WPC 2  BP cpi#|w [hXw P7XPCG Times (Scalable)OM 544 (LPT2)HPLASIII.PRSx  @H58\X@2< ZL -#|wHP LaserJet IIISi ROOM 544 (LPT2)HPLASIII.PRSXP\  P6QH58\XPic (Scalable)CG Times (Scalable)CG Times Bold (Scalable).PRSXP\  P6QH=pXP2 JX Z"Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYddddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdddddddd~d~d~d~ddddddddd8ddddoddd~d~d<|8tddddddlLkdkd~d~d~ddddddXCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"Ȑdhd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUvŐdȐYYCCCCŐz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC"Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲdxN`xoȐCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddddddddCddddddddo8dddddϐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddxoddddddodddddddddood8doddrddoddN8ooddddoNododdddooooȐdYCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"Ȑdsd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ`ȐȐȮzȐUvŐdȐddCCCCŐzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYCȢ8wC;,[hXw P7XP7zC;,sXz_ p^7X _5xŗ+tWP_TransferMenuWP_IPCQUERYRAPPINP_IPCQUERYAPPIDWP_IPCSYSCOMMANDWP_IPCSYSACKNOWLEDGE WP_IPCCOMMANDWP_IPCACKNOWLESS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8SMMSSSSSS;SSSS;88SSS..SSffSSxSYSS8SS;"xxSxSxxS哓S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SfS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxfff]f]oJfA]JxSxJ8.oJo]]oJoSxJxffSfSS]J]Joff]fffffx8Sx]]fJffff88SSSSfxSSS]]]f8`SJ8"Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲdxN`xoȐCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddddddddCddddddddo8dddddϐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddxoddddddodddddddddood8doddrddoddN8ooddddoNododdddooooȐdYCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"Ȑdsd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ`ȐȐȮzȐUvŐdȐddCCCCŐzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC2<vp"Sh5^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx';(m<)p7=*q=a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf'f  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf(q Document[8]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CC -2( -Ct )B)` ` ` Document[4]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CCW -2( -Ct )B*  . 2@+eJ>,e>-?.p?Document[6]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CCe -2( -Ct )B+  Document[5]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CCs -2( -Ct )B,  Document[2]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CC -2( -Ct )B-*    Document[7]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CC -2( -Ct )B.  ` ` ` 2B/I@0@1vA2 BRight Par[1]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )B/8@  Right Par[2]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )B0A@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CC -2( -Ct )B10     Right Par[3]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )B2J` ` ` @  ` ` ` 2E3B4C5DD6ERight Par[4]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )B3S` ` `  @  Right Par[5]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )B4\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )B5e` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers  -2( -Ct )B6n` ` `  hhh@  2H7E8F9G: HRight Par[8]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )B7w ` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CCE -2( -Ct )B8F34   ׃  Technical[5]C^iTechnical Document StyleCCS -2( -Ct )B9&56  . Technical[6]C^iTechnical Document StyleCCa -2( -Ct )B:&78  . 29K;H<`I=I>JTechnical[2]C^iTechnical Document StyleCCo -2( -Ct )B;*9:    Technical[3]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC} -2( -Ct )B<';<   Technical[4]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )B=&=>   Technical[1]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )B>4?$@     2zM?kK@KA}uLBLTechnical[7]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )B?&AB  . Technical[8]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )B@&CD  . Paragraph[1]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BA$ab Paragraph[2]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BB/cd` ` ` 2:PCMD?NENFOParagraph[3]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BC:ef` ` `  Paragraph[4]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BDEgh` ` `  Paragraph[5]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BEPij` ` ` hhh Paragraph[6]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BF[kl 2TGlPH+QIQJRParagraph[7]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BGfmn Paragraph[8]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BHqop Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph FontI11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#toc 1toc 1J` hp x (#44` hp x (#2w]KTLWM;YNY[toc 2toc 2K` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#toc 3toc 3L` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4M` hp x (#4 <4 <` hp x (#toc 5toc 5N` hp x (#4<4<` hp x (#2ydO]Pv_Q=`R[btoc 6toc 6O` hp x (#44` hp x (#toc 7toc 7P toc 8toc 8Q` hp x (#44` hp x (#toc 9toc 9R` hp x (#44` hp x (#2kSdTfUhVkindex 1index 1S` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#index 2index 2T` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#toatoaU` hp x (#` hp x (#captioncaptionV;1#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#2qnWkXlYumZpn_Equation Caption_Equation CaptionW11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#endnote referenceendnote referenceX44#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#footnote referencefootnote referenceY4#XP\  P6QXP#1S&C5C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )Zqr` ` ` 2qp[qn\eo]eyo^o2S&C6C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )[s t . 