WPC & 2BVTZ 3|P)?xxxX?Xx6X@DQX@HP LaserJet 4Si/4Si MXHPLA4SMX.WRSx  @,,$HfX@2@ ZP@3|PHP LaserJet 4Si/4Si MXHPLA4SMX.WRSx  @,,$HfX@ X-#Xj\  P6G;XP#  ЊX01Í ÍX01Í Í"5@^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd2l@@ @, Courier New (TT)Times New Roman (TT)RomanTimes New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)Times New Roman (Bold Italic) (TT)"5@^F,F\Wim,==Fq,q,`WWWWWWWWWW,,iqiOvW`\`\Wdi0A`Omd````WSiWiW\W===`W,W\S\S9S`00\0`W\WJJA`OiWSO=#=i,,,,`0K,W`WWWWWWWWWWW\S\S\S\S\S00000000d``W`W`W`Wi`i`i`i`,SWW`\`W`W\S`W\\WW``WW\S\S\S\S``\SdSdWddSdSi`i`0```000`A`\O0OKd`d```,,`J`KWJ,,N,,A\,OWWW\,WWWWSWWWWWW,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,WWtWqeeOWoo.0SW2ZWWyeCpS`vZefeloPpPj`e~~tro,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,F,F\Wim,==Fq,q,`WWWWWWWWWW,,iqiOvW`\`\Wdi0A`Omd````WSiWiW\W===`W,W\S\S9S`00\0`W\WJJA`OiWSO=#=i,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,SWW\0\`WWWWWWW0qWW,SA,,WWWWWWOWWWWWWW\\\\\0000`d`````W`iiii\\`WWWWWWSSSSS0000W`WWWWWOW````S\"5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCddddddd<d<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd2@@@ @^"5@^(1<%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155<%%%%,-%77O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1I1C1C1C1O7O7OO7O7O7O7,7%7%%%7+O7CC-O7O7O7bOI%I-=+=+N&27%177777"SS7!TT7S!%%117n%%77ln%1n%!t%<<<<>mBBs,?>[N6Wms[77UUUH_%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155%T7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<7777777"5@^.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic.====IK=\\p\p\p\p\p\zzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3z\\\\\\\\\fQp\\\\fQ\p\p\p\p\zQzQzQpQpQpQ\\\\\\I\=\===\QzQf3fKz\z\\zpGpK\G\GN@.`\G\\\\\\39\7\7==ff\==\\=f=7t=eeee|oo.Ij|2Z\\yeCpj`vZefeloPpPj`e~~tro.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic=\f\\=\===ff@\=G=zf.G\\\\2\=3\|=\Ie77=j`.=79\\ppppppzpppp====z|fp\\\\\\\zQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\e\\\\\Q\"5@^2Nodd8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdNdzzozzzC8CrdCddYdYCdo88d8odddNN8oYdYNF,Fr2CC!CCPRCdddddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddoooozYddddzYdzddddYYYYYYddddooPdNdNCNdddz8zRoodNRoNoNNF2ddNdddddd5N3O4ORight Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g1n` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g2w` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g3F    ׃  Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g4&!"  . 2R5P6Q7Q86RTechnical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g5&#$  . Technical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g6*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g7''(   Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g8&)*   2,a9R:S;1T<v TTechnical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g94+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g:&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g;&/0  . MACNormal<;     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#2Hd=o^a>a?iLb@cFootnote=Íčfootnote tex#>'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#header?Ax 4 <D  #FxX  Pg9CXP# reference@;#FxX  Pg9CXP#2jA~zdBieC^agDOhitemizeX1A&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2BI ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# heading 3CF` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# footer!D!!#d\  PCP#2`mE @jFMkGlHlCitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileEW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded DocumentFiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#HeadingChapter HeadingGJ d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH>a݅@  I.   X(# 29pImJd(nKnLoSubheadingSubheadingI0\ E A.  HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and BoldldeddJ+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and DateK X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style offL@@    2/uM1kpN1qO1rP1sLETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5M 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5Nf 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11OL 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14P 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   2wQnauRuSdPvTjvTITLETitle of a DocumentQK\ * ăBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedRN X HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold LargeSB*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and UnderscoredT V -q2}UPwVEoyW-zX8{LETTERHEADLetterhead - date/marginsUu H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math InvoiceV ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatWD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math InvoiceX:A ,p, $0$002׀Y8K}Z~[X$\[|INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math MacroYz 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math InvoiceZ+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle[SMALLSmall Typestyle\2u][ ^[d_[`[FINEFine Typestyle]LARGELarge Typestyle^EXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle_VERY LARGEVery Large Typestyle`2…abX*cd"ENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Headera+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   1bdfStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Marginsc$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5d$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO 2geflӊg?hیStyle 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIeJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabsf )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsgDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Fonth4h )a [ PfQO  dddn 2i|jklUStyle 2Dutch Italic 11.5i$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Pointj$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5k$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Pointl$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO 2Pm'n.o5p:Style 10oInitial Codes for Advancedm U )a [ PfQK  dddn  ##  [[ b, oT9 !b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  QN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8PfInitial Codes for Beginninggni )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9Initial Codes for Intermediateo )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 Њ [ e )^ `> XifQ ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   3 )^ `> XifQ Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jf )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`+ >Page  jX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 UpdateInitial Codes for Update Modulep )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`7 CPage  jN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2ۦqrst-footnote refK&7>footnote referenceGw) "7>NGI "q+WXpage numberK&7>page number"Gw* "7>NGI "r(YZDefault ParaK&7>Default Paragraph Fontw+ "7>NGI "s([(\endnote refeK&7>endnote referenceGw- "7>NGI "t+_+`2u vwxGannotation rK&7>annotation referenceGw. "7>NGI "uOaOb#Xv P7XP##Xv P7XP#annotation tK&7>annotation textGw/ "7>NGI "v2c(d2G2*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "w8ij@  3G3*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "xAkl@` ` `  ` ` ` 2ڬyz{e|4G4*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "yJmn` ` ` @  ` ` ` 5G5*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "zSop` ` `  @  6G6*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "{\qr` ` `  @hhh hhh 7G7*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "|est` ` `  hhh@ hhh 2ů} ~ԭp8G8*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "}nuv` ` `  hhh@  9G9*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "~wwx` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 10G0*(Q&7tDocument Style Gl0 "7t GI "GH` ` ` 11G1*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׀4I$J     2A(12G2*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "ׁ*KL    13G3*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "ׂ'MN   14G4*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׃&OP   15G5*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "ׄ&QR  . 2s}16G6*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "ׅ&ST  . 17G7*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׆&UV  . 18G8*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "ׇ&WX  . 19G9*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "׈8YZ@  2hƴa20G:*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "׉A[\@` ` `  ` ` ` 21G;*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "׊J]^` ` ` @  ` ` ` 22G<*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "׋S_`` ` `  @  23G=*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "׌\ab` ` `  @hhh hhh 2Y!24G>*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "׍ecd` ` `  hhh@ hhh 25G?*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "׎nef` ` `  hhh@  26G@*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "׏wgh` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 27wSg K6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJmn` ` @  ` `  2Ⱥu+28wSg L6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ESop` `  @  29wSg M6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\qr` `  @hh# hhh 30wSg N6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Eest` `  hh#@( hh# 31wSg O6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Enuv` `  hh#(@- ( 2qp%տ32wSg P6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ewwx` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 33wSg R6w Document Style=(H8g Rܺ*HںwSg E{|` ` ` 34wSg S6w Technical Document Styleg Sܺ*HںwSg E4}$~     35wSg T6w Technical Document Styleg Tܺ*HںwSg E*    28Q36wSg U6w Technical Document Styleg Uܺ*HںwSg E'   37wSg V6w Technical Document Styleg Vܺ*HںwSg E&   38wSg W6w Technical Document Styleg Wܺ*HںwSg E&  . 39wSg X6w Technical Document Styleg Xܺ*HںwSg E&  . 2?40wSg Y6w Technical Document Styleg Yܺ*HںwSg E&  . 41wSg Z6w Technical Document Styleg Zܺ*HںwSg E&  . 42wSg [6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   43wSg \6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 27qx44wSg ]6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  45wSg ^6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  46wSg _6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 47wSg `6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 2`i148wSg a6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 49wSg b6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 50wSg c6w Document Style=(H8g cܺ*HںwSg EF *  ׃  51wSg d6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  2|?52wSg e6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  53wSg f6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 54wSg g6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 55wSg h6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 2;p56wSg i6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 57wSg j6w Document Style=(H8g jܺ*HںwSg E` ` ` 58wSg k6w Technical Document Styleg kܺ*HںwSg E4$     59wSg l6w Technical Document Styleg lܺ*HںwSg E*    2m60wSg m6w Technical Document Styleg mܺ*HںwSg E'   61wSg n6w Technical Document Styleg nܺ*HںwSg E&   62wSg o6w Technical Document Styleg oܺ*HںwSg E&  . 63wSg p6w Technical Document Styleg pܺ*HںwSg E&  . 2 Wn64wSg q6w Technical Document Styleg qܺ*HںwSg E&  . 65wSg r6w Technical Document Styleg rܺ*HںwSg E&  . 66wSg s6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   67wSg t6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 2;B68wSg u6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  69wSg v6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  70wSg w6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 71wSg x6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 2372wSg y6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 73wSg z6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 74wSg {6w Document Style=(H8g {ܺ*HںwSg EF *  ׃  75wSg |6w Document Style=(H8g |ܺ*HںwSg E*   2KqeQe76wSg }6w Document Style=(H8g }ܺ*HںwSg E0    77wSg ~6w Document Style=(H8g ~ܺ*HںwSg E  . 78wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  79wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  2ypMp-80wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E` ` ` 81wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E` ` ` 82wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E4$     83wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E*    2@Y84wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E'   85wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&   86wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&  . 87wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&  . 2G88wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&  . 89wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&  . 90wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   91wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 2?y92wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  93wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  94wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 95wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 2q9 96wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 97wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 98wSg 6w Default Paragraph Font8g ܺ*HںwSg E;;#x6X@7X@##b6X@C@#endnote text6w endnote textH̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg EE;#x6X@7X@##b6X@C@#22b99wSg 6w endnote referenceH8g ܺ*HںwSg E>>#x6X@7X@##b6X@ C@#100wSg 6w footnote text̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg EE;#x6X@ 7X@##b6X@ C@#101wSg 6w footnote referenceH8g ܺ*HںwSg E>>#x6X@ 7X@##b6X@ C@#toc 1g 6w toc 1 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E(#`` hp x (#2222*2\toc 2g 6w toc 2 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  ` (#`` hp x (#toc 3g 6w toc 3 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  ` (#` hp x (#toc 4g 6w toc 4 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  (#` hp x (#toc 5g 6w toc 5 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg Eh(#` hp x (#222|2toc 6g 6w toc 6 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E(# ` hp x (#toc 7g 6w toc 7 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg Etoc 8g 6w toc 8 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E(# ` hp x (#toc 9g 6w toc 9 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E(#`` hp x (#222D2vindex 1g 6w index 1 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E` (#` hp x (#index 2g 6w index 2 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E` (#`` hp x (#toa heading6w toa headingH̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E(#` hp x (#captiong 6w caption 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg EE; #x6X@7X@##b6X@C@#2  :  _Equation Ca6w _Equation CaptionH8g ܺ*HںwSg E;!;"#x6X@7X@##b6X@C@#Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font11#Xv6X@CX@##b6X@C@#endnote referenceendnote reference44#Xv6X@CX@##b6X@C@#footnote textfootnote text;1#Xv6X@CX@##b6X@C@#2  j $footnote referencefootnote reference44#Xv6X@CX@##b6X@C@#_Equation Caption_Equation Caption11#Xv6X@CX@##b6X@C@#102OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQEF#$ *  ׃  103OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE*%&   2q~eeT104OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE0' (    105OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE) * . 106OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE +, 107OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE -. 2pp[{108OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE/0` ` ` 109OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE12` ` ` 110OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE43$4     111OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE*56    2|Ir112OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE'78   113OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE&9:   114OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE&;<  . 115OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE&=>  . 283 @ @116OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE&?@  . 117OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE&AB  . "5@^?(?SO_c(88?g(g(WOOOOOOOOOO((_g_GkOWSWSO[_,;WGc[WWWWOK_O_OSO888WO(OSKSK3KW,,S,WOSOCC;WG_OKG8 8_((((W,E(OWOOOOOOOOOOOwSKSKSKSKSK,,,,,,,,[WWOWOWOWO_W_W_W_W(KOOWSWOWOSKWOSSOOWWOOSKSKSKSKWWSK[K[O[[K[K_W_W,WWW,,,W;WSG,GE[W[WWW((WCWEOC((N((;S(GOOOS(OOOOKOOOOOO(((((((((((((((OOtOg[[GOee*,KO.wROOn[CfxKxWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((?(?SO_c(88?g(g(WOOOOOOOOOO((_g_GkOWSWSO[_,;WGc[WWWWOK_O_OSO888WO(OSKSK3KW,,S,WOSOCC;WG_OKG8 8_(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((KOOS,SWOOOOOOO,gOO(K;((OOOOOOGOOOOOOOSSSSS,,,,W[WWWWWOW____SSWOOOOOOwKKKKK,,,,OWOOOOOGOWWWWKS"5@^&&209<!!&>>400000000009>9+@04242079$4+<744440-909020!!!4002-2--42O4020(($4+90-+!!94)0400000000000G2-2-2-2-2-744040404094949494-004240402-40220044002-2-2-2-442-7-7077-7-94944444$42++)7474444(4)0(N$2+00020000-00000000t0>77+0c<<&&209<!!&>>400000000009>9+@04242079$4+<744440-909020!!!4002-2--42O4020(($4+90-+!!9-002240000000>00-$000000+0000000222224744444049999224000000G-----0400000+04444-22`j@"R &?xxxXVbXx6X@DQX@j7PC2XXP\  P6QXPx2S=FX(&S\  P@Q&P.l7UC2X.XU4  pQXm5PC2XK_XP*f9 xQXX nW!0(X_h0\  P6QhPxP2%*X(J2\  P@QJPk2J=.X &J\  P6Q&P oP,%XWJ,\  P6QJPp0J=.XKL&J*f9 xQ&Xlq6RC2XjXR9 xyQX.r2N=.X.`&N4  pQ&xy.K8?X(K\  P@QP xI-!&X(a,-\  P@Q,Pxa$<,3X(̐<\  P@QPx:$X($\  P@QP"5@^(&.011*&&&&&&&&&&.1."3&*(*(&,.*"0,****&$.&.&(&*&&($($$*(?*&(& *".&$". *!&*&&&&&&&&&&&9($($($($($,**&*&*&*&.*.*.*.*$&&*(*&*&($*&((&&**&&($($($($**($,$,&,,$,$.*.******(""!,*,**** *!& N("&&&(&&&&$&&&&&&&&t&1,,"&O00S$&B9'@OSB&&===5E,C1:$:*4':,-,/0#1#7.=*:,@7=73920(&.011*&&&&&&&&&&.1."3&*(*(&,.*"0,****&$.&.&(&*&&($($$*(?*&(& *".&$".$&&((*&&&&&&&1&&$&&&&&&"&&&&&&&(((((*,*****&*....((*&&&&&&9$$$$$&*&&&&&"&****$( X-#&J\  P6Q &P#X01Í ÍX81Í Í #Xj\  P6G;XP#  )Z X-x  #XP\  P6QXP#Federal Communications Commission`(# FCC 98154 ă  yxdddy )  X- 2*Before the V FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  X-Washington, D.C. 20554 TP  X-In the Matter of  hh@h) x` `  hh@h)  X_-Implementation of the hh@h)  XH-Telecommunications Act of 1996 hh@h)ppCC Docket No. 96238 x` `  hh@h)  X -Amendment of Rules Governing hh@h)  X -Procedures to Be Followed When hh@h)  X -Formal Complaints are Filed Against @h)  X -Common Carriers  hh@h)  X- SECOND REPORT & ORDER TP  Xb-  Adopted: July 9, 1998hh@h ` Released: July 14, 1998    By the Commission: Commissioner FurchtgottRoth issuing a statement. $Z   X-  TABLE OF CONTENTS ă  X-Subject`(#"Paragraphă     X-XxPI.xIntroduction p>"(#L 1  X|-XxPxA.X` ` The Need for, and Benefits of, the Accelerated Docket ` p>"(#L 6  Xe-XxPxB.` ` Subject Matter for the Accelerated Docket p"(#I 16  XN-XxPxC.` ` Jurisdictional Considerations p"(#I 23  X7-XxPII.xPreFiling Requirements p"(#I 25  X -XxPxA.` ` Staff Supervision of PreFiling Discussions p"(#I 26  X -XxPxB.` ` Procedure for Acceptance to the Accelerated Docket p"(#I 31  X-XxPxC.` ` Ex Parte and Confidentiality Issues p"(#I 36  X-XxPIII.xPleading Requirements p"(#I 38  X -XxPxA.` ` Content Requirements for Pleadings p"(#I 39  X!-XxPxB.` ` Timing of the Answer p"(#I 42  X"-XxPIV.xDiscovery p"(#I 47  X#-XxPxA.` ` Timing of Automatic Document Production p"(#I 48  Xj$-XxPxB.` ` Content of Automatic Document Production p"(#I 52  XS%-XxPxC.` ` Depositions and Other Discovery p"(#I 59  X<&-XxPxD.` ` Sanctions p"(#I 63"<&0*''ZZ$"Ԍ X-XxPV.xStatus Conferences p"(#I 67  X-XxPxA.` ` Timing of Initial Status Conference p"(#I 68  X-XxPxB.` ` Issues to Be Addressed At Initial Status Conference p"(#I 70  X-XxPVI.xMinitrials p"(#I 78  X-XxPxA.` ` Utility of Minitrial Process p"(#I 79  X-XxPxB.` ` Structure of Minitrial p"(#I 83  Xv-XxPVII.xDamages p"(#I 91  X_-XxPVIII.xOther Issues p"(#I 94  XH-XxPIX.xReview by the Commission p"(#I 98  X1-XxPX.xConclusion p!(#C 105  X -XxPXI.xProcedural Matters p!(#C 107  X -x` ` xA.` ` Paperwork Reduction Act Analysisx` p!(#C 107  X -XxPxB.` ` Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis p!(#C 108  X -XxPx` ` 1.  Need for and Objectives of the Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to be Followed When Formal Complaints  X-Are Filed Against Common Carriers, Second Report and Order, and the Rules Adopted Herein p!(#C 109  Xf-XxPx` ` 2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in Response to the IRFA p!(#C 110  X8-XxPx` ` 3.  Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to  X!-Which the Rules Adopted in the Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96238 Will Apply p!(#C 111  X-XxPx` `  a.Potential Complainants p!(#C 113  X-XxPx` `  b. Potential Defendants p!(#C 115  X-XxPx` ` 4.  Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements p!(#C 125  X-XxPx` ` 5. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered p!(#C 133  Xk-XxPx` ` 6. Report to Congress p!(#C 135  XT-XxPXII.xOrdering Clauses p!(#C 136  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)  X- I.XxIntroduction (#  X-x1.` ` In enacting the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the "1996 Act"), Congress  X -stressed the importance of establishing a "procompetitive, deregulatory"  SC#-ԍJoint Statement of Committee of Conference, S. Conf. Rep. No. 230, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 113 (1996). national policy" @0*%%ZZ" framework for the telecommunications industry. In furtherance of that goal, we issued, in this  X-docket's First Report and Order, revised rules governing formal complaints filed with the  X-Commission that allege unlawful conduct by telecommunications carriers.j SM-ԍImplementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Amendment of Rules Governing  S'-Procedures to Be Followed When Formal Complaints Are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report &  S-Order, CC Dkt. No. 96238, 12 FCC Rcd 22497 (rel. Nov. 25, 1997) ("First Report and Order"). j These new rules grew out of the shortened deadlines for resolution of certain categories of complaints imposed  X-in the 1996 Act,I Su -ԍSee id. at 22499,  1. I and they had as their goal the prompt resolution of all complaints in order  X-to "reduce impediments to robust competition in all telecommunications markets."; S -ԍId.  2. ;  Xa-x2.` ` In the same order, we noted the continuing importance of "explor[ing] and us[ing] alternative approaches to complaint adjudication designed to ensure the prompt discovery of relevant information and the full and fair resolution of disputes in the most  X -expeditious manner possible."E b S/-ԍId. at 22501,  5. E In particular, we noted that the Commission's Competition Enforcement Task Force (the "Task Force") had been "charged with identifying and investigating actions by common carriers that may be hindering competition in telecommunications markets and with initiating enforcement actions where necessary to  X -remedy conduct that is unreasonable, anticompetitive or otherwise harmful to consumers."2   Su-ԍId. 2  X -Pursuant to this mandate, on November 25, 1997, a Public Notice issued seeking further  X-comment on certain issues raised in this proceeding.  S-ԍCommon Carrier Bureau Seeks Comment Regarding Accelerated Docket for Complaint  S-Proceedings, Public Notice, CC Dkt No. 96238, DA 972178 (rel. Dec. 12, 1997) (Public Notice). Specifically, the Public Notice sought comment on the creation of an "Accelerated Docket" for complaint adjudication that would (1)provide for the presentation of live evidence and argument in a hearingtype proceeding and (2) operate on a 60day time frame, or on some other schedule that is more compressed than that for a formal complaint proceeding conducted under the new procedures set out in  X#-the First Report & Order.C#"  S!-ԍPublic Notice at 2. C  X-x3.` ` In this Second Report and Order, we adopt rules that will govern the Accelerated Docket. We conclude that the Accelerated Docket, as created by this report and"0*%%ZZ" order, will provide an important step toward both Congress's and this Commission's goal of increasing competition in the telecommunications marketplace. We believe that the  X-accelerated nature of the proceedings proposed in the Public Notice will do much to stimulate the growth of competition for telecommunications services by ensuring the prompt resolution of disputes that may arise between market participants. We recognize that even minor delays or restrictions in the interconnection process can represent a serious and damaging business impediment to competitive market entrants. Additionally, we believe that, in many instances, incumbent carriers also will have an interest in obtaining the prompt disposition of complaints filed against them that they may view as without substantial merit. By reducing the opportunity for this type of delay in the local exchange market, while respecting the jurisdiction of the respective state commissions, we believe that the Accelerated Docket will do much to assist in the development of the procompetitive national policy framework that Congress envisioned when it enacted the 1996 Act. Additionally, we believe that the hearing X -type proceeding discussed in the Public Notice will substantially aid parties' presentation of their claims and defenses in complaint proceedings, thereby speeding the Commission's decisions, while maintaining their high quality, in matters dealing with the important issues of telecommunications competition.  Xf-x4.` ` Briefly stated, the new complaint procedures that we adopt today provide for the decision, within 60 days, of formal complaint proceedings that are accepted onto the  X8-Accelerated Docket, with the additional possibility of en banc hearing, before the full Commission, of applications for review of the staff decision. In order to expedite the complaint process in this manner, we require that parties seeking to place their disputes on the Accelerated Docket first meet for prefiling settlement discussions supervised by Commission staff. Although a party naturally may file its complaint at any time, it will not be accepted onto the Accelerated Docket if the complainant has not made an adequate effort to settle the matter through staffsupervised discussions. Once a complaint has been filed and accepted onto the Accelerated Docket the defendant will have ten days to file its answer. Both the complainant and the defendant will be required to serve on their opponents, with their respective initial pleadings, those documents that are likely to bear on the issues in the proceeding and a list of individuals likely to have relevant knowledge. Ten days after the answer is filed, Commission staff will hold an initial status conference, at which the parties may request further discovery, including a limited number of depositions, which we expect to play an important role in Accelerated Docket proceedings. Between 40 and 45 days after the filing of a complaint, a minitrial will be held at which the parties will have the opportunity to present evidence and make argument in support of their respective positions. Commission staff shall issue its decision no more than sixty days after the matter is placed on the Accelerated Docket. Review by the full Commission will be available through an application  X"-for review. In appropriate cases, the Commission may hold en banc hearings to decide applications for review of Accelerated Docket proceedings. "p$0*%%ZZ(#"Ԍ X-x5.