WPC# 2BJZ Courier3|j2x6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4M 518 LPT2m 518 lpt2)HPLA4MP0.PRSx  @\9aX@2'<6rK ZTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic3|j"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 4M 518 LPT2m 518 lpt2)HPLA4MP0.PRSXj\  P6G;\9aXP2EYvpk X-#o\  PCXP#a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2k!v1ta5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2 M   1 a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 2    K a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2M&+a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p a1DocumentgDocument Style StyleXqq   l ^) I. ׃  Doc InitInitialize Document Style  0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgTech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2O] a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   2XLa4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . 2{!KXK0PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paperP@n   $] X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: X-  ԍ Letter from Darryl W. Howard, Counsel for SWB to Acting Secretary, FCC, dated Dec. 14,  X-1995 (Dec. 14, 1995 Letter). On January 11, 1996, MCI   Telecommunications Corporation (MCI) and MFS Communications Company (MFS) filed   petitions to reject or, alternatively, to suspend and investigate Transmittal No. 2524. SWB filed a response to the two petitions on January 25, 1996.  X-  2.` ` SWB filed Transmittal No. 2524 to make the following changes in its tariff: (1)   Minclude the cost of power in the primary array; (2) redistribute the engineering and labor for   installation from the arrays to the basic arrangement; (3) include the maintenance spare plugins   -in the primary, secondary, and tertiary array rate elements; and (4) revise the nonrecurring charge   for the cross connect to reflect costs associated with Interexchange Carrier Service Center  X#-  processing of the cross connect requests. SWB also seeks to make these revisions to reflect  Xh$-  \certain cost data, vendor changes and SWB's experience in provisioning virtual collocation"h$d0*0*0*F#"  X-arrangements, as well as to delete IDE which have no demand.i> Xy-ԍ SWB Transmittal No. 2524, Description and Justification at 25.i    X-  A3.` ` In its request for confidential treatment of the cost support data, SWB states that  X-  -the documents in question contain confidential information on investments, depreciation, cost of  X-    money, ad valorem and income taxes, administrative costs, and overheads.Oy> X-ԍ Dec. 14, 1995 Letter at 1.O SWB maintains that   disclosure of such confidential financial information could substantially harm the competitive   >position of SWB by assisting competitors in preparing marketing strategies to use in direct  X_-  competition with SWB. According to SWB, the cost support data contain the specific costs of   the equipment required to provide this service. These data indicate the breakdown of capital costs   and operating expenses as well as the total installed cost (total investment). SWB maintains that   Lif its competitors had access to this information, they could use it to calculate the factors used   Kby SWB in developing cost data and, in turn, the information could be used to derive competitive  X -  information from other SWB filings.: ,> X-ԍ Id. at 47.: Finally, SWB provides information to support its claim  X -that there is competition for the service offered pursuant to Transmittal No. 2524.: > Xe-ԍ Id. at 89.:  X -  4.` ` In its petition, MCI contends that SWB has violated Sections 203 and 412 of the   Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.  203 and 412, and Part 61 of the Commission's rules,  Xy-  47 C.F.R. Part 61, for filing its cost support under confidential cover.y> X- MFS also argues that the cost support data be publicly available. MFS Petition at 34. According to MCI, the   data do not warrant confidential treatment because, by SWB's own admission, they do not  XK-  [accurately reflect current third party vendor prices.>KC > X?-ԍ MCI Petition at 23.> Moreover, MCI maintains that SWB does   =not make a persuasive showing that it faces sufficient competition for these services to justify  X-confidential treatment of the cost support data.; > X-ԍ Id. at 914.;  X-  5.` ` In addition, MCI and MFS state that SWB should not be permitted to delete  X-  equipment from its tariff that interconnectors may wish to use in the near future.N  > X0$-ԍ Id. at 16; MFS Petition at 23.N MCI and MFS   contend that the removal of tariffs for this equipment will subject interconnectors to delays should  X-  they decided to utilize such equipment. Finally, MCI and MFS contend that SWB should not   delete this equipment from its tariff merely on the assumption that interconnectors may not need"Z 0*0*0*"  X-  [it any longer.S ~ Xy-ԍ  Id. at 167; Id. at 3.S MFS argues that SWB's proposed rates are unreasonable, specifically the rates   lfor moving engineering, installation and power costs from lower level arrays to the basic  X-  arrangement and proposed introduction of a floor space rate element.= {~ X-ԍ MFS Petition at 34.= In addition, MFS makes   =several allegations regarding possible doublerecovery or overrecovery of a number of costs,   including the floor space rate element, maintenance spare parts and replacement of IDE  X-equipment that fails.: ,~ Xj -ԍ Id. at 45.:  X_-  6.` ` In its reply, SWB contends that neither the Communications Act nor the  XH-  [Commission's rules require that tariff cost support material be publicly available.9 H~ X-ԍ SWB Reply at 149 In response   to MFS' claims that SWB reallocated costs among existing rate elements, SWB asserts that it   xidentified the direct costs associated with providing each rate element and proposed changes that   reflect revisions in the equipment, labor, and engineering included in each rate element to reflect   SWB's experience with the actual virtual collocation applications received and processed.   Therefore, SWB maintains that it is seeking to recover the costs incurred when they are incurred,  X -and to avoid charging the interconnector for costs not incurred for particular IDE.; ~ X-ԍ Id. at 910.;  X-  7.