NOTICE ************************************************************************* NOTICE ************************************************************************* This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect. If the original document contained-- * Footnotes * Boldface & Italics --this information is missing in this version The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) is changed too. If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect version. For information about downloading documents (FTP) see file pnmc5021. File pnmc5021 (.txt & .wp) is in directory \pub\Public_Notices\Miscellaneous. ************************************************************************* ///newjob/// $///DA 95-471,4/6/95,RO///$ $// Order; NYNEX - Rejection Order; Trans. 369; DA 95-471 //$ $/ Section 0.291 Delegated Authority /$ TRANSMITTED FOR FCC RECORD ONLY Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. DA 95-471 In the Matter of ) ) NYNEX Telephone Companies ) Transmittal No. 369 Tariff F.C.C. No. 1 ) ORDER Adopted: March 10, 1995 ; Released: March 10, 1995 By the Acting Chief, Tariff Division, Common Carrier Bureau: 1. On February 10, 1995, NYNEX Telephone Companies (NYNEX) filed Transmittal No. 369 to make within band, within price cap adjustments to its rates for certain channel terminations for access services within the Trunking Basket. In addition, NYNEX proposes in this filing to reduce to zero the nonrecurring charges associated with channel terminations and channel mileage facilities for monthly broadcast video services. Finally, NYNEX submitted with Transmittal No. 369 a revised Price Cap Index for the Interexchange Basket resulting from a rate increase for Carrier Common Line minutes of use as filed on January 27, 1995, under Transmittal No. 367. 2. On February 17, 1995, MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI) filed a petition to reject Transmittal No. 369. MCI argues that Transmittal No. 369 is a "below band" filing and thus requires cost support treatment specified by the price cap regulations. MCI contends that while NYNEX does not claim any rate changes for its DS1 service, NYNEX's price cap tariff review plan, filed with Transmittal No. 369, indicates that rate changes have in fact occurred and resulted in a lower service band index (SBI) for that service. Therefore, MCI claims, NYNEX's filing is subject to the Commission's requirement that NYNEX submit materials showing that its changed rates were above service costs. 3. In its reply filed February 27, 1995, NYNEX maintains that Transmittal No. 369 is not a below-band filing because NYNEX does not propose any changes resulting in below-band rates. NYNEX explains that the changes in the SBIs and sub-indexes for the DS1 service sub-category is due to shifts in the allocation of New York State Gross Income Tax (GIT) amounts among service categories. According to NYNEX, the allocation method it uses to apportion GIT dollars in each price cap service category caused GIT amounts in other service categories, including the DS1 service sub-category, to decline when the rates for certain channel terminations for access services within the Trunking Basket were increased. Therefore, NYNEX contends, the changes in the SBIs and DS1 sub-indices for the DS1 service sub-category was due solely to the methodology that NYNEX used to reflect GIT in the price cap model and does not cause Transmittal No. 369 to be classified as a below-band filing. 4. The Tariff Division has reviewed NYNEX's Transmittal No. 369 and the related pleadings. We conclude that no compelling argument has been presented that this tariff is patently unlawful so as to warrant rejection. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition to reject NYNEX's Transmittal No. 369 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Geraldine A. Matise Acting Chief, Tariff Division Common Carrier Bureau