` ` As discussed below, the rules that we adopt herein modify certain deadlines and procedural requirements for complaint proceedings accepted onto the Accelerated Docket. In general, the new rules will govern admission onto the Accelerated Docket, procedural and scheduling aspects of Accelerated Docket proceedings, the breadth of discovery available in such proceedings, and the hearingtype procedure in which Accelerated Docket proceedings  X-typically will culminate. To the extent that the rules set out in this Second Report & Order do not specifically cover some procedural aspect of a proceeding on the Accelerated Docket,  Xa-the rules promulgated with the First Report & Order will govern. a S-ԍInitially, we anticipate exercising our discretion to apply the rules we issue with this Second  S -Report & Order to complaints handled by the Common Carrier Bureau. We note, however, that certain section 208 formal complaints against wireless carriers are also processed by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, pursuant to that bureau's delegated authority. Accordingly, after gaining experience with the application of these rules by the Common Carrier Bureau, we may, within our discretion, make these procedures available for the adjudication of formal complaints against commercial mobile radio service providers and other wireless carriers at a later date.  S-xAdditionally, the procedures in this Second Report & Order will not apply to complaints alleging violations of section 255, which is entitled "Access by Persons with Disabilities." 47 U.S.C.  SP- 255. We expressly excluded section 255 complaints from the procedures adopted in the First Report  S*-& Order because a separate proceeding was under way to implement the provisions of that section.  S-See First Report & Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22501,  3. For the same reasons, we believe it now is appropriate to exclude section 255 complaints from inclusion on the Accelerated Docket.   X5- xA.` ` The Need for, and Benefits of, the Accelerated Docket (#`  X -x6.` ` The Public Notice sought comment on whether there existed a need for the hearingtype process and the shortened deadline for complaint adjudication that would be available with the Accelerated Docket. It requested examples of specific events or particular categories of disputes that might benefit from treatment under the Accelerated Docket. It asked for comment on whether the Accelerated Docket initially should be limited to proceedings raising issues of competition in the provision of telecommunications services.  X-Additionally, the Public Notice sought comment on how the Commission could work cooperatively with the states to ensure that the interests of both the Commission and the states  XS-were protected.K Sl  Sp -ԍPublic Notice at 3,  1. K "< 0*%%ZZ"Ԍ X-x7.` ` The substantial majority of commenters responding to the Public Notice  X-support the creation of the Accelerated Docket. "  Sd-ԍSee, e.g., AT&T Corp. Comments at 12; Association of Directory Publishers ("Directory Publishers") Comments at 24; Association for Local Telecommunications Services ("ALTS") Comments at 23; Competitive Telecommunications Association ("CompTel") at 3; ICG Telecom Group, Inc. ("ICG") Comments at 3; MCI Telecommunications Corp. ("MCI") Comments at 4; Personal Communications Industry Ass'n ("PCIA") Comments at 3; RCN Telecom Services, Inc. ("RCN") Comments at 2; Sprint Corp. Comments at 23; Telecommunications Resellers Association ("TRA") Comments at 4; Teligent, Inc. Comments at 12; United States Telephone Ass'n ("USTA") Comments at 23; WorldCom, Inc. Comments at 2. xICG filed its comments in this proceeding one day after the comment deadline, along with its motion for leave to file comments one day late. In order to develop a complete record in this proceeding, and since we are not accepting reply comments, we hereby grant ICG's motion.  Commenters assert that, by increasing competition in the market for telecommunications services, the Accelerated Docket will ultimately redound to the benefit of consumers in the form of lower prices and a broader  X-range of available services.M   S -ԍSee, e.g., TRA Comments at 6. M In their support of the Accelerated Docket, commenters describe the need for a mechanism that can expedite the resolution of disputes between  Xx-carriers.f xT  S}-ԍSee, e.g., AT&T Comments at 12; ALTS Comments at 23. f Commenters stress the damaging effect of delay on market participants who seek to enforce the strictures of the Act. They argue that any delay in the process for resolving  XJ-competitive disputes works to the benefit of the party supporting the current state of affairs.MJ S-ԍSee, e.g., MCI Comments at 4. M Regardless of the merit of the parties' respective positions, a longer decision time prolongs the time during which the dispute remains unresolved; this in turn can delay a market participant's execution of its business plan. Similarly, absent interim, injunctivestyle relief, any delay in the decision process may cause harm by prolonging the time during which the complainant  X -must suffer the damage caused by a violation of the Act.F  S -ԍSee MCI Comments at 4. F  X -x8.` ` Commenters supporting the Accelerated Docket note that the prospect of delay in obtaining resolution of disputes may cause them to accept a compromise solution that is less advantageous than required by the Act in order to avoid the expense, uncertainty and  Xd-delay accompanying the more complete vindication of their rights through litigation.^d: SO$-ԍSee, e.g., Directory Publishers Comments at 3. ^ To the"d0*%%ZZh" extent that the Accelerated Docket will reduce the time that complaints remain open, it will necessarily reduce the uncertainty and expense that arises from pending complaints. Indeed, as some commenters recognize, the mere availability of such an accelerated process may sufficiently change the dynamic in competitor negotiations that those seeking to enforce their rights under the Act will obtain better results without actually resorting to the formal  X-complaint process.P S-ԍSee, e.g., ALTS Comments at 23. P  X_-x9.` ` Not all commenters support the creation of the Accelerated Docket. Several  XH-commenters assert that the proposed structure of the Accelerated Docket is unworkable.Hj Sc -ԍSee, e.g., Ameritech Comments at 5; BellSouth Comments at 4; SBC Companies Comments at 4. They claim that many discrete tasks must be accomplished during a complaint proceeding, and that the Commission cannot reasonably require completion of all the necessary tasks  X -within 60 days without offending constitutional guarantees of due process.  S-ԍSee, e.g., Ameritech Comments at 78; BellSouth Comments at 23; SBC Comments at 4. Other commenters argue that, before issuing new rules to govern our complaint processes, we  X -should wait until we have accumulated experience under the rules promulgated with the First  X -Report & Order. Only at that point, these commenters argue, will we be in a position to  X -determine how further to expedite our complaint proceedings.x  S-ԍSee, e.g., Ameritech Comments at 5, 11; GTE Service Corp. Comments at 4. x Bell Atlantic contends that,  X-instead of taking on the form proposed in the Public Notice, the Accelerated Docket should offer alternative dispute resolution services so that parties may seek a negotiated resolution to  Xh-their differences.Ph( SA-ԍSee Bell Atlantic Comments at 6. P  X:-x 10.` ` We believe that important benefits will flow from the expedition of the complaint process in cases appropriate for inclusion on the Accelerated Docket. The Accelerated Docket will provide prompt resolution of carrierrelated disputes and it frequently will allow carriers to obtain more extensive discovery from their opponents than has been routinely available in formal complaint proceedings. Additionally, it will provide for the full and effective presentation of each party's case in a hearingtype proceeding. We expect that these benefits of the Accelerated Docket will afford competitive market participants some measure of the certainty that is necessary effectively to map out their business strategies and to stage their capital investment in order to achieve their corporate goals. They also should be better able to avoid the pursuit of multiple and expensive strategic alternatives to account"k 0*%%ZZ" for the uncertainty that can accompany unresolved, pending disputes. This, in turn, likely will lead to a more competitive marketplace that will benefit consumers. The Accelerated Docket will minimize the opportunity for carriers to continue to engage in anti-competitive practices because the lawfulness of those practices will be subject to expedited review under our new procedures, and market entrants will be able to obtain adjudication of their complaints much more quickly than in the past. We believe, therefore, that the Accelerated Docket will facilitate the market's continuing movement toward the full competition that Congress envisioned when it enacted the 1996 Act.  X1-x 11.` ` In addition to the benefits that we envision flowing to competitive market entrants, we believe that in certain instances the incumbent local carriers also are likely to enjoy a substantial benefit from the new docket. The Accelerated Docket will provide the incumbent carriers with a means of obtaining the expedited disposal of certain complaints filed against them. This might be particularly important, for example, when a regional Bell operating company ("BOC") seeks approval under section 271 to provide inregion interLATA service. In such circumstances, a BOC might wish quickly to dispose of any  X-complaints pending against it that it viewed as spurious.Yb S -ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  271(d) (setting out procedures for BOC applicants seeking to obtain Commission authorization to provide inregion interLATA service). We note, however, that approval of a carrier's application would not necessarily be contingent on completion of pending complaint proceedings. Y Additionally, parties to a proposed merger might well benefit from a means of disposing quickly of complaints filed against them. We therefore believe that the Accelerated Docket will provide a substantial benefit to defendants, as well as complainants. On balance, therefore, we believe that any additional burdens that may be imposed on parties by the Accelerated Docket are more than offset by the resulting benefits, both to the carriers themselves and to the public.  X-x 12.` ` We are unpersuaded by the various commenters' criticisms of the Accelerated Docket. The proposed timeframe for resolving complaints on the Accelerated Docket is not  X-unreasonable or inconsistent with due process. As with the new rules issued in the First  X-Report & Order, parties to Accelerated Docket proceedings will have full notice of their opponents' contentions well before the 60day period for conclusion of the proceeding begins to run. During the mandatory prefiling settlement discussions, parties will fully explore, under the supervision of Commission staff, the facts surrounding, and legal bases for, each  XR-side's claims and defenses.}R S!-ԍSee infra,  PREFILING BEGIN25 PREFILING END30. } Thus, both sides should be in the position to begin actively litigating the complaint including providing substantial document discovery-- shortly after it is filed. Furthermore, matters not reasonably susceptible to resolution within the sixtyday"$0*%%ZZ\" framework we have established, whether due to factual or legal complexity or any other reason, will not be accepted onto the Accelerated Docket.  X-x 13.` ` We also reject the argument that we should refrain from issuing rules for the  X-Accelerated Docket until we have accumulated additional experience under the First Report &  X-Order.x S-ԍSee, e.g., Ameritech Comments at 5, 11; GTE Service Corp. Comments at 4. x Many aspects of the Accelerated Docket will differ materially from the generally applicable rules. In particular, the hearingtype proceedings at the conclusion of actions on  Xc-the Accelerated Docket{cj S~ -ԍSee infra  MINITRIAL BEGIN78 MINITRIAL END90. { and the supervised prefiling settlement discussions are new features  XL-unlike anything in the procedures from the First Report & Order. Likewise, the discovery necessary to prepare for these minitrial proceedings will be substantially different from that employed in other formal complaint proceedings. We do not view the new docket as something that merely builds, with minor modifications, on the generally applicable formal complaint process; rather, we believe that it will give rise to substantial benefits independent of the current process. Extensive examination of proceedings under the general rules, therefore, is not necessarily a prerequisite to setting up the Accelerated Docket. Moreover, we will continue to monitor the experience with both sets of rules. This will allow us to make further improvements in the future as it appears to be appropriate.  