3S&C7C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )\ uv 4S&C8C^fDocument StyleNF2CC! -2( -Ct )] wx 5S&C9C^fDocument StyleNF2CC/ -2( -Ct )^*yz   2r_pp`qaqb@r6S&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 )aA@` ` `  ` ` ` 9S&C=C^fDocument StyleNF2CCg -2( -Ct )b0    2ucsdseXtfu10S&C>C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersu -2( -Ct )cJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` 11S&C?C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )dS` ` `  @  12S&C@C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )e\` ` `  @hhh hhh 13S&CAC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )fe` ` `  hhh@ hhh 2xguhviwjRx14S&CBC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )gn` ` `  hhh@  15S&CCC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )hw` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 16S&CDC^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )iF   ׃  17S&CEC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )j&  . 2S{k ylym*znz18S&CFC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )k&  . 19S&CGC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )l*    20S&CHC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )m'   21S&CIC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )n&   2}o{p5|q|r}?}22S&CJC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )o4$     23S&CKC^fTechnical Document StyleCC+ -2( -Ct )p&  . 24S&CLC^fTechnical Document StyleCC9 -2( -Ct )q&  . 25S&CMC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CG -2( -Ct )r$ 2Ps}tv~u v26S&CNC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CU -2( -Ct )s/` ` ` 27S&COC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cc -2( -Ct )t:` ` `  28S&CPC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cq -2( -Ct )uE` ` `  29S&CQC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )vP` ` ` hhh 2wx6yz30S&CRC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )w[ 31S&CSC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )xf 32S&CTC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )yq Default ParaC^fDefault Paragraph Font2CC -2( -Ct )z;;#PP##PP#2c{|}a~l_Equation CaC^f_Equation CaptionF2CC -2( -Ct ){;;#PP##PP#endnote refeC^fendnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )|>>#PP##PP#footnote refC^ffootnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )}>#PP#heading 3heading 3~2mvv vvheading 4heading 4 heading 5heading 5 heading 6heading 6 heading 7heading 7 2vvvheading 8heading 8 endnote textendnote text footnote textfootnote text toa headingtoa heading` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#21ZQdp1, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.E1.A, B,t ?@65Uppercase Letters1 ?*1÷$t ?.E .footnote tex6footnote text̺=(?. 0&ܺ*?.ںd 0E2(33`O5hT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5h.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 21qceԎe934`O5iT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5i.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  . 35`O5jT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5j.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  36`O5kT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5k.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  37`O5lT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5l.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>*   2pcӐe38`O5mT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5m.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 39`O5nT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>8@   40`O5oT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>A@` `  ` ` ` 41`O5pT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5p.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>0    2ǒkΔ42`O5qT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>J` ` @  ` `  43`O5rT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>S` `  @  44`O5sT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>\` `  @hh# hhh 45`O5tT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>e` `  hh#@( hh# 2X46`O5uT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>n` `  hh#(@- ( 47`O5vT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 48`O5wT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5w.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>F *  ׃  49`O5xT(G2PTechnical Document Stylex.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 2ɘN50`O5yT(G2PTechnical Document Styley.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 51`O5zT(G2PTechnical Document Stylez.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>*    52`O5{T(G2PTechnical Document Style{.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>'   53`O5|T(G2PTechnical Document Style|.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&   2|Ez}54`O5}T(G2PTechnical Document Style}.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>4$     55`O5~T(G2PTechnical Document Style~.