited a specific inconsistency between the applications and existing Commission rules or applicable statutes, nor did it cite actions that would bring the applications into compliance. Notably, had the petitions been designated for hearing under the statute, section 309 would have required "the Commission" (as opposed to the Chairman acting alone)  W~4to "specify[] with particularity the matters and things in issue but not including issues or  Wf4requirements phrased generally." Id. section 309(e)(emphasis added). Of course, this is  WN4exactly what the Chairman's letter did not do. See supra at n. 99 (summarizing Chairman's letter, consisting primarily of openended questions regarding general public interest concerns). The suggestion that the companies then submitted the original set of proposed  W 4conditions as a matter of pure volition is untenable, given the fact and substance of the  W 4Chairman's letter. The "invitation," supra at para. 42, was an effective decree from the body with continuing regulatory power over the applicants' core business operations, and with the asserted power to prohibit the proposed merger, to come to the bargaining table.  X 4# XP\  P6QXP# The Order itself describes the highly unusual course of the proceedings that ensued.  XT4See supra at paras. 4047 (describing Commission review procedures); id. ar paras. 35153.  X?4This extraordinary process included "discussions" between the companies and Common Carrier Bureau staff unauthorized by the full Commission, with "ground rules" set by the Chairman and thus subject to change at his personal whim, several rounds of comments on  X4the license transfers, and even special "fora" to discuss the transfers. See also Letter From Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth to CEOs of SBC and Ameritech in Response to Chairman's Proposed Process (Apr. 5, 1999) (www.fcc.gov) (describing concerns with process).  X4It is true that the existence of these closeddoor meetings was highly publicized. But no one other than the invited attendees were privy to the deliberations, the offers and counteroffers, the issues discussed, or the regulatory "requests" and subsequent promises that transpired in them. A few parallel public meetings were held to receive comments from the public, which was unaware of the details being negotiated in the private meetings. Interested parties, both inside and outside the agency, requested attendance at the regularly scheduled private meetings, which involved government employees on government premises during regular office hours. Such requests were denied. I was provided with written minutes of the  X4meetings, but urged not to disclose the contents, even though our ex parte rules might suggest otherwise.  X4#XP\  P6QXP#  W 4#Xv6X@C `X@## NO\  P6Q GNP#One can search the statute, or even Commission regulations, in vain for guidance as to how Commission staff should conduct a series of private meetings to the negotiate terms and conditions of an adjudicatory decision. If such rules were committed to paper, they might have"s"M0*(()!" included the following provisions (which seem to have been made up, of necessity, by Commission staff as they went along): (1) do not invite the public or any interested parties, apart from the applicants; (3) require confidentiality of all participants, asking them not to discuss the meetings with any third parties or the press; (4) keep only handwritten notes of the meetings; (5) have applicants "voluntarily" submit written conditions in order to avoid the  X~4appearance that conditions were negotiated under duress.)O)I>*footnote reference)#I>*)footnote reference## A6X@CJWA@##XP\  P6QXP# Once a deal was struck in the private meetings between Commission staff and SBC/Ameritech, the new voluntary standards were then put out for a second round of notice and comment, and the "fora" discussions followed. I am aware of no other license transfer proceeding in which these procedures have been pursued. And I seriously doubt whether we will ever adhere to this model again when seemingly similarlysituated applicants file for transfer authorization. Of course, our rules set no standard procedures for license transfers, as noted below, and so there is no rule to follow in the future. This kind of procedural unpredictability casts a pall on the Commission's impartiality. Specifically, when the Commission subjects particular parties to a novel, extended, and unwieldy process to which it has not subjected similarly situated applicants, a reasonable person might think that the decisionmakers possessed a bias a bias manifesting itself in the especially high and numerous procedural hoops through which the decisionmakers were forcing the companies to jump. Unfortunately, the manipulation of procedural rules can be a cover for discrimination on the merits.  As Senator McCain put it: XA proceeding of . . . importance and potential consequences must be attended, not only with every element of fairness, but with the very appearance of complete fairness. That is the only way its conduct will meet the basic requirement of due process.  Xm4Amos Treat and Co., Inc. v. SEC, 306 F.2d 260 (D.C.Cir. 1962). The Commission's objectivity and impartiality are unavoidably opened to challenge by the adoption of procedures from which a disinterested observer may conclude that it has in some measure adjudged the facts as well as the law a case in advance of fully hearing it.  