Xh-x 14.` ` We are also unpersuaded by the argument that, instead of providing an alternative procedure for adjudicating complaints, the Accelerated Docket should be restricted to performing nonbinding alternative dispute resolution ("ADR") services to which parties  X#-could jointly agree to submit their disputes.P#  S-ԍSee Bell Atlantic Comments at 6. P As discussed below, we expect the mandatory, supervised prefiling settlement discussions will comprise an important element of the Accelerated Docket. Moreover, the Enforcement Division of the Common Carrier Bureau (the "Bureau") stands ready to assist willing parties in negotiating resolutions to their  X-differences in actions not on the Accelerated Docket.d S&-ԍWe note parenthetically that the Commission already offers certain alternative dispute  S-resolution services to interested parties. See, e.g., Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures in  S-Commission Proceedings and Proceedings in which the Commission is a Party, Initial Policy Statement & Order, 6 FCC Rcd 5669 (1991); 47 C.F.R. 1.18.  For all involved, such a course is certainly preferable to the expenditure of time and resources necessary to litigate and adjudicate formal complaints. We do not believe, however, that it would substantially advance the development of telecommunications competition to restrict the Accelerated Docket to ADR proceedings, particularly when such services already are available to"k 0*%%ZZ" interested parties either through the Commission or through the many private ADR service providers that exist.  X-x15.` ` We are likewise unpersuaded by SBC's claim that the expedited nature of the Accelerated Docket will reduce the chances of settlement after the filing of a complaint because counsel will be required to devote their attention to litigating, rather than settling, the  Xv-case.Bv S-ԍSBC Comments at 7. B As discussed below, parties on the Accelerated Docket will have fully explored the  X_-opportunities for settlement before a complaint is filed.|_h Sx -ԍSee infra  PREFILING BEGIN25 PREFILING END30. | These discussions will take place against the backdrop of rules making clear that, absent a settlement, once a matter is accepted onto the Accelerated Docket, counsel and the parties will be required to litigate their cases on an expedited schedule. We are cautiously optimistic that this knowledge itself will increase the chances of satisfactory settlements before parties resort to filing complaints with the  X -Commission.I  S-ԍCf. ALTS Comments at 23. I Furthermore, we believe that it winks at reality to assert that active, fastpaced litigation will reduce the chances of productive settlement discussions. It is a fact of modern litigation beyond dispute that actions routinely settle "on the courthouse steps," amid the flurry of activity of trial preparation and trial itself. Notwithstanding its criticisms, SBC has provided us with no reason to suspect that experience will be different under the Accelerated Docket.  XK- xB.` ` Subject Matter for the Accelerated Docket  X-x16.` ` In response to our inquiry in the Public Notice,K Sz-ԍPublic Notice at 3,  1. K commenters offer a wide variety of substantive criteria for acceptance onto the Accelerated Docket. Some commenters suggest that the docket be restricted to proceedings that raise issues of competitive entry into  X-local service markets and that allege violation of sections 251, 252 and/or 272275.} N S-ԍSee, e.g., AT&T Comments at 2; CompTel Comments at 3; WorldCom Comments at 6. } By  X-contrast, Ameritech suggests that the docket be open to all disputes.O! Sb!-ԍSee Ameritech Comments at 914. O Certain comments suggest that the Accelerated Docket be limited to those disputes in which the complainant or  X-its end users are likely to suffer significant harm from a delay in adjudication of the case.a"  S$-ԍSee, e.g., MCI Comments at 4; PCIA Comments at 4. a " 4 "0*%%ZZo" Along the same lines, SBC suggests that the burden associated with the expedited procedures would be justified only if the dispute presents a "serious threat to the development of local  X-competition."B# SK-ԍSBC Comments at 5. B Finally, one commenter suggests that, in deciding whether to admit a proceeding onto the Accelerated Docket, the Commission staff consider whether the oral presentation of the dispute to a decision maker appears likely to result in a better  X-understanding of the relevant issues.n$h S-ԍSeeĠTeleport Communications Group, Inc. ("TCG") Comments at 2. n  X_-x17.ACCEPTANCE BEGINPROGRESS PARA` ` Under the rules that we adopt today, we confer on the staff administering the Accelerated Docket broad discretion to determine which formal complaints relating to common carrier services it will accept onto the docket. In exercising this discretion, the Bureau should consider several different factors. First among these is the extent to which it appears that the parties to the dispute have exhausted the reasonable opportunities for  X -settlement during the supervised prefiling settlement discussions.O%  S-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.730(e)(1). O As discussed below,{&  SI-ԍSee infra  PREFILING BEGIN25 PREFILING END30. { we believe that one of the primary benefits resulting from the Accelerated Docket will be that arising from formal staff involvement in the prefiling settlement discussions that are now required for all formal complaints.  Xy-x18.` ` Second, to the extent that the expedited resolution of a particular dispute appears likely to advance competition in the relevant telecommunications markets, it may be  XK-appropriate for inclusion on the Accelerated Docket.O'KN SJ-ԍSeeĠAppendix, Rule 1.730(e)(2). O As discussed above, one of the primary goals of this new docket is to stimulate real competition among market participants. Relatedly, a marked increase in the number or frequency of a specific type of dispute may indicate that a particular issue is beginning substantially to affect competition. The staff administering the Accelerated Docket would also be acting within its discretion to consider the prevalence of a type of dispute in choosing proceedings for inclusion on the docket.  X-x19.BIFURCATE` ` Third, the Bureau staff shall also consider whether the issues presented by a particular proceeding appear to be suited for decision under the constraints imposed by the  X|-Accelerated Docket.O(| S$-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.730(e)(3). O For example, if the dispute appears to involve more distinct questions"| (0*%%ZZ" than may be litigated effectively under the expedited procedures, staff would be within its discretion to refuse the case. Another factor for consideration in this category likely will be whether the complaining party has chosen to bifurcate its liability claims from its damages claims. As we discuss below, we believe that the time constraints of the Accelerated Docket typically will make it difficult to decide issues of both liability and damages in a single  X-proceeding.w) S-ԍSee infra  DAMAGES BEGIN91 DAMAGES END93. w Similarly, if it appears that factual discovery will be so extraordinarily complex and timeconsuming that it cannot effectively be conducted under the compressed schedule of the Accelerated Docket, the staff administering the docket also would be within its discretion to decline the case.  X -x20.` ` Fourth, in determining whether to admit a dispute to the Accelerated Docket, staff shall consider any suggestions that the complaint fails to state a cognizable claim or  X -raises issues outside of the Commission's established jurisdiction.O* j S-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.730(e)(4). O Because of the expedited nature of proceedings on this docket, we do not anticipate that the Bureau staff will suspend the progress of a complaint proceeding to receive briefing on, and decide, motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. It is important, however, that defendants have an effective opportunity to raise these issues. Accordingly, we expect that both jurisdictional infirmities and any alleged failure to state a claim will be raised by potential defendants during the prefiling phase. If it appears that such objections may have merit, the staff may decline on that basis to accept a proceeding onto the Accelerated Docket. We will not, however, create a separate procedural mechanism for the resolution of these issues.  X-x21.` ` Fifth, the staff administering the Accelerated Docket also has discretion to refuse a complaint proceeding where it appears that one party would be unreasonably limited in its ability effectively to conduct discovery or prepare its case because of an overwhelming  X-resource advantage of the opposing party.O+  Sg-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.730(e)(5). O We expect such situations will be very rare, and such a determination will fall within the discretion of the staff administering the docket. Moreover, since it will be necessary for a party to the complaint to seek inclusion on the Accelerated Docket, we believe that a measure of selfselection will keep off of the docket many disputes in which such an overwhelming resource disparity might arise. Accordingly, in many cases of substantial disparity of resources, we expect that complainants simply will decline to request inclusion on the docket. In such instances, if the defendant requests inclusion on the Accelerated Docket, the staff likely will need only to examine the parties' relative resources in the context of the issues presented in the complaint." +0*%%ZZ<"Ԍ X-ԙx22.ACCEPTANCE END` ` Beyond the factors listed above, we expect that, in accepting matters onto the Accelerated Docket, the Bureau staff will consider such other issues as it deems appropriate  X-and conducive to the prompt and fair adjudication of the complaint proceedings before it.O, SK-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.730(e)(6). O We decline to adopt SBC's suggestion that parties seeking admission to the Accelerated Docket be required, as a threshold matter, to exhaust alternatives to the complaint process like  X-arbitration, contractual dispute resolution and state commission proceedings.,-j S-ԍSee SBC Comments at 11. Of course, if the parties have contracted to use such a process or if the matter raised is within the jurisdiction of the state to the exclusion of the Commission, the dispute should not be accepted onto the Accelerated Docket. , Imposing such a requirement would substantially reduce the ability of a complaining party to obtain the prompt adjudication of its dispute on the Accelerated Docket. In so doing, it would frustrate the goal for this new docket. Furthermore, we believe that the supervised prefiling  X1-settlement talks we discuss belowx.1 S-ԍSee infra  PREFILING BEGIN25 PREFILING END30x will allow the parties a sufficient opportunity to resolve their differences before the acceptance of a complaint onto the Accelerated Docket.  X - xC.` ` Jurisdictional Considerations  X -x23.` ` The Public Notice also requested comment on how, in administering the Accelerated Docket, the Commission could "work cooperatively with state utility commissions on . . . enforcement matters to ensure that the respective interests of the Commission and the  X{-states are protected."K/{^ S-ԍPublic Notice at 3,  1. K In response, several commenters raise concerns about our jurisdiction in the wake of last year's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on  XM-review of our Local Competition Order.A0M  S-ԍIowa Utilities Board v. FCC, 120 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 1997), cert. granted, 118 S. Ct. 879  S-(1998). See also Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act  S-of 1996, 11 FCC Rcd 15499 (1996). A Specifically, they question whether we retain jurisdiction to adjudicate any disputes that raise issues of interconnection or competition  X-among local exchange carriers.1V  S&!-ԍSee, e.g., Bell Atlantic Comments at 6; Cincinnati Bell Comments at 2; SBC Comments at5.  X-x24.` ` Nothing in this report and order should be interpreted to expand the Commission's jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes under the Act. We also recognize that the Eighth Circuit's decision places limits on the Commission's authority in section 208" 10*%%ZZ" enforcement proceedings. As discussed above, questions of our jurisdiction to adjudicate individual complaint proceedings will be decided on a casebycase basis as they arise. In any event, under the Eighth Circuit's decision, the Commission is without jurisdiction to adjudicate the reasonableness of rates that have been set by a state commission or to  X-adjudicate a dispute that is governed by the terms of the parties' interconnection agreement.2@ S-ԍSee Iowa Utilities Board, 120 F.3d at 796, 804. But see id. at 795 n.12 (recognizing that  S-1996 Act requires Commission participation in several areas). See generally Computer &  S-Communications Indus. Ass'n v. FCC, 693 F.2d 198 (D.C. Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 938  S-(1983); North Carolina Utils. Comm'n v. FCC, 552 F.2d 1036 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 874 (1977).  Furthermore, we are hopeful that contact and careful coordination with the relevant state commissions will reduce the potential for state concerns about jurisdictional issues. Accordingly, we direct that the staff administering the Accelerated Docket take all appropriate steps to inform the appropriate state utility commissions where it appears that such action is  X1-appropriate.31 S-ԍCf. WorldCom Comments at 6 (suggesting that state commissions be permitted to intervene in Accelerated Docket proceedings).  X - II.xPreFiling Requirements  X -x25.PREFILING BEGIN` ` The Public Notice sought comment on whether it would be useful for parties on the Accelerated Docket to participate in staff supervised settlement discussions before a  X -complaint was filed.K4 J S-ԍPublic Notice at 5,  4. K The notice asked whether one criterion for acceptance onto the Accelerated Docket should be adequate notice, through these prefiling discussions, of the issues a complainant would raise in its complaint. It asked whether such supervised prefiling  Xd-settlement discussions would implicate the Commission's ex parte rules, and it sought suggestions on how to protect confidential or proprietary information that the parties might  X8-exchange during these discussions. Additionally, the Public Notice sought comment on which parties to a dispute could seek inclusion on the Accelerated Docket.  X- xA.` ` Staff Supervision of PreFiling Discussions  X-x26.` ` The commenters differ substantially in their views on the proposal for Bureau involvement in prefiling settlement discussions. Some commenters support the requirement, arguing that the involvement of Commission staff in the settlement talks likely will increase the productivity of the talks and deter stonewalling or other uncooperative behavior by the" 40*%%ZZ"  X-parties.z5 Sy-ԍSee, e.g., MCI Comments at 11; USTA Comments at 7; WorldCom Comments at 7. zOBSTRUCTIVE NOTE Commenters also assert that requiring supervision of the parties' settlement discussions will serve to educate Commission staff about the dispute so that they will be in a better position to rule quickly and knowledgeably on the issues that arise early in the  X-proceeding.n6j S-ԍSee, e.g., Ameritech Comments at 2628; MCI Comments at 1011. nFAMILIAR NOTE Other commenters argue against supervised settlement discussions, asserting that such a requirement will unnecessarily prolong the prefiling stage of the actions and that, absent such a requirement, parties would remain free to seek the involvement of Commission  Xv-staff in their talks if they believe it would be productive.7v  S3 -ԍSee, e.g., ICG Comments at 57; TRA Comments at 11. Cf. Sprint Comments at 5 (prefiling requirements should not be allowed unreasonably to delay filing of complaint). PROLONG NOTE RCN opposes any prefiling negotiation requirement, asserting that the fast pace of the Accelerated Docket and its substantial early disclosure requirements will serve as sufficient incentive for parties to  X1-settle.B81 Sh-ԍRCN Comments at 6. B It questions whether staff involvement in prefiling discussions would measurably increase the likelihood of settlement.  X -x27.` ` We believe that requiring supervision of the parties' prefiling discussions will provide substantial benefits in the Accelerated Docket. We believe that one way in which the Accelerated Docket will speed the development of competition is by facilitating the informal  X -resolution of many disputes before complaints are even filed.I9 & S~-ԍCf. ALTS Comments at 23. I Involvement of Commission staff in the parties' prefiling discussions will serve to make those talks run more smoothly and be more productive. We agree with the commenters who predict that the presence of Commission staff in the settlement talks likely will reduce parties' willingness to engage in  XK-obstructive or uncooperative behavior during the settlement discussions.Y:K  S-ԍSee supra n.OBSTRUCTIVE NOTE53. Y Staff involvement in the discussions also may help the parties to focus their dispute in a way that will be most conducive to the short schedule of the Accelerated Docket if a complaint ultimately is filed.  X-Moreover, as some commenters note,V;j  S!!-ԍSee supra n.FAMILIAR NOTE54. V a familiarity with the dispute's issues, developed during the prefiling phase, will assist the staff in efficiently handling proceedings after the complaint is filed. " ;0*%%ZZ"Ԍ X-x28.` ` We are unpersuaded by the argument that staff participation in settlement  X-discussions will unnecessarily prolong that phase of proceedings.U< Sb-ԍSee supra n.PROLONG NOTE55. U Our commitment to the prompt adjudication of disputes affecting competition extends to the prefiling stage of proceedings. We are confident that requiring staff involvement in the mandatory prefiling settlement discussions will not slow this phase of proceedings. Furthermore, as noted above, the staff administering the docket will take the progress of these settlement discussions into  Xv-account when determining whether to accept a complaint onto the Accelerated Docket.Y=vj S -ԍSee supra  PROGRESS PARA17. Y If the parties are making substantial progress in these discussions, it is unlikely that the staff supervising the negotiation will place the matter on the Accelerated Docket. On the other hand, if the parties appear to have exhausted the reasonable possibilities for settlement, that factor likely will weigh in favor of promptly admitting the proceeding to the Accelerated Docket.  X -x29.` ` Teligent suggests that, when an entity repeatedly has engaged in the same or similar violations of the Act, we should waive the requirement for supervised prefiling  X -discussions.K>  Sd-ԍSee Teligent Comments at 6. K We believe that, even if a party's actions have made it a repeated target of complaint proceedings, preliminary settlement discussions are likely to have substantial merit. We therefore decline to dispense entirely with this requirement in such situations. However, we note that, where a potential defendant shows little inclination to comply with its obligations under the Act, the staff likely will not require settlement discussions that are as extensive as typically would be required before accepting a matter onto the Accelerated  X-Docket.?d S|-ԍWe note that the Commission retains other enforcement authority that is independent of the formal complaint process and may be exercised when a party has repeatedly or willfully violated the  S,-Act, or Commission rules or orders. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C.  312 (cease and desist power; revocation of  S-radio licenses); id.  503 (forfeiture authority).  Indeed, the existence of multiple complaints about the same practice may itself be a factor militating in favor of accepting a particular dispute onto the Accelerated Docket.  X-x30.PREFILING END` ` Cincinnati Bell asserts that it would be improper for the individual staff member who conducts the prefiling discussions to handle the matter after a complaint has  X-been filed.X@  S5#-ԍSee Cincinnati Bell Comments at 6. X Cincinnati Bell does little to expand on this argument, but we take it to argue that supervising the parties' settlement discussions could create a bias or prejudice in the staff"| @0*%%ZZQ" member so that he or she could not impartially adjudicate the matter. We reject this contention. Federal courts repeatedly have held that a judge's participation in settlement  X-discussions, by itself, provides no basis for recusing the judge from deciding the case;Af SK-ԍSee, e.g., Bilello v. Abbott Labs., 825 F.2d 475, 47781 (E.D.N.Y. 1993) (collecting cases);  S%-Johnson v. Trueblood, 629 F.2d 287, 291 (3d Cir. 1980). See also Anderson v. Sheppard, 856 F.2d  S-741, 750 (6th Cir. 1988); Franks v. Nimmo, 796 F.2d 1230 (10th Cir. 1986); Smith v. Sentry Ins., 752 F. Supp. 1058 (N.D. Ga. 1990).  it does not create the kind of personal or extrajudicial knowledge that requires  X-disqualification.B SK -ԍSee Bilello, 825 F. Supp. at 479 (citing United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583  S% -(1966); Apple v. Jewish Hosp., 829 F.2d 326, 333 (2d Cir. 1987)). Only when a judge conducts himself in a manner that may raise questions  X-about his impartiality is there proper ground for recusal.HCr S -ԍSee United States v. Barry, 938 F.2d 1327, 1340 (D.C. Cir. 1991); DeLuca v. Long Island  S-Lighting Co., 862 F.2d 427 (2d Cir. 1988); Pepsico, Inc. v. McMillen, 764 F.2d 458, 460 (7th Cir.  Sd-1985); Bilello, 825 F. Supp. at 479. H We see no reason to adopt a stricter rule than that of the federal courts on this issue. We are confident that, just as they do in participating in status conferences after a complaint has been filed, Commission staff will be able to participate in prefiling settlement discussions without forming prejudices that will impede their ability to handle impartially the matters assigned to them.  X -H xB.` ` Procedure for Acceptance to the Accelerated Docket  X -x31.` ` The Public Notice sought comment on which parties could seek inclusion of  X -complaints on the Accelerated Docket.OD  S9-ԍSee Public Notice at 5,  4. O Some commenters suggest that matters should beH  X -accepted onto the Accelerated Docket only with the consent of both sides.pE j  S-ԍSee, e.g., Bell Atlantic Comments at 6; BellSouth Comments at 9. p Other comments assert that inclusion on the docket should be available upon the request of either the  X{-complainant or the defendant, but that agreement of both sides should not be required.F{  S8-ԍSee, e.g., Cincinnati Bell Comments at 6; ICG Comments at 7; MCI Comments at 7; Sprint Comments at 56; TRA Comments at 12. In particular, some commenters argue that, once a complaint has been filed against it, a defendant should have the option, during a limited window of time, to seek inclusion on the"MF0*%%ZZg"  X-Accelerated Docket.aG Sy-ԍSee, e.g., MCI Comments at 8; TRA Comments at 12. a Certain commenters contend that the Commission staff should not have  X-the authority to place a complaint on its docket unless at least one party requests inclusion.MHj S-ԍSee, e.g., TCG Comments at 2. M  X-x32.` ` We conclude that the Accelerated Docket will be most effective if either party to a dispute may request inclusion on it. Requiring mutual agreement of the parties, as suggested by some commenters, would give either party veto power over the process and substantially reduce the docket's effectiveness at stimulating a competitive environment. However, we believe that the ends of the Accelerated Docket would not be well served if the staff had the discretion to place a proceeding on the docket absent a request from at least one party.  X -x 33.` ` A prospective complainant who wishes to have its dispute handled on the Accelerated Docket shall contact the Bureau either by phone or in writing to seek assistance  X -in reaching a negotiated resolution to the matter.LI  S-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.730(b). L If it appears from the preliminary information supplied by the prospective complainant that the dispute may be appropriate for handling under the procedures that we set out today, the staff will schedule the appropriate prefiling settlement talks. Based on the progress of these negotiations, the nature of the dispute as revealed during the discussions, and other considerations, including those outlined  Xb-above,Jb S-ԍSee supra  ACCEPTANCE BEGIN17 ACCEPTANCE END22. Above, we require staff to consider, inter alia, the following factors in deciding whether to admit a specific dispute to the Accelerated Docket: (1) whether it appears that the parties have exhausted the reasonable opportunities in the prefiling discussions; (2) whether expedited resolution of the dispute appears likely to advance competition in the relevant telecommunications marketplace; (3) whether the dispute is suited for decision under the constraints imposed by the new docket; (4) whether the complainant states a cognizable claim within the Commission's established jurisdiction; and (5) whether it appears, in light of a substantial resource disparity between the parties that one party would be unreasonably limited in its ability effectively to conduct discovery or prepare  S-its case. Id. Commission staff will determine whether the matter is appropriate for Accelerated Docket treatment. At any time during the prefiling discussions, a prospective complainant may request that the staff then accept the matter onto the docket. Upon receiving such a request, the staff promptly will inform the complainant whether the opportunities for settlement have been adequately exhausted and whether the matter otherwise appears appropriate for the docket. Naturally, a complainant may file its complaint at any time it wishes; however, complaints filed before a staff decision to admit a particular proceeding onto the Accelerated Docket will be handled under the procedures generally applicable to"J0*%%ZZq" formal complaint proceedings. Once the staff determines that a dispute is appropriate for the Accelerated Docket and if the parties remain unable to resolve their differences during the supervised settlement discussions, the complainant shall submit with its complaint a letter  X-indicating that it has gained acceptance onto the docket.LK S4-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.730(b). L So that the staff immediately may begin work on the matter, a complainant shall, at the time it files its complaint, serve a copy  X-on the staff who supervised the settlement talks.5Lj S-ԍSee id.5 Such a complaint, once it is filed and accepted onto the Accelerated Docket, will be handled by the Bureau under the rules set out herein.  