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 56`O5T(G2PTechnical Document Style.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 57`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>$ 26ɞg58`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+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>E` ` `  61`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>P` ` ` hhh 2uB62`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+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>q 65`O5T(G2PDefault Paragraph Font5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>OO#P P##P P#2EC66`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+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>R#PP#69 _5(_>7footnote text _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tZP2"pwqeXe70 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t` ` ` 71 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  . 72 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  73 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  2TpW74 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t*   75 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t` ` ` 76 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+t8@   77 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tA@` `  ` ` ` 2RK78 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t0     79 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tJ` ` @  ` `  80 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tS` `  @  81 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+t\  ` `  @hh# hhh 2C ܰ82 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+te  ` `  hh#@( hh# 83 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tn ` `  hh#(@- ( 84 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 85 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tF *  ׃  2ȱMҲn86 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&  . 87 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&  . 88 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t*    89 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t'   25ɴy90 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&   91 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t4$     92 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&   . 93 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&!"  . 2}2M94 _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:'(` ` `  97 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+tE)*` ` `  2ƹz998 _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/0 101_5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+tq12 2F5F{L 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#105_5(_>7footnote reference _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tz9:#PP#2\mF8wC;,[hXw P7XPx/c81,c P7P&z-b81,b&_ x$&7X7zC;,/sXz_ p^7XV"G($,hG P7hP&6uC;,/3Xu&_ x$&7XXd4wC;,HXw*0 xM7XW!I($,/hI_ p^7hx/c81,c P7P&z-b81,b&_ x$&7X"Sh5^;LhddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȰdxLdxxoxxxCCCddCddYdYFdo88d8odddLL8oYdYLdddddddddCddddddddd8dddddYYYYYL8L8L8L8oddddoooozYddddxYdxdddddddddddddddddood8ddddkdddxdxdxDx8ooddהddpLododxdxdxdooooxdxLCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddLdYYddddddCddddCCCkkd88ddzzdddsssCkdC"Ȑd~d尰dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ`ȐȐȮzȐUvŐdȐddCCCCŅzozoYNzYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddzYzYzozzzNdzzzYzzzzCCdddddddzzzzCzdYC"Sh5^$(8< I  Y-ԍxBellSouth Comments on SWBT Petition at 2.Z  Y-x17. ` ` Several IXCs question whether SWBT's petition established the "special circumstances" necessary for a waiver of the Commission's rules. AT&T claims that SWBT  Yb-has not shown why the current rules impose a hardship on SWBT.W?b  Y -ԍxAT&T Comments on SWBT Petition at 45.W MCI asserts that SWBT has not provided sufficient information to allow the Commission to determine the proposal's  Y4-impact on the public interest.T@4  Y!-ԍxMCI Comments on SWBT Petition at 4.T Frontier and CompTel contend that SWBT's ability to track calls from its payphones to each IXC does not constitute "special circumstances" because  Y-other local exchange carriers could develop the same calltracking technology.A\ Y%-ԍxFrontier Comments on SWBT Petition, Attachment at 2; CompTel Comments on SWBT Petition at 2. AT&T argues that the fact that Ameritech filed a similar petition claiming to have developed call" A0*(("ԫtracking capabilities for payphoneoriginated calls a few weeks before SWBT filed its petition  Y-negates any uniqueness that might otherwise support SWBT's waiver request.B Yb-ԍxAT&T Comments on SWBT Petition at n.1; AT&T Reply Comments on SWBT Petition at 3. In response, SWBT stated that the only issue to be decided in this case is whether the application of  Y-generally applicable Commission rules is in the public interest.Cb Y-ԍxSWBT Reply Comments at 6 (citing Northeast Cellular Telco v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990) and 47 C.F.R.  1.3). SWBT argued that its waiver proposal serves the public interest by removing the inequity resulting from the application of current rules which cause pay telephone costs to be recovered from all access  Yv-calls, whether or not they involve a pay telephone.:Dv Y% -ԍxId.:  YH- x18. ` ` Some commenters assert that SWBT has not presented sufficient information about its proposal. Specifically, AT&T argues that SWBT should not be granted a waiver because it has not shown an imbalance between carriers receiving interstate payphone traffic  Y -and those paying for it that needs to be rectified.UE  Ye-ԍxAT&T Comments on SWBT Petition at 5.U Similarly, Sprint notes that SWBT did not provide evidence that its proposed rate restructuring would change the allocation of  Y -payphone costs among IXCs.WF b  Y-ԍxSprint Comments on SWBT Petition at 2.W Sprint and Allnet state that SWBT has failed to quantify the  Y -amount by which pay telephone costs inflate the carrier common line charge.