X4See, e.g., Gilligan , Will & Co. v. SEC, 267 F.2d 461 (D.C.Cir. 1959).(#  X4Letter from Sen. John McCain to Chairman William E. Kennard, May 12, 1999.  X 4A second problem with the processes leading up to this decision is the closeddoor,  X!4private nature of the initial negotiations over the proposed conditions. As a result, the notice and comment associated with the proposed conditions did not, in my opinion, provide a meaningful opportunity for public participation. Rather, the notice and comment period opened only after a set of proposed negotiations had been privately negotiated between SBC/Ameritech and Commission staff. And that deal was struck entirely behind closed doors. Notably, if one compares the conditions announced at the notice stage with the conditions adopted today, one will see that the final conditions are materially unchanged "'0*((%" from those that were announced at the conclusion of the private meetings between the applicants and Commission staff. As one neutral observer noted, the conditions as revised  X4from the public notice stage involve "miniscule changes to the [original] terms." Legg Mason Research Notes (Sep. 2, 1999) (emphasis added). Notice of, and the opportunity to comment on, a proposal when the outcome has been predetermined does not fulfill the purposes of the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. It also wastes the resources of the outside parties who spent time and money drafting and filing comments on the proposed conditions. To my mind, the appearance of impartiality created by the highly erratic, unusual process in this matter, combined with the hollowness of the public's opportunity to comment on the conditions, indelibly taints the resultant Order.  X 4VII.The Order Was Adopted Pursuant to An Ad Hoc and Potentially Arbitrary Review   X4I also have grave concerns about the standards (or lack thereof) employed in FCC merger reviews, which are exemplified by this proceeding. The Commission annually approves tens of thousands of license transfers without any scrutiny or comment, while others receive minimal review, and a few are subjected to intense regulatory scrutiny. For example, mergers of companies like Mobil and Exxon involve the transfer of a substantial number of radio licenses, many of the same kind of licenses as those at issue in this proceeding, and yet we take no Commissionlevel action on those transfer applications. I do not advocate extensive review of all license transfer applications, but mean only to illustrate that we apply  X4highly disparate levels of review to applications that arise under identical statutory provisions. Unfortunately, there is no established Commission standard for distinguishing between the license transfers that trigger extensive analysis by the full Commission and those that do not. Nor does this Order elucidate the standard. Yet again, the Commission adopts an order that fails to explain why this particular license transfer warrants heavy review. This is not very helpful for future applicants. Regulated entities and even their often sophisticated counsel are left to wonder: Is the question whether the merging firms are large, successful corporations? (That is one of the obvious differences between the mergers that receive heavy attention from the Commission and those that do not.) Are SBC and Ameritech somehow "bad" carriers that demand close scrutiny and heavyhanded regulatory intervention?  X 4In short, merging parties have no clear notice as to the threshold showing for determining the scale of FCC license transfer review. Agency decisions regarding which license transfers to review, even as among license transfers occasioned by mergers, are  X#4entirely ad hoc and thus run a high risk of being made arbitrarily.ex#p X%4ԍ#XP\  P6QXP#If the answer is, as some have suggested, that the Commission reviews extensively only a subclass of license transfer applications -- those occasioned by mergers with the potential to"&0*((&" affect the telecommunications industry -- that response is incomplete. Whatever the soundness of this theory for distinguishing among transfer applications, it is not written anywhere, whether in agency rules, regulations, policy statements, or even internal agency guidelines. While the Communications Act does allow the Commission to make reasonable  X44classifications of applications, see 47 U.S.C. section 309(g), the Commission has in no way done so, much less in a way that puts the public on notice as to what those classifications are.e"#0*((!"ԌNor does the Commission have any established procedures for the handling of applications for license transfers. Any particular application on any particular day could be: adopted at a Commission meeting; voted by the Commission on circulation; processed with or without a formal hearing; processed with or without socalled "public fora"; handled with or without additional private "talks" between the companies, interested parties, Commission staff, and individual, especially interested members of the Commission; granted with or without  Xv4conditions; finalized after 90 days or 90 weeks, etc. The list goes on almost indefinitely. Section 1.1 of the Practice and Procedure subpart of the Commission's rules, entitled "Proceedings before the Commission," does nothing to remedy the openended nature of Commission processes. It states that "[t]he Commission may on its own motion or petition of any interested party hold such proceedings as it may deem necessary from time to time" and "[p]rocedures to be followed by the Commission shall . . . be such as in the opinion of the Commission will best serve the purposes of such proceedings." 