X1-x!34.TRANSMISSION` ` As some commenters recommend, we believe that it is also important that  X -defendants be able to request that their proceeding be included on the Accelerated Docket.lM  S-ԍSee, e.g., Cincinnati Bell Comments at 6; MCI Comments at 7. l We therefore adopt a rule under which a defendant may seek inclusion on the Accelerated Docket by contacting the Bureau no more than five days after receiving service of a  X -complaint.LN  S4-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.730(c). L In order to comply with our ex parte rules,VO P S-ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  1.1200, et seq.V such contact shall be by a facsimile or handdelivered letter of which a copy also is transmitted in the same manner to the complainant. A defendant seeking admission to the Accelerated Docket will be required to  X-file its answer within 10 days of receiving service of the complaint, as required by this  X{-Second Report and Order.oP{ S-ԍSee infra  ANSWER PARA42; Appendix, Rule 1.730(c). o Within two business days of a defendant's request letter, the determination will be made whether to grant the request and accept the proceeding onto the Accelerated Docket. If it appears that the parties have not conducted sufficient prefiling settlement discussions, the staff may schedule supervised settlement talks, as discussed above. If appropriate, the progress of the matter after the filing of the answer may be postponed during these discussions. Once a proceeding has been accepted onto the Accelerated Docket at the defendant's request, the staff will also set a schedule for both sides' production of  X-documentsxQ  S!"-ԍSee infra,  DOC PRO BEGIN48 DOC PRO END58. x and the remainder of the proceeding.LR6  S#-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.730(c). L After the staff has scheduled the" R0*%%ZZ" production of documents, matters accepted onto the docket at a defendant's request will proceed according to the schedule otherwise applicable to Accelerated Docket proceedings.  X-x"35.` ` Commenters suggest that we establish a mechanism by which either party to a complaint proceeding that is pending on the effective date of these rules may request inclusion on the Accelerated Docket. It appears that certain complaints already pending in the Bureau's Enforcement Division may benefit from, and be appropriate for, the expedited procedures of the new docket. Accordingly, during the thirty days following the effective date of these rules, either party to a complaint proceeding then pending before the Bureau's Enforcement Division and in which an answer previously has been served, or is past due, may contact the staff administering the Accelerated Docket to request inclusion of the matter on  X -the docket.S  S| -ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.730(d). We believe that, where a defendant has failed timely to file its answer, it likely will have difficulty establishing that its case is appropriate for inclusion on the Accelerated Docket.  A party making such a request shall do so by facsimile or handdelivered letter of which a copy is sent contemporaneously to the opposing party or parties by the same mode of transmission.  X <I xC.` ` Ex Parte and Confidentiality Issues  Xz-x#36.` ` As noted above, the Public Notice also inquired whether the prefiling  Xe-settlement discussions would implicate the Commission's ex parte rules,\Te S0-ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  1.1200, et seq.\ and how partiesI could ensure protection for any confidential or proprietary information exchanged during the prefiling phase. Only one commenter asserted that staffsupervised settlement discussions  X"-would implicate our ex parte rules, but it offered no serious explanation of why that was  X -true.LU  Sz-ԍSee ICG Comments at 6. L After reviewing the matter, we believe that staff involvement in the prefiling  X-discussions poses no potential for a prohibited ex parte contact.]V^ S-ԍCf. AT&T Comments at 23; MCI Comments at 11. ] Our ex parte rules restrict  X-the actions of parties to complaint proceedings only after a complaint has been filed.RW  S -ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  1.1202(a), (d). R Typically, contacts between a single party and Commission staff under these rules will occur before the filing of a complaint and therefore will not implicate our rules. We believe that  X-the main potential for ex parte contact that these rules create is the situation in which a defendant requests the inclusion of its proceeding on the Accelerated Docket. As we note" W0*%%ZZA"  X-above,VX Sy-ԍSee supra  TRANSMISSION34.V however, such requests must be made by letter, a copy of which shall be provided to the complainant at the same time and by the same mode of transmission as used for the  X-Commission staff. This will pose no danger of an improper ex parte contact. We therefore reject the contention that the supervised prefiling discussions and other contact with  X-Commission staff under these rules will offend our ex parte rules.QYj S-ԍWe also have concluded above that staff supervision of the prefiling process will not create the danger of Commission staff forming prejudices that will impede their ability to handle impartially  Sq -the matters assigned to them. See supra  PREFILING END30. Q  Xz-x$37.` ` In the event that parties engaged in the required supervised settlement discussions should have occasion to exchange confidential or proprietary documents, they may negotiate a confidentiality agreement that is acceptable to both sides. If the parties are unable  X5-to reach agreement on a confidentiality agreement, they shall be governed by Rule 1.731.>Z5 S-ԍ47 C.F.R  1.731. >  X - III.xPleading Requirements  X -x%38.` ` The Public Notice noted the new pleading requirements under the First Report  X -& Order, and stated that these requirements likely would also apply to Accelerated Docket  X -proceedings.K[ \ S-ԍPublic Notice at 5,  5. K It requested comment on the reasonableness of requiring that the defendant's answer be filed within seven calendar days of the complaint in order to accommodate the expedited nature of the new docket. Many commenters support the proposed schedule for  Xj-filing an answer on the Accelerated Docket.\j S-ԍSee, e.g., MCI Comments at 11; Sprint Comments at 6; WorldCom Comments at 8. See also RCN Comments at 7 (suggesting 10day answer period as reasonable); USTA Comments at 8 (same). Several commenters, however, vigorously oppose a sevenday answer deadline, arguing that it would afford defendants too little time to accomplish the tasks necessary to draft a sufficiently detailed answer and to assemble the  X%-necessary discovery materials for production to the complainant at the time of the answer.]%x  SN -ԍSee, e.g., Ameritech Comments at 31; Cincinnati Bell Comments at 7; SBC Comments at 13. In opposing the sevenday answer period, SBC asserts that the 20day period imposed in the  X-First Report & Order is the bare minimum that complies with the requirements of  X-constitutional due process.M^  S$-ԍSee SBC Comments at 14. M "^0*%%ZZ"Ԍ X-ԙ xA.` ` Content Requirements for Pleadings  X-x&39.` ` After review and careful consideration of the comments on this topic, we have concluded that it is appropriate to modify slightly the content requirements for initial  X-pleadings on the Accelerated Docket. As discussed in the First Report & Order, we believe that a full presentation, by both parties, of the relevant facts will "improve the utility and  Xx-content of pleadings" and help to "speed resolution of" complaints.d_x S-ԍFirst Report & Order, 12 FCC Rcd. at 22543,  81. d We also believe, however, that the key to the success of the Accelerated Docket will be its ability to move the parties to narrow, focused issues as quickly as possible so that evidence on those issues may be presented at the minitrial. Given the opportunity for parties to present evidence at the minitrials, we are less concerned with the formal presentation of evidence through affidavits accompanying the pleadings than we are with having the parties promptly reach issue. Thus,  X -as set out in Rule 1.721(a)(5), promulgated with the First Report & Order, the complaint: XxX` ` shall include a detailed explanation of the manner and time period in which a defendant has allegedly violated the Act, Commission order, or Commission rule in question, including a full identification or description of the communications, transmissions, services, or other carrier conduct complained of and the nature of any injury allegedly  XO-sustained by the complainant.E`Oj Sj-ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.721(a)(5). E ` Similarly, the answer "shall advise the complainant and the Commission fully and completely of the nature of any defense, and shall respond specifically to all material allegations of the  X-complaint."Ba  S-ԍId.  1.724(b). B As discussed at greater length below, initial pleadings on the Accelerated  X-Docket also shall include that portion of the information designation discussed in the First  X-Report & Order which lists individuals believed to have firsthand knowledge of the facts  X-alleged with particularity in the pleadings.b S-ԍSee infra,  DEPS AVAILABLE59; 47 C.F.R.  1.721(a)(10)(i), 1.724(f)(1).  X-x'40.ANSWER CONTENTS` ` Given the relatively rapid pace of the Accelerated Docket, we have decided to  Xm-dispense with certain pleading requirements set out in the First Report & Order. First, we will not require that parties to Accelerated Docket proceedings provide extensive legal"XNb0*%%ZZ"  X-analysis, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with their initial pleadings.ac Sy-ԍSee Appendix, Rules 1.721(e)(1)(ii), 1.724(k)(3). a Thus, we will not require that the pleadings on the Accelerated Docket comply with Rules  X-1.721(a)(6) or 1.724(c).dj S-ԍ47 C.F.R  1.721(a)(6), 1.724(c) (requiring proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and legal analysis in complaint and answer). We believe that parties will have an adequate opportunity to present this information somewhat later in proceedings on the Accelerated Docket. As  X-discussed below,Ye S7 -ԍSee infra  FINDINGS PARA90. Y parties will be required to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law shortly before the minitrial that typically will take place in proceedings on this docket. Similarly, during this minitrial, parties will have the opportunity to present legal argument regarding their claims and defenses, and we therefore believe that this material may be omitted from the initial pleadings without substantially slowing down the process. We emphasize, however, that our decision not to require extensive legal analysis should not be interpreted as sanctioning noticepleading or a similar omission of the full factual and legal basis for a party's pleadings. Rather, we expect that the complaint and answer will fully set  X -out the facts and legal theories on which the parties premise their claims and defenses.af  S!-ԍSee Appendix, Rules 1.721(e)(1)(ii), 1.724(k)(3). a This level of detail will be crucial to the expedited pace of discovery and adjudication that we envision for the Accelerated Docket. Moreover, either party's failure in this regard may result in the summary disposition of some or all of their claims or defenses.  Xy-x(41.NO AFFIDAVITS` ` Additionally, we have decided to dispense with the requirement that parties to Accelerated Docket proceedings support their initial pleadings with affidavits, as required in  XK-Rules 1.721(a)(5), (a)(11) and 1.724(g).gdK& S"-ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.721(a)(5), (a)(11), 1.724(g). See Appendix, Rules 1.721(e)(1)(i), 1.724(k)(2). As reflected in the new rules that we adopt, allegations that formerly would have been subject to the  S-affidavit requirement remain subject to the provisions of Rule 1.52, 47 C.F.R.  1.52. See Appendix, Rules 1.721(e)(1)(i), 1.724(k)(2).  