~G   Y-ԍxSprint Comments on SWBT Petition at 2; Allnet Comments on SWBT Petition at 4.~ MCI claims that it is not clear how SWBT would address the issue of resellers with its new pay telephone  Y-use fee.TH  Y-ԍxMCI Comments on SWBT Petition at 6.T AT&T asserts that the petition presents no evidence that a percall charge rate  Yy-structure is more efficient than the carrier common line charge structure.UIyu Y-ԍxAT&T Comments on SWBT Petition at 5.U MCI states that the Petition is silent with respect to the impact of the negative exogenous cost adjustment on  YK-other accounts.TJK& Y"#-ԍxMCI Comments on SWBT Petition at 4.T  Y-x19. ` ` Several commenters raise procedural objections to SWBT's petition. AT&T, CompTel and Allnet believe the issues involved in LEC recovery of payphone costs should be addressed in a rulemaking that examines all access charge rules and that applies" J0*(("  Y-throughout the industry.K Yy-ԍxAT&T Comments on SWBT Petition at 7 n.9; CompTel Comments on SWBT Petition at 4; Allnet Comments on SWBT Petition at 10. MCI argues that because SWBT's petition challenges the validity of the rule governing the recovery of payphone costs, SWBT should have filed a petition for  Y-rulemaking concerning payphone cost recovery, not a waiver request.TLb Y-ԍxMCI Comments on SWBT Petition at 5.T  Y-x20. ` ` SWBT disagrees, stating that a rulemaking would be appropriate if SWBT were seeking to require all local exchange carriers to remove the pay telephone element from the carrier common line charge. According to SWBT, however, it does not seek to impose a  Y_-uniform scheme upon the industry, and therefore a waiver request is appropriate.LM_ Y# -ԍxSWBT Reply Comments at 34.L SWBT notes that while it agrees that a complete access reform rulemaking will ultimately be  Y1-necessary, its waiver request is an "interim step until full access reform."@N1 Y-ԍxId. at 4.@  Y -x21. ` ` Some IXCs contend that SWBT should not be granted a waiver that will allow it to continue to recover interstate payphone costs from IXCs because IXCs are not the  Y -"causers" of these costs.|O w Y-ԍxAT&T Comments on SWBT Petition at 7; Allnet Comments on SWBT Petition at 9.| Other commenters claim that end users, not IXCs, should be  Y -charged directly for the interstate portion of LEC payphone costs.~P (  Y-ԍxMCI Comments on SWBT Petition at 5; CompTel Comments on SWBT Petition at 23.~ Allnet asserts that the primary beneficiary of SWBT's payphones is the SWBT local network, and therefore SWBT,  Y-not IXCs, should incur the costs of providing them.YQ  Y-ԍxAllnet Comments on SWBT Petition at 34.Y APCC argues that irrespective of costcausation principles, IXCs earn "substantial revenue" from carrying interstate calls that originate on payphones and therefore should pay some portion of the cost of providing  YK-payphones.oRKs Yo!-ԍxAPCC Reply Comments on SWBT Petition at 3 and Attachment at 3.o Allnet argues that the policies of the Commission's Caller ID proceeding prevent SWBT from imposing a separate charge upon IXCs, since the Commission determined in that case that "a carrier handing off a call to another carrier should not be" $R0*(((" allowed to charge that second carrier additional fees if the network capability already existed  Y-for providing the additional capability associated with that fee."{Sc Yb-ԍxAllnet Comments on SWBT Petition at 56. Allnet noted that the Commission's decision was based, in part, upon a finding that the technology required for passing Caller ID information represented a general network upgrade, the costs of which should be borne by all  Y-network users. Id. (citing Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification  Y-Service Caller ID, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 11700 at 1171617, 44 (1995)).{  Y-x22. ` ` In its reply comments, SWBT states that it is not proposing to impose additional costs upon IXCs; rather, the pay telephone costs, which are included as part of the carrier common line charge and are already paid by IXCs for access service, would be "more narrowly focused" and recovered only from IXCs which carry calls originating from pay  Y_-telephones.JT_ Y-ԍxSWBT Reply Comments at 2.J APCC adds that the Caller ID decision actually supports SWBT's proposal  YJ-since, contrary to the Commission's finding in Caller ID, pay telephone costs are not part of a general network upgrade, and therefore are more appropriately applied to payphone calls  Y -than to all calls.[U  Ys-ԍxAPCC Reply Comments on SWBT Petition at 2.