47 C.F.R. section 1.1. This rule, written by the Commission, establishes only that the Commission can do essentially whatever it wants. There is nothing constraining or useful about this section. Moreover, this rule the only general one about procedures on the Commission's books is routinely flouted. Section 1.1 allows "the Commission" to decide on appropriate procedures. Under the Communications Act, "the Commission" is defined as being "composed of five Commissioners appointed by the President, by and with the advice of the Senate, one of whom the President shall designate as chairman." 47 U.S.C. section 4(a). In this very proceeding, however, important procedural issues were not decided upon by the full Commission, as section 1.1. requires; rather the Chairman seems to believe that he can set procedural rules, on his own, in the form of letters to the principals of the merging companies. This is contrary, however, to the little that section 1.1 actually does require namely, full Commission action.  X4  X~4This Order reaffirms the fact that regulated entities have little basis for knowing, ex  Xi4ante, how their applications will be treated, either procedurally or substantively. In fact, the Order goes out of its way to disclaim any precedential or guiding effect in future merger reviews, stating that the "approval of this Application subject to conditions should not be considered as an indication that future applicants always will be able to rely on similar public interest commitments to offset potential public interest harms. Each case will present  X4different facts and circumstances." Supra at para. 361. "0*((7"ԌOf course, each of the three alleged harms from the SBC/Ameritech license transfers  XNcould be leveled against many other license transfer applications.)P)I>*footnote reference)#I>*)footnote reference##A6X@CJWA@# #NO\  P6Q GNP#The reductionincompetition harm could be claimed, and supported, with equally frail records as we have today The impairedregulator harm, based largely on speculation about future regulatory options, could equally well be leveled at any license transfer. Finally, changes in incentives to discriminate in the provision of advanced services is so speculative as to be no more or less likely for any other license transfer applications implicating such services. X(# The recent SBC/Comcast and Vodaphone/Airtouch transactions are but two examples of license transfers within the telecommunications industry that could have been faulted for the same harms as SBC/Ameritech. Yet these license transfers received only light review and approval without full Commission review, without months of private negotiations. There are thousands of lower profile license transfers to which the same commentary could apply. The net result is that the Commission appears to allege harms from license transfers in a selective, inconsistent, and arbitrary manner. All of these license transfers have one aspect in common: no extant rules were broken. And yet the allegation of vague and unwritten harms varies substantially, and unpredictably, among applications.  W\4Clearly, then, the license transfer process at the Commission is lacking in any transparent, fixed and meaningful standards. A person even a welltrained lawyer who wished to prepare for this process could find scant guidance in public sources of law, such as the Code of Federal Regulations or the Commission's adjudicatory orders. Rather, one would have to be trained in the unwritten ways of this Commission to know what to expect, and those expectations unfortunately would have little relation to federal administrative law. While obviously troublesome on an intuitive level, such a license transfer process  W4suffers from at least four particular flaws under the Administrative Procedure Act. First, the  Wt4wholly ad hoc nature of this process makes it all too easy for decisionmakers to discriminate among industries and even companies ! in other words, to engage in arbitrary and capricious review. Protecting against such decisionsmaking is, of course, a core function of the  W(4Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. section 706(2)(A) (reviewing court must '"aside agency action . . . found to be arbitrary [and] capricious").  W4Second, and relatedly, by failing to state clearly the principles that it uses to judge license transfers, the Commission decreases the viability of meaningful judicial review. The net  W4result is to undermine the statutory right of aggrieved parties to judicial review. See id. section 702 ("A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial  W^"4review thereof."). That right of review is an interested party's primary defense against arbitrary agency decisions.  