We believe that the opportunity to present live  X4-testimony at the minitrial, discussed below,xh4R  S7 -ԍSee infra at  MINITRIAL BEGIN78 MINITRIAL END90.x and the more extensive discovery available on the Accelerated Docket will render unnecessary the requirement that parties support their pleadings with affidavits. We have also decided to dispense, in Accelerated Docket proceedings, with the requirement that parties include in their information designations a" h0*%%ZZ"  X-description of all relevant documents in their possession."i< Sy-ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.721(a)(10)(ii), 1.724(f)(2), 1.726(d)(2). See Appendix, Rules 1.721(e)(1)(iv), 1.724(k)(5). Additionally, we dispense with the requirement, under Rules 1.721(a)(10)(iii) and 1.724(f)(3), 47 C.F.R. 1.721(a)(10)(iii), 1.724(f)(3), that a party's information designation describe the manner in which the party identified persons or documents for inclusion in the information  S-designation. See Appendix, Rules 1.721(e)(1)(v), 1.724(k)(6). " As we discuss below, parties will be required automatically to produce with their initial pleadings those documents that bear the  X-appropriate relevance relationship with the issues in the proceeding.j SO -ԍSee infra,  DOC PRO BEGIN48 DOC PRO END58. Under the rules we adopt today, we recognize it is possible that a complaint could meet the pleading requirements of the Accelerated Docket, but fall short of the  S -requirements set out in the First Report & Order for complaint proceedings more generally. Consequently, in the unlikely event that the Commission staff should determine, after a complaint was accepted onto the docket, that it was not appropriate for handling on the Accelerated Docket, a complainant might be required to amend its complaint and the accompanying documents in order to  Sc-meet the requirements of the First Report & Order.   X- xB.` ` Timing of the Answer  Xv-x)42.ANSWER PARA` ` After consideration of the comments regarding the timing of the answer, we have concluded that an appropriate answer period for the Accelerated Docket is ten days.  Thus, a defendant's answer, as well as the discovery documents subject to automatic  X1-production discussed below,5k1  Sd-ԍSee id.5 will be due ten calendar days after the defendant receives  X -service of a complaint on the Accelerated Docket.l $ S-ԍSeeĠAppendix, Rule 1.724(k)(1). Cf. Cincinnati Bell Comments at 7 (suggesting that answer period begin to run only when defendant is actually served with complaint). As noted in the First Report & Order, defendants will have substantial advance notice of the facts and legal theories underlying a complaint from the prefiling settlement discussions that are now required in all complaint  X -proceedings. m  S&-ԍConversely, any defendant who seeks inclusion of a pending proceeding on the Accelerated Docket does so knowing the pleading and discovery requirements and will be presumed to agree to those requirements in requesting referral.  We believe that the Commission staff's involvement in the parties' prefiling settlement discussions should create an environment in which defendants on the Accelerated Docket will gain even more detail about a complainant's claim before a complaint is actually filed. It therefore appears that, during the progress of these settlement talks, defendants will have a substantial opportunity to accomplish the research and factual investigation that will be necessary to file an answer that, as we require above, "shall advise the complainant and the"dm0*%%ZZh" Commission fully and completely of the nature of any defense, and shall respond specifically  X-to all material allegations of the complaint."gn Sb-ԍSee First Report & Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22534,  81. g Additionally, we decline to adopt SBC's suggestion that complainants be required, before filing their complaints, to send a certified  X-letter to the defendant outlining their claims.Moj S-ԍSeeĠSBC Comments at 15. M We believe that this information will be adequately conveyed during the parties' prefiling discussions.  Xv-x*43.` ` Notwithstanding the criticisms that several commenters level at the short  X_-answer period proposed in the Public Notice, we strongly believe that the tenday period we have adopted is appropriate. First, we note that the Act expressly grants the Commission broad discretion to conduct its "proceedings in such manner as will best conduce to the proper  X -dispatch of business and to the ends of justice."@p  S-ԍ47 U.S.C.  154(j). @ Courts applying this language in reviewing the Commission's procedural rules regularly have recognized the Commission's wide authority  X -in questions of its own procedures. Thus, in FCC v. Schreiber, the Court noted that the Commission "should be free to fashion [its] own rules of procedure and to pursue methods of  X -inquiry capable of permitting [it] to discharge [its] multitudinous duties."q  S-ԍ381 U.S. 279, 290 (1965) (quoting FCC v. Potsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U.S. 134, 143 (1940)). In Florida  X -Cellular Mobile Communications Corp. v. FCC, the court stated, in the context of a licensing dispute, that there "can be no doubt of the FCC's authority to impose strict procedural  X-rules."[r& SX-ԍ28 F.3d 191, 198 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (quoting Glaser v. FCC, 20 F.3d 1184, 1186 (D.C. Cir.  S2-1994)). See also, e.g., Massachusetts v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 924 F.2d 311, 333 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (NRC has "wide discretion to structure its licensing hearings in the interests of speed and  S-efficiency"); Union of Concerned Scientists v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 920 F.2d 50, 53 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ("absent constitutional constraints or extremely compelling circumstances courts are never free to impose on [administrative agencies] a procedural requirement not provided for by  Sn-Congress") (citing Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 543 (1978); internal quotation omitted). [  XS-x+44.` ` Apart from complying with the relevant statute, the primary limitation on  X<-agency procedures is that they must comply with the requirements of due process.s< S#-ԍSee, e.g., Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 46 (1975); McClelland v. Andrus, 606 F.2d 1278, 128586 (D.C. Cir. 1979). As we"<0s0*%%ZZ*" discuss above, through the supervised prefiling settlement discussions, potential defendants will have full notice of the likely claims against them substantially in advance of the filing of a complaint. We believe that, when combined with this prefiling period, the tenday answer period comports with the requirements of due process. By diligently reviewing their records and conducting the appropriate interviews both before and after the complaint is filed, defendants should have ample opportunity to gather the information necessary both to file  Xv-their answer and to produce the documents that, as we discuss below,wtv S-ԍSee infra  DOC PRO BEGIN48 DOC PRO END58. w must be served with it. We recognize that an answer period of this short duration will put defendants and their counsel to a greater burden than may exist under the 20day answer period in the more generally applicable rules. However, as discussed above, defendants in Accelerated Docket proceedings will be required to assemble substantially less information before filing their  X -answer than is required under the rules set out in the First Report & Order. Thus, Accelerated Docket defendants will not be required to prepare proposed findings of fact and  X -conclusions of law or affidavits regarding the facts pleaded in their answers.~u j S-ԍSee supra  ANSWER CONTENTS40; Appendix, Rules 1.724(k)(2) & (3). ~ Nor will they  X -be required to create the index of relevant documents required under the First Report &  X -Order.uv  Sh-ԍSee supra  NO AFFIDAVITS41; Appendix, Rule 1.724(k)(5). u Moreover, defendants are not the only ones who will be required to litigate their cases more quickly than in the past. In order to achieve the faster disposition of complaint proceedings, the Accelerated Docket will require greater diligence and timeliness of both parties.  X:-x,45.` ` Due process analysis does not turn solely on whether parties face a greater burden than they had before. Rather, the appropriate inquiry is whether a procedural limitation is so severe that a party is prevented from preparing an effective defense. We are aware of no authority, and the commenters cite none, holding that an expedited procedure of the type that we implement today amounts to a denial of due process. Commenters merely  X-raise general assertions about the inadequacy of the shortened answer period.w S&-ԍSee, e.g., Bell Atlantic Comments at 7; Cincinnati Bell Comments at 7; GTE Comments at 8. Only SBC attempts to cite specific legal authority to support its due process argument, and it relies  X-principally on a decision from 1900 that is plainly inapposite.x( Sr"-ԍIn support of its due process argument, Ameritech cites a number of cases. See Ameritech Comments at 8 n.9. However, none of them addresses the specific question of whether an"$$w0*%%b#"  Sh-adjudicatory process that operates on a shortened timeframe, like that created here, per se violates due process.  In Roller v. Holly>y S-ԍ176 U.S. 398 (1900). > the"y0*%%ZZ3" Court found a denial of due process when a summons directed the recipient in Virginia to appear in a Texas court five days later to defend himself. The Court did not hold that, as an absolute matter, five days was too little time to respond effectively to process of the type involved in that case. Rather, the Court relied on the fact that the trip from Virginia to Texas would require four of the five available days and the respondent would have had only one day in which to prepare his case. The Court emphasized that the adequacy of a response period turned on whether it permitted a defendant sufficient time "to prepare his defense and  X_-for his journey.";z_ S -ԍId. at 409. ;  X1-x-46.` ` We find the Roller decision, written in the era before commercial automobiles, airplanes, facsimile machines and email, to be of no probity in evaluating the propriety of a 10day answer period nearly 100 years later. Defendants on the Accelerated Docket will have the full tenday answer period, as well as the prefiling period, to conduct their investigation and prepare their answer. Accordingly, we believe that the answer period we adopt for the  X -Accelerated Docket is adequate.{N \ S-ԍWe have not conducted an extensive survey of the procedural rules of the various state commissions; however, we note that Illinois has adopted a time cycle for complaints before its state commission that is at least as expedited as that which we announce today. Illinois law governing carrierrelated complaints provides for an answer period of only seven days and affords defendants  S--prefiling notice of only 48 hours. See Ill. Legis. Serv. P.A. 90574 (H.B. 263) (amending 220 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13515(c), (d)(4)). It permits discovery requests to be served with the complaint and  S-requires responses to such requests within fourteen days. Id. (amending 220 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13515(d)(3)). Moreover, the Illinois legislation requires the hearing itself to begin 30 days after the  S-complaint has been served. Id. (amending 220 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13515(d)(7)). The very short deadlines in the Illinois statute lend additional support to our conclusion that the answer period and, more generally, the time table that we adopt for Accelerated Docket proceedings are reasonable.   X- IV.xDiscovery  Xd-x.47.` ` The Public Notice sought comment on a variety of issues surrounding the  XO-conduct of discovery in an expedited process like that proposed for the Accelerated Docket.K|Or Sr$-ԍPublic Notice at 4,  3. K "O|0*%%ZZ"  X-The Public Notice stated that discovery on the Accelerated Docket generally would be  X-governed by the rules promulgated with the First Report & Order. It inquired, however, whether parties to Accelerated Docket proceedings should be required automatically to produce documents that bear the appropriate relevance relationship to the issues in the complaint proceeding, and it asked when such production should take place. Furthermore the  X-Public Notice sought comment on whether the parties should be required to submit all discovery requests and disputes to the responsible staff in advance of the initial status conference, discussed below, so that the staff could issue its decision on these matters at the  XN-status conference, after consultation with the parties. The Public Notice also asked what measures would be appropriate sanctions for parties that failed to provide discovery as ordered.  X - xA.