[  Y -x23. ` ` Several commenters oppose a percall charge because they claim it would produce certain inefficiencies. CompTel and Frontier state that IXCs would have to create  Y -and install expensive systems to enable them to validate SWBT's data.V U  Y-ԍxCompTel Comments on SWBT Petition at 3; Frontier Comments on SWBT Petition, Attachment at 23. Allnet argues that a perminute charge would be more consistent with SWBT's billing system and would be easier  Y-for IXCs to track.YW  Y4-ԍxAllnet Comments on SWBT Petition at 67.Y Allnet avers that the Commission's assessment of local network access charges on a per minute basis reflects the efficiency of assessing charges on a perminute  Yf-basis.@Xf Y!-ԍxId. at 7.@ Allnet also argues that a percall structure would overburden carriers who tend to  YO-carry shorter calls rather then longer calls.:YOS YS$-ԍxId.: CompTel maintains that a percall approach  Y8-would result in highvolume payphones subsidizing lowvolume payphones.XZ8 Y&-ԍxCompTel Comments on SWBT Petition at 3.X Sprint and"8Z0*(()" CompTel assert that SWBT's petition suggests that after the initial pay telephone use fee is  Y-set, SWBT would be able to raise its charges arbitrarily thereafter.[ Yb-ԍxSprint Comments on SWBT Petition at 23; CompTel Comments on SWBT Petition at 34. SWBT counters by stating that its charge will be controlled by payphone costs and competition, and although the charge will not be regulated under the price cap mechanism, the charge will be subject to  Y-challenge as a tariffed fee.L\b Y-ԍxSWBT Reply Comments at 45.L  X_-' IV. DISCUSSION ĐTP  X1- A.xGood Cause for the Waivers  Y -x24. ` ` Section 1.3 of the Commission's rules permits us to grant a waiver of the rules  Y -upon a showing of "good cause."K]  Y-ԍx47 C.F.R.  1.3 (1994).K Courts have approved the Commission's use of its' waiver authority when special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule and  Y -such deviation serves the public interest.^  Y3-ԍxWAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969); Northeast Cellular  Y-Telephone Company v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990). We find that the newly developed capability of the Ameritech and SWBT networks to track interstate calls originating from pay telephones and to identify the interexchange carrier to which each call is routed constitutes special circumstances because the petitioners are apparently the only two LECs that possess this calltracking technology. The Bureau recently determined that a technical advance by an IXC that allowed it to compensate providers of competitive payphones on a percall basis  Y4-constituted special circumstances justifying a waiver of our rules._4b  YG-ԍxAT&T Waiver Order, 10 FCC Rcd 1590; Sprint Waiver Order, 10 FCC Rcd 5490. In these cases, because Ameritech and SWBT have developed such a technological capability, we find that this payphonecalltracking ability constitutes special circumstances for purposes of our waiver standard. We reject the suggestion of some commenters that Ameritech and SWBT should await a comprehensive rulemaking on access charges. Grant of the requested waivers, based on the special circumstances presented by the petitioners, will enable the public to receive promptly the benefits associated with recovering the costs of payphone common lines in a more costcausative manner.  Ye-x25. ` ` We also find that granting these waiver requests will better serve the public interest than requiring Ameritech and SWBT to follow our current rules. First, a percall charge associated with the use of payphones is more efficient than recovering these costs"7 _0*(([" through the carrier common line charge, which recovers interstate payphone costs from all switched access customers regardless of their use of payphones. The percall charge made possible by the calltracking technology will ensure that the amounts paid by IXCs to Ameritech and SWBT are related to the actual number of calls each IXC receives from payphones belonging to these local exchange carriers. Therefore, this waiver permits Ameritech and SWBT to recover payphone costs on a more costcausative basis than do our current rules. Second, a percall charge could also increase incentives for Ameritech and SWBT to place payphones in locations where they are likely to generate interstate traffic. In recent proceedings on payphone compensation, the Commission has consistently expressed a preference for a percall method of compensation over other methods because of the  Y -improved incentives for providers of payphones.`?  Y -ԍxSee Policies and Rules Concerning Operator Service Access and Pay Telephone  Y~ -Compensation, Second Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 3251, 325253,  13 (1992) (Second  Yi -Payphone Report and Order); Policies and Rules Concerning Operator Service Access and  YT-Pay Telephone Compensation, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 8 FCC  Y?