` ` In addition, SWB opposes MFS t ' t  claims regarding the recovery of land, building,   and other costs. According to SWB, these costs reflect the direct costs of providing virtual   -collocation arrangements and that SWB has changed the way in which these costs are recovered   to separate cost recovery from the price of the piece of particular IDE. Other LECs have used   ythis method and have shown the reasonableness of this method of cost recovery, according to  X-  SWB.9C ~ X-ԍ Id. at 12.9 Furthermore, SWB states that MFS misuses the term "overhead loading" throughout its   discussion of costs. SWB maintains that virtual collocation has a direct cost to SWB, that cost   is not recovered through the allowed overhead but is instead included in the cost of development   of the appropriate rate element. Therefore, SWB asks that the Commission reject all of MFS'   ^arguments that SWB should use its minimal overhead to pay for costs caused by the  X-  interconnector.9 ~ XQ$-ԍ Id. at 12.9 SWB also states that it must be permitted to recover its costs in keeping IDE   operational, including recovering from the interconnector the cost of replacement IDE that is" 0*(("  X-outside of warranty.<~ Xy-ԍ Id. at 1315.<  X-  8.` ` Finally, SWB asserts that it should be permitted to delete IDE from its tariffs that   have no demonstrable demand. According to SWB, it expended a considerable amount of effort   to develop rates for each piece of IDE, the result of which its tariffs now contain prices for   certain IDE for which no interconnector has expressed any further interest. SWB maintains that   changes in equipment technology and vendor prices will require continuous modifications to   .SWB's tariffs for IDE. SWB states that due to the lack of demand for such equipment, there is   jno justification for it to retain the equipment in its tariff. Moreover, SWB does not foresee any   future demand for this equipment which is rapidly becoming obsolete. SWB also states that the  X -  Virtual Collocation Order {~ XF -  ԍ Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company Facilities, CC Docket No. 91141, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5154 (1994). requires SWB, within thirty days of receiving a request for equipment  X -from an interconnector, to modify its tariffs to offer the requested transmission equipment.? ~ X-ԍ MCI Petition at 158.?   X -  9.` ` Sections 0.453(j) and 0.455(b)(11) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.    l0.453(j) and 0.455(b)(11), provide that material filed in support of tariff revisions are to be   publicly available. SWB, however, has filed a request for confidential treatment of its tariff   \support material filed in Transmittal No. 2524 under the requirements of Section 0.459 of the   !Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.459 and Exemption 4 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C.  552(b)(4).   .Section 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.3 provides that the Commission may, on its  XM-  Zown motion, waive any provisions of its rules if good cause is shown.2M~ X-  ԍ Section 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.3, provides that the Commission  X-  may, on its own motion, waive any provisions of its rules if good cause is shown. Cf., WAIT  X-  Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1027 (1972);   Northeast Cellular Telephone Company v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (discussing standards for granting waivers filed by parties).2 The Tariff Division finds   that there is good cause to waive the Commission's rules that cost support data filed with   Transmittal No. 2524 be publicly available. Therefore, on our own motion, the Division grants   SWB a waiver of Sections 0.453(j) and 0.455(b)(11) of the Commission's rules. As a result, the   -Transmittal No. 2524 cost support data for which SWB sought confidentiality will not be publicly   available. The Division grants this waiver for the limited purpose of reviewing this transmittal.  X-   10.` ` SWB Transmittal No. 2524 raises the same issues regarding cost allocations, rate  X-  zlevels, rate structures, and terms and conditions of service as those identified in the Virtual  X-  xCollocation Tariff Suspension Order. ~ XP'-ԍ Ameritech Operating Companies, et. al., CC Docket No. 9497, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 1960. Therefore, Transmittal No. 2524 is suspended for one day" 0*(("  X-  following the effective date, and will be subject to the investigation initiated in the Virtual  X-  Collocation Tariff Suspension Order. These rates will also be subject to an accounting order to   facilitate any refunds that may later prove necessary. We will designate specific issues, parties to the investigation and establish a pleading cycle for this investigation in a subsequent order.  XX-  a 11.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 0.291 and 1.3 of the"X 0*(("   {Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.291, 1.3, for the purposes of this proceeding, Sections   0.453(j) and 0.455(b)(11) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.453(j), 0.455(b)(11), ARE WAIVED.  X-  s 12.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 204(a) of the   Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  204(a), and Section 0.291 of the   Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.291, the revisions to SWB's Tariff F.C.C. No. 73, Transmittal   No. 2524 ARE SUSPENDED for one day and an investigation of the referenced tariff transmittal IS INSTITUTED.  X -   13.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that SWB shall file tariff revisions within five business days of the release date of this Order to reflect this suspension.  X -  $ 14.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for these purposes, we waive Sections 61.56,   61.58, and 61.59 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  61.56, 61.58, and 61.59. SWB should cite the "DA" number of the instant Order as the authority for this filing.  Xy-  s15.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 204(a) of the   Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  204(a), SWB shall keep accurate accounts of all amounts received by reason of the rates that are the subject of this investigation. ` `  hh,FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh,James D. Schlichting ` `  hh,Chief, Tariff Division  X|-` `  hh,Common Carrier Bureau