W%4Third, the nonascertainable nature of the license transfer process means that interested parties have no fair notice as to the regulatory constraints on their conduct. Notice of what the  W&4law requires i.e., which behavior is prohibited and which is permissible is a bedrock"&0*((m%" element of fairness in our legal system, derivative of the Due Process Clause. No person should be penalized for violating a rule that is either so vague as to give no clear indication of the prescribed conduct, or entirely unpublished and thus unavailable to the public, residing only  W4in the minds of regulators. The notice and comment procedures of the APA are designed to safeguard against lack of fair notice. They require notification, and an opportunity to  W~4participate in the making, of the standards that govern interested parties. See id. section 553(b)(c). Indeed, the whole rulemaking system of the APA is based on the assumption that  WL4governing standards will be published and public before they go into effect, allowing regulated  W44parties a certain amount of time to conform their conduct to the new federal standards. See id. section 553(d) ("The required publication or service of a substantive rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date. . . .").   W 4  VIII.The Order Fails To Articulate Intelligible Principles To Cabin The "Public Interest" Test  W 4For Mergers  W 4The statutory test to be applied to license transfers is, of course, the "public interest" standard. The Commission has failed to place any outer limits whatsoever on this concept, freely reinterpreting the standard in each new highprofile license transfer review. Not only does the Commission's lack of clear guidelines with respect to standards governing license applications present issues of arbitrary decisionmaking and of fair notice, as discussed above, it may also create constitutional issues with respect to the nondelegation doctrine. Earlier this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in  W4American Trucking Ass'n v. EPA, 1999 WL300618 (May 14, 1999) that the EPA's failure to  W4adopt "intelligible principles" the guide its implementation of the Clean Air Act effected an  W~4unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The Court explained that "[w]here . . . statutory language and an existing agency interpretation involve an unconstitutional delegation  WJ4of power, but an interpretation without the constitutional weakness is or may be available, our response is not to strike down the statute but to give the agency an opportunity to extract a  W4determinate standard on its town." Id. at *6. According to this case and its precedential  W4forebears, see International Union, UAW v. OSHA, 938 F.2d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1991), this agency has a constitutional duty to choose interpretations of statutory language that avoid, rather than create, nondelegation doctrine problems.  W4I believe that the FCC has not satisfied its obligation under American Trucking to adopt "determinate, binding standards," 1999 WL 300618 at *6, in order to channel its discretion under the "public interest" provisions of sections 309 and 214. Putting aside the question of the breadth of the statutory standard itself, the Commission has not articulated any clear, binding principles about what that standard means in the context of merger review; how it applies to different entities; and what justifies a departure from standard practice, to name just a few of the major outposts on the license transfer trail. In short, there are no selfdefined limits at either end of the spectrum on the issues that the Commission seems to believe that it can consider in deciding whether to grant or deny a license transfer when mergers are involved; in each "merger review" order, we see a new set"'0*((%"  W4of regulatory goals and conditions. Is there anything that the Commission couldn't do under the public interest standard when considering applications under section 310 and 214? Not as far as I can tell from this Order. This is arguably the kind of "freewheeling authority [that] might  W4well violate the nondelegation doctrine." International Union, UAW v. OSHA, 938 F.3d at 371. I have always thought that it was incumbent on the Commission to fashion some  Wh4guidelines to place limits on its discretion as a matter of simple fairness. Under American  WP4Trucking and International Union, it would appear that the Commission also has a  W84constitutional duty to do so. It has not even attempted to carry out this duty.  W 4  W 4IX.Conclusion  W 4Today's Order, and the process that led up to it, exemplify my concerns with this Commission's review of license transfer applications that happen to be filed by merging entities. The Commission: imposes conditions that lack an express statutory foundation indeed, that affirmatively violate specific and fundamental statutory directives; foresees harms so vague and speculative that the actual nexus between those harms and the remedies imposed is difficult to ascertain; promulgates costly companyspecific regulations; requires conduct by companies that it could not require outright in a rulemaking; creates new processing schemes to suit its fancy in individual transfer proceedings, raising questions about the neutrality of its decisionmaking; lacks any clear substantive standards for merger review, which creates problems of fair notice, increases the potential for arbitrary decisionmaking, and implicates the  W4nondelegation doctrine. Because these license transfer applications meet the requirements of extant statutory and regulatory rules, I would simply have granted them unconditionally, pursuant to traditional notice and comment procedures, without subjecting the applicants to an extrastatutory and most troubling process.