-Rcd 7151, 7157,  45 (1993); AT&T Waiver Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 159192,  9; Sprint  Y*-Waiver Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 5491,  6 (1995); Policies and Rules Concerning Operator  Y-Service Access and Pay Telephone Compensation, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Further Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CCDocket No. 9135, FCC 95374, 43, 57 (released Sept.8, 1995). While it appears that, as certain commenters argue, the revenues from local use of payphones provide similar incentives for Ameritech and SWBT to place payphones in hightraffic areas, the additional incentives provided by percall compensation would complement and strengthen such incentives based on intrastate revenues, resulting in more efficient placement of payphones. Third, this waiver will help align the price and cost of the carriers' switched access service by permitting Ameritech and SWBT to remove interstate payphone costs, which are not directly related to the provision of switched access, from their charges for switched access service. Switched access rates that more closely reflect the cost of providing switched access service will reduce the potential for inefficient entry into the exchange access market because the inclusion of unrelated costs provides a profit opportunity for potential entrants who do not have to recover such costs through their access charges.  Y-x26. ` ` In addition, we believe granting the waiver requests is consistent with the  Y-payphone provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.a  YX!-ԍxThe provisions governing payphones appear in Section 151 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, P.L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. 276). In the Act, Congress directed the Commission to establish a percall compensation plan in order to ensure fair  Y-compensation for all payphone service providers.MbR  Y&-ԍx47 U.S.C.  276(b)(1)(A).M In addition, that section requires the Commission to discontinue the LECs' recovery of interstate payphone costs through their"b0*((}" rates for switched access service and to eliminate payphone subsidies from basic exchange  Y-and exchange access revenues.Mc Yb-ԍx47 U.S.C.  276(b)(1)(B).M Obviously, these mandates cannot be fulfilled in the limited context of a waiver proceeding. Until the Commission begins the formal implementation of the statutory payphone provisions, however, we can move toward the fair compensation arrangement sanctioned by the Act by granting the waivers requested in this case. By permitting Ameritech and SWBT to remove interstate payphone costs from their charges for switched access service and to recover these costs from IXCs on a percall basis, Ameritech and SWBT can implement, on an interim basis, pricing changes similar to those that all payphone providers eventually will be required to implement. Accordingly, we grant Ameritech and SWBT waivers of our rules to remove payphone costs from their originating and terminating carrier common line charges and to recover these costs from IXCs on a percall basis, subject to the conditions described below.  X - B.xIssues Raised by Commenters  Y -x27. ` ` We disagree with those IXCs that argue that we should deny these waiver requests because they propose to continue recovering payphone costs from IXCs rather than  Yy-through a direct charge on customers placing interstate calls from payphones.dyy Y-ԍx AT&T Comments on Ameritech Petition at 5; MCI Comments on Ameritech Petition at 56; Sprint Comments on Ameritech Petition at 3 n.3; CompTel Comments on Ameritech Petition at 2; AT&T Comments on SWBT Petition at 7; Allnet Comments on SWBT Petition at 9; MCI Comments on SWBT Petition at 5; CompTel Comments on SWBT Petition at 23. In 1983, the  Commission initially ordered LECs to recover interstate payphone costs through a percall  YK-charge on customers placing interstate payphone calls.eK Y-ԍxMTS and WATS Market Structure, Third Report and Order, 93 FCC 2d 241, 280, 28 (1983). On reconsideration, however, the Commission replaced this approach with the current cost recovery mechanism after determining that end users could avoid this charge by using collect, third party billing, or  Y-credit card payment methods.@fm  Y8-ԍxMTS and WATS Market Structure, CC Docket 7872, Memorandum Opinion and  Y# -Order, 97 FCC 2d 682, 705,  58 (1983) (Access Charge Reconsideration), aff'd in principal  Y!-part, National Ass'n of Regulatory Utility Comm'rs v. FCC, 737 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir.  Y!-1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1227 (1985), modified on further recon., 99 FCC 2d 708  Y"-(1984) (Third Reconsideration), aff'd, American Tel. and Tel. Co. v. FCC, 832 F.2d 1285  Y#-(D.C. Cir. 1987), modified on further recon., 101 FCC 2d 1222 (1985) (Fourth  Y$-Reconsideration), recon. denied, 102 FCC 2d 849 (1985) (Fifth Reconsideration). @ Today, credit payment for payphoneoriginated interstate calls is commonplace. Advocates of the percall customer charge have not explained why adoption of a rule comparable to the Commission's original approach would not produce the same unequal treatment among interstate payphone callers that caused the Commission to"f0*((" reject that approach in 1983. The other option for recovering payphone common line costs directly from end users is to require all customers seeking to place interstate calls from LEC payphones, including calling card users, to deposit coins into the payphone before placing the  Y-call. This approach also was rejected by the Commission in 1983,pg Y4-ԍxAccess Charge Reconsideration, 97 FCC 2d at 705,  58.p and we find no basis in the record of this proceeding that would warrant a different outcome here. Accordingly, we  Y-reject the request of IXC commenters' that we require Ameritech and SWBT to impose a percall charge on end users.  