WPCp- 2BJ Courier#|wXw PE37XPCG Timeset 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\oeX@26 ZO  =HP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4XwLP  P7\oeP×;`;dd`UkUgU?\o74o7okkgMFBkddk\YdYDZ4``!```R`doUUUUUցU}U}U}U}UB7B7B7B7okkkkkkkkkUgkkkkvkd``U``}`}`}`\d``oo`o`o``Bo`oz7zRookϗMR`F`FNd4``4JUU``````Bdd`B77UU`77``z7U4Bt4nnyy2`o7cUUnCzohcnonvyXzXshn~|yxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx44U``7;;`444```````````44ǢJz}vBJzv`×;`;dd`UkUgU?\o74o7okkgMFBkddk\YdYxx7`U````7xxxx77UUd``zF7xx44````d``d`U4dd`BB`o`4`B`UJ֔}}}}BBBBvoUUUUUUUUUUU7777kokkkkkkkkkkkkCG TimesCG Times Bold1) (Bold)Garmond (W1) (Italic)#|S2: ZXb@@ HP LaserJet 4/4MtScript ROOM 224HPLAS4.WRSSXwLP  P7,,PP8wC;,Xw PE37XPD7zC;, c!Xz_ pi7XV"G($,hG PE37hPINDEX.TXT|xI@"5@^77Qdd4??d777ddddddddddd77ǦM}}MJz}kǗ?d?ddd\oUoYFkv;7o;vkooUJJvkkg`dddDZ7dd!dddRddv\\\\\ÈU}Y}Y}Y}YM;M;M;M;vkkkkvvvvg\okkgk}odddUdd}d}d}dkkkkvvdvdvddMvdoz;zRvvk֟UUkJkJNd7dd7M``ddd\\dFdddF44\\d??ddz4\7Ft7nnyy2do7c``nCzohcnonvyXzXshn~|yxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx77Qdd4??d777ddddddddddd77ǦM}}MJz}kǗ?d?ddd\oUoYFkv;7o;vkooUJJvkkg`dddxx4d\dddk?xxxx44\\dddzJ?xx77dddddddd\`7dddFFdod7dF\`M×}}}}MMMM}v\\\\\\UYYYY;;;;kvkkkkkkvvvvgo"5@^3::ad!##:a:::::::::::waw,b[IY_KG_f(,VIlffGfT:RaVu[VP#:#<<:3@3>3&7B!B!dB@@>.*(@<[<@75<5w:::::1:<B[3[3[3[3[3MY3K3K3K3K3(!(!(!(!fBf@f@f@f@a@a@a@a@V@[3_>f@f@V@_@G@[<[:[:Y3Y:Y:K:K:K:_7_<__:_:fBfB:B:B::(B:VBI!I1fBfBf@|[T.T1:*:*N<::,33:::::aa:(<<:a(!!33:a!!::Ia!3(taBBaavHH}:Ba!cV;_v}c33\\\OhBCIWBW?M;WBCBGH5I5SE\?WB_R\RLVJHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH3::ad!##:a:::::::::::waw,b[IY_KG_f(,VIlffGfT:RaVu[VP#:#<<:3@3>3&7B!B!dB@@>.*(@<[<@75<5wwHH!:3a::::!|HHHH!!33<:a:I*![HHV::::<::<:3a<<:a((:B::(:3aaa,[[[[[[YKKKK((((_ffffffafaaaaVGB333333M33333!!!!@B@@@@@a@@@@@@@2@l Qf "5@^00U``700`000d``````````00ǛFrvdB?vo\z}0d0dd`\`JdJ7U`;0d7o\\`M;?gg\YUYdYDZ0``!```R`dd\\\\\}JvJvJvJvJB;B;B;B;o\\\\ggggY\d\\Y\o\d``J``v`v`v`Ud`````d`d``Bd`dv7vRoo`ψMR\;\;Nd0``4FQQ```YY`Bdd`B00QQ`;;``z0Q0Bt0nnyy2`o7cQQnCzohcnonvyXzXshn~|yxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx00U``700`000d``````````00ǛFrvdB?vo\z}0d0dd`\`JdJ7U`;0d7o\\`M;?gg\YUYdYxx0`Q```\;xxxx00QQd``z;;xx04````d``dYQ0dd`BB`o`0`BYQFvvvvBBBBod\\\\\\}JJJJJ;;;;\o\\\\\\ggggY\",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2f D'FZn-",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxN`xoCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddd4dddddCddddddddo8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddpddddxodddXXddXddXdddddooL8doddNorddo8PdN8ppoddXXdpLoNpLodPDdopoopodXYXodoodddCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"dsd9dCCzCddoddCdYds`zUvdddCCCCzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L"i~'K2^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx#b Y(-ԍ MCI Petition at 34.> MCI"#=0*0*0*$"  xcontends 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  ]- xchanges have in fact occurred and resulted in a lower service band index (SBI) for that service.9}L ^K-ԍ Id. at 3.9  xTherefore, 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.z}L ^-ԍ Id. at 4, citing Section 61.49(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  61.49(d).  Y- ` x3.` ` In its reply filed February 27, 1995, NYNEX maintains that Transmittal No. 369  xis not a belowband filing because NYNEX does not propose any changes resulting in below Yv- xband rates.Bv.  YU -ԍ NYNEX Reply at 2.B NYNEX explains that the changes in the SBIs and subindexes for the DS1 service  xjsubcategory is due to shifts in the allocation of New York State Gross Income Tax (GIT)  xamounts among service categories. According to NYNEX, the allocation method it uses to  xapportion GIT dollars in each price cap service category caused GIT amounts in other service  x categories, including the DS1 service subcategory, to decline when the rates for certain channel  xterminations for access services within the Trunking Basket were increased. Therefore, NYNEX  xcontends, the changes in the SBIs and DS1 subindices for the DS1 service subcategory was due  xwsolely to the methodology that NYNEX used to reflect GIT in the price cap model and does not  Y -cause Transmittal No. 369 to be classified as a belowband filing.;   YN-ԍ Id. at 24.;  Y- ` x4.` ` The Tariff Division has reviewed NYNEX's Transmittal No. 369 and the related  xpleadings. We conclude that no compelling argument has been presented that this tariff is patently unlawful so as to warrant rejection.  YK-T ă   x5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition to reject NYNEX's Transmittal No. 369 IS DENIED. x` ` hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` ` hhGeraldine A. Matise x` `  hhActing Chief, Tariff Division x` `  hhCommon Carrier Bureau