YH-x28. ` ` Contrary to Allnet's argument, we do not believe that the Commission's  Y1-policies announced in the Caller ID proceeding precludes the grant of SWBT's petition.  Y -Allnet states accurately that, in the Caller ID proceeding, the Commission found that carriers must pass calling party information through to connecting carriers on interstate calls without  Y -charge.h { Y-ԍxAllnet Comments on SWBT Petition at 56. See Rules and Policies Regarding  Y-Calling Number Identification Service Caller ID, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,  44,  Y-CC Docket No. 91281, FCC 95187 (rel. May 5, 1995) (Caller ID). Allnet argues that the Commission's determination in Caller ID prevents a carrier from imposing additional costs upon another carrier if the network capability for providing  Y -the additional capability associated with the fee already exists._i  Yb-ԍxAllnet Comments on SWBT Petition at 56._ That decision, however, is inapposite since grant of SWBT's waiver would not impose additional costs on the IXCs. The payphone costs at issue in this case are already paid by IXCs as part of the carrier common line charge. Grant of SWBT's waiver request would simply enable SWBT to recover those costs only from IXCs that carry calls originating from payphones.  YQ-Accordingly, we reject Allnet's contention that the Commission's decision in Caller ID bars us from granting SWBT's petition.  Y-x29. ` ` We disagree with the argument of Sprint and AT&T that we should deny the waiver petitions because Ameritech and SWBT have failed to state whether, or to what extent, the current allocation of interstate payphone costs among IXCs would be changed by  Y-the new recovery mechanism.j Y!-ԍxSprint Comments on Ameritech Petition at 3; AT&T Comments on Ameritech Petition at 4; Sprint Comments on SWBT Petition at 2. The method prescribed by the current rules for LECs to recover their payphone costs was reasonable, given the statute in effect when those rules were adopted and the general absence of technology to measure and bill accurately the calls routed to particular IXCs. As we stated above, however, the percall charge made possible by the calltracking technology developed by Ameritech and SWBT would better serve the public interest because it would ensure that the amounts paid by IXCs to these carriers are related to the actual number of calls each IXC receives from Ameritech and SWBT"?8 j0*((L" payphones. The Commission recently granted waivers that permitted Sprint and AT&T to  Y-compensate competitive payphone providers (i.e., providers of payphones that are not owned  Y-by a LEC) on a percall basis rather than on a perphone basis.k YK-ԍxAT&T Waiver Order, 10 FCC Rcd 1590; Sprint Waiver Order, 10 FCC Rcd 5490. In granting those waivers, we did not require AT&T or Sprint to quantify the effect that a percall compensation mechanism would have on their payments to competitive payphone providers.  Yv-x30. ` ` In addition, we reject the arguments of Allnet, AT&T, Comptel and MCI that the petitions should be denied because the payphone costs of Ameritech and SWBT should be  YH-allocated among IXC interstate payphone calls on a perminute rather than a percall basis.lH{ Yt -ԍxAllnet Comments on Ameritech Petition at 56; Allnet Comments on SWBT Petition at 67; AT&T Comments on SWBT Petition at 5; CompTel Comments on Ameritech Petition at 2; and MCI Comments on Ameritech Petition at 6. First, it is not at all clear that recovery of the costs at issue on a perminute basis rather than a percall basis would be more efficient. Advocates of this argument have not substantiated their claims in the record of this proceeding. In a recent proceeding on competitive payphone compensation, the Commission observed that there may be little difference between  Y -the incentives created by percall and perminute methods.ym  Y-ԍxSecond Payphone Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd at 3253 n.20,  13.y We cannot conclude, on the record before us, that a perminute method is inherently superior to a percall method, particularly in light of Congress's recently expressed preference for percall compensation  Y-method for payphones.Wn Y-ԍxSee 47 U.S.C. 276(b)(1)(A).W Moreover, Ameritech and SWBT state that they are capable of tracking and billing IXCs for these calls on a percall basis, but they do not claim to be capable of tracking and billing such calls on a perminute basis. Therefore, we reject the request by AT&T, Allnet, MCI and CompTel to deny SWBT's waiver petition or to condition it on SWBT's collecting payphone costs from interstate payphone calls on a perminute basis.  Y-x31.` ` We also reject the argument of CompTel and Frontier that SWBT's petition should be denied because it would force IXCs to create and install systems to enable them to  Y-validate SWBT's data.od  Y!-ԍxCompTel Comments on SWBT Petition at 3; Frontier Comments on SWBT Petition, Attachment at 23. In light of the Congress's mandate to move toward a percall compensation mechanism to govern payphones, IXCs would eventually develop such  Y-validation systems anyway.xp  YB&-ԍxSee Second Payphone Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd at 3253,  15.x In this case, the public interest benefits in allowing SWBT to" p0*((" implement promptly a more efficient payphone cost recovery method outweighs the administrative inconvenience to IXCs claimed by CompTel and Frontier.  X- C.xImplementation  Y-x32. ` ` We conclude that the proposals of Ameritech and SWBT regarding the price cap treatment of the new payphone rate element should be modified in certain respects. We grant the carriers' requests to base the initial rate level of payphone charges on payphone costs derived from appropriate accounts, divided by the number of payphone calls during the base period. We will require Ameritech and SWBT to demonstrate, in the tariff process, that they have calculated these rate levels reasonably. The carriers' requests for the payphone rate structure change constitutes a restructuring of existing rate elements under the Commission's LEC price cap regulations. Pursuant to the Commission's rules, price cap LECs that restructure their access charges are required to demonstrate that the restructure  Y -results in rates that do not exceed applicable price cap index limits.aq  Y7-ԍx47 C.F.R.  61.46(c), 61.47(d), 61.49(f).a In general, this requirement is satisfied if the rate restructure change is, on the whole, revenue neutral. Ameritech and SWBT will be required to demonstrate the revenue neutrality of their proposals in the tariff process.  YK- x 33. ` ` We decline, however, to grant Ameritech's request to reinitialize the payphone charges annually using the same method it used to derive the initial level of those charges. Such a mechanism would be more consistent with rateofreturn regulation than with price caps, and we do not believe that it would serve the public interest to establish such a mechanism for Ameritech, which is subject to the price cap rules. We also decline to grant SWBT's request to exclude the pay telephone use fee rate element from price cap regulation. Although SWBT has shown special circumstances sufficient to justify removing payphone costs from its switched access charges, it has not presented any justification for removing the fee from price cap control. Removal of the rate element from price caps would remove a considerable degree of protection against the unreasonable exercise of market power provided by our rules. SWBT has not shown that it does not have market power over interstate payphone services, nor has it demonstrated that competition in the provision of payphoneoriginated interstate calls has developed to a sufficient extent to warrant removing the payphone use fee rate element from our price cap rules. Accordingly, we deny SWBT's proposal to remove the payphone use fee from price cap regulation at this time.  Y-x!34. ` ` In light of the fact that, in the near future, the Commission will be initiating a proceeding to implement the payphone provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,  Y!-we do not prescribe a methodology for future pricing of the payphone use fee in this order.!r!y Y%-ԍxThe Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the Commission to prescribe regulations governing the provision of payphone service within nine months after the Act's"&q0*((&" enactment. 47 U.S.C. 276(b)(1).! "!yr0*(("" Instead, we permit Ameritech and SWBT to set the initial rate in accordance with their proposals, and we direct them not to propose increases or reductions in that rate until the conclusion of our proceeding implementing the payphone provisions of the Act. Because the Act requires Commission action on this issue before the end of the year, we believe the retention of the initial rate without change during this period will not be harmful to Ameritech, SWBT, or their customers. Accordingly, we grant the waivers requested by Ameritech and SWBT on an interim basis pending the conclusion of the Commission's proceeding implementing the payphone provisions of the Act.  X - V. CONCLUSION ĐTP  Y -x"35. ` ` We conclude that Ameritech and SWBT have demonstrated good cause for  Y -grant of waivers of Sections 69.1, 69.3 and 69.105 of the Commission's rules. By permitting Ameritech and SWBT to collect interstate payphone costs from interstate payphone calls rather from all interstate longdistance calls, the requested waivers better serve the public interest in the circumstances of these two carriers than would requiring them to continue to abide by our current rules. Accordingly, we authorize Ameritech and SWBT to file tariffs under which compensation for the interstate portion of their payphone costs would be collected from IXCs on a percall basis, consistent with the conditions described in this order.  X- yVI. ORDERING CLAUSES ĐTP  Y-x#36. ` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 5(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) and 155(c), and Sections 0.91, 0.291, and 1.3 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, and 1.3, the petitions for waiver filed by Ameritech Operating Companies and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company ARE GRANTED IN PART, to the extent described herein, and are otherwise DENIED. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhRegina M. Keeney x` `  hhChief, Common Carrier Bureau y