` ` Timing of Automatic Document Production  X -x/48.DOC PRO BEGIN` ` Commenters display a wide range of reactions to the proposal regarding timing  X -of automatic document production.b}  S(-ԍCompare SBC Comments at 9 (proposed schedule offers "no reasonable opportunity for any type of discovery process"), Ameritech Comments at 18 (only limited interrogatories possible in a  S-sixtyday complaint process), and Cincinnati Bell Comments at 4 (extremely difficult to conduct  S-meaningful discovery within proposed timeframe); with ICG Comments at 5 (supporting requirement  S-that all relevant documents be produced when complaint and answer are filed), and RCN Comments at 4 (same). b Several comments support requiring that parties on the Accelerated Docket produce to their opponents some universe of discoverable documents at  X-the time that they file their initial pleadings.a~ S-ԍSee, e.g., ICG Comments at 5; RCN Comments at 4. a These commenters note that the prefiling settlement discussions will afford both sides advance notice of the issues likely to arise in an action even before the complaint is filed. Accordingly, commenters assert that both parties will have an adequate opportunity to gather and produce the appropriate documents with their initial pleadings.  X-x049.` ` On the other hand, several commenters vigorously assert that it will be impossible for defendants in complaint actions to comply with a rule requiring the automatic production of documents with an answer that is due less than 20 days after the filing of a  X-complaint.J S!-ԍSee, e.g., SBC Comments at 9; Ameritech Comments at 18; Cincinnati Bell Comments at 4. Indeed, some of these commenters assert that the 20day answer period  X-established in the First Report & Order is workable only because defendants may produce an" 0*%%ZZ"  X-inventory of documents with their answer, rather than producing the documents themselves.T Sy-ԍSee, e.g., Ameritech Comments at 22. T Additionally, one commenter opposing production of documents with initial pleadings asserts that such a rule would unfairly burden defendants because complainants would be able take their time assembling their documents before they initiate a complaint proceeding, while defendants would be required to perform the same task during the abbreviated period of time  X-before their answer is due.Sj S-ԍSee, e.g., BellSouth Comments at 9. S As an extension of this argument, SBC points out that, during the time that defendants would be required to assemble documents for production, they would  X_-also have to be conducting several other tasks relating to the preparation of their answers.P_  S -ԍSee SBC Comments at 4, 10. P  X1-x150.` ` After review of the comments relating to the timing of document discovery on the Accelerated Docket, we conclude that a rule requiring the production of the most central, but not all relevant, documents with the complaint and answer is most likely to lead to the realization of our goal of creating a docket that is both effective and faster than the current system for adjudicating complaints. As several commenters note, during the supervised prefiling discussions, parties to a complaint proceeding will gain detailed notice of the facts and  X -legal issues involved in a case.M  S-ԍSee, e.g., MCI Comments at 9. M Thus, defendants will have more opportunity to assemble the appropriate documents than would be afforded by the answer period alone.  Xb-x251.` ` Furthermore, we believe that the production of documents we require by today's rules actually may make the document portion of the discovery process demand less  X4-of the parties' time and move more quickly than the process in the First Report & Order, which requires that parties provide their opponents with an index giving substantial  X-information about each discoverable document.eP S -ԍSeeĠ47 C.F.R.  1.721(a)(10)(ii), 1.724(f)(2). e First, the rule of automatic production which we adopt today for the Accelerated Docket will obviate the need for a party seeking a particular document to go through the process of requesting it after reviewing the document  X-index that forms a part of the information designation under the First Report & Order. Second, descriptions of documents, even when prepared in the best of faith, will inevitably inject a subjective component into the discovery process which, in turn, may lead to timeconsuming disputes about the discoverability or importance of certain items. By contrast, we believe that requiring production of the actual documents should reduce the uncertainty and disputes that may arise from the creation of a description of each document. Third, contrary"R0*%%ZZ" to the assertion of certain commenters, we believe that parties will expend markedly fewer resources in assembling and producing the appropriate documents than they would in  X-assembling the documents and then preparing the detailed index required under the First  X-Report & Order. Thus, our rule for the Accelerated Docket requiring automatic production of documents meeting the appropriate standard will likely increase the speed and effectiveness of the discovery that each party obtains.  Xc- xB.` ` Content of Automatic Document Production  X5-x352.` ` The Public Notice also sought comment on what standard should be adopted to  X -guide the automatic production of documents on the Accelerated Docket.O  S -ԍSee Public Notice at 4,  3. O It asked whether parties should produce all documents relevant to the issues raised in the complaint, or whether we should adopt a standard requiring some closer relationship to the issues in the action. In  X -particular, the Public Notice suggested the possibility of using the standard in the local rule governing automatic disclosure in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. This standard requires the automatic production, early in the discovery phase, of "all documents, data compilations, and tangible things in the possession, custody, or control of the  X-party that are likely to bear significantly on any claim or defense."Tj S-ԍE.D. Tex. R. 26(c)(1)(B) (emphasis added). T The court defines this  Xl-standard as requiring, inter alia, production of information that "would not support the disclosing parties' contentions," that is "likely to have an influence on or affect the outcome of a claim or defense," or that "competent counsel would consider reasonably necessary to  X)-prepare, evaluate or try a claim or defense."@)  S-ԍId. R. 26(c)(3). @  X-x453.` ` A substantial majority of commenters assert that the parties' automatic production with their initial pleadings should include all documents relevant to the issues in the complaint proceeding. These commenters express a variety of concerns about the "likely to bear" standard. They assert that it is too vague effectively to guide the parties' production efforts and therefore would be open to strategic application by counsel seeking to avoid the  X-production of damaging documents.g S -ԍSee, e.g., Ameritech Comments at 23; RCN Comments at 4. g In light of the asserted vagueness, commenters also  Xq-argue that the standard would be difficult for the Commission to enforce effectively.TqN Sp#-ԍSee, e.g.,Ameritech Comments at 23. T Ameritech argues that, by requiring parties to determine what documents might be damaging"Z0*%%ZZ" to their cases, the "likely to bear" standard improperly would impinge on the protections of  X-the attorneyclient privilege and the workproduct doctrine.S Sb-ԍSee Ameritech Comments at 23. S By contrast, Teligent asserts that routinely requiring production of the broader category of relevant documents will permit parties to dump on their opponents quantities of documents that are too great to be reviewed  X-within the time constraints of the Accelerated Docket.Qj S-ԍSee Teligent Comments at 5. Q Because of this difficulty, Teligent  X-argues that document production should be available upon request, but not automatically.6  SJ -ԍSee id. 6  X_-x554.` ` After review and consideration of the various comments regarding the appropriate standard, we have determined that, on the Accelerated Docket, the parties' automatic document production will be governed by the "likely to bear" standard proposed in  X -the Public Notice. Thus, at the time the parties file their initial pleadings in an Accelerated Docket proceeding, they will be required to produce to each other all documents, data compilations, and tangible things "in the possession, custody, or control of the party that are  X -likely to bear significantly on any claim or defense."O  S6-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.729(i)(1). O This standard will include materials: (1) that would not support the disclosing party's contentions; (2) that are likely to have an influence on or affect the outcome of a claim or defense; (3) that reflect the relevant knowledge of persons who, if their potential testimony were known, might reasonably be expected to be deposed or called as a witness by any of the parties; or (4) that competent  Xf-counsel would consider reasonably necessary to prepare, evaluate or try a claim or defense.qfP Sg-ԍSeeĠAppendix, Rule 1.729(i)(1). Cf. E.D. Tex. R. 26(c)(3). q Fundamentally, if a party would expect to proffer a document at the minitrial as an exhibit in support of its case, the party should produce the document. Similarly, if the party would expect its opponent, if it had the document, to proffer it as an exhibit against the party, the document also should be produced.  X-x655.` ` Despite most commenters' lack of enthusiasm for this standard, we adopt it because we believe that it will lead to the most manageable system for the initial, automatic document productions on the Accelerated Docket. We are not persuaded by the comments asserting that the standard is so vague that it will lend itself to abuse by counsel or that it will be difficult to enforce. As with any standard for document production, including relevance, the "likely to bear" standard requires counsel to apply a set of general rules to decide whether particular documents are subject to production in a certain dispute. We have no reason to"R0*%%ZZ" suspect, nor have the commenters given us any reason to believe, however, that the "likely to bear standard" is any more susceptible to manipulation by counsel than is the relevance standard. Nor does the standard appear to be inherently more difficult for an adjudicator to apply in deciding discovery disputes or imposing sanctions. On the contrary, the "likely to bear" standard, as explicated by the four criteria in our rule, will provide sufficient guidance to both counsel and the members of the Commission staff charged with applying it. For instance, if a document undermines a party's contention in a complaint proceeding, it is subject to production under this standard. By the same token, if it appears to counsel that competent counsel representing her opponent would consider a document of substantial importance in evaluating, preparing or trying some aspect of the opponent's case, the document is similarly subject to production.  X -x756.` ` What we envision this standard as likely to avoid is the production of every single document that is relevant, even if only tenuously so, to the issues in a complaint proceeding. We believe that the parties' needs for discovery would be poorly served by a rule requiring such broad production in a process that runs as quickly as the new docket will. This is especially true when, as with the Accelerated Docket, an overly voluminous document production might allow the producing party effectively to hide damaging documents in a welter of marginally relevant material. We are hopeful that the "likely to bear" standard will focus both parties' production efforts on the documents of core relevance to a particular proceeding. Thus, it should reduce the volume of documents produced by each side and ensure that the party receiving a production will be able fully to review the material in the time available in Accelerated Docket proceedings. Additionally, if a party learns of documents that appear to be significant but were not in the automatic production it received, the party may request, at the initial status conference, the production of additional  X-documents.{ S:-ԍSee infra,  SUBSEQUENT REQUEST75; Appendix, Rule 1.733(i)(4). {  X-x857.` ` We are not persuaded that the standard that we adopt for automatic document production on the Accelerated Docket will improperly impinge on either the parties' attorney Xe-client privilege or on the protection accorded to attorney work product.Mej S-ԍCf. Ameritech Comments at 23. M This standard will require those assembling material for production honestly to evaluate each document's relationship to the issues in the proceeding. It will require counsel to bear in mind the claims and defenses raised in the action and to determine each document's logical relationship to those issues. It will not, however, require a description by counsel or the producing party of why it views a document as being subject to production. Thus it will neither cause the disclosure of attorneyclient confidences, nor will it reveal attorney work product. Our  X -conviction in this regard is heightened by the fact that, as noted in the Public Notice, the U.S." 0*%%ZZ" District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has imposed the "likely to bear" standard in connection with the automatic, initial disclosure requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Indeed, that court initially implemented the standard as part of a pilot program of  X-procedural reforms, but has since adopted it as part of the permanent local rules. S4-ԍCompare E.D. Tex. Civ. Justice Expense & Delay Reduction Plan, art. II  1(a)(ii) with E.D. Tex. R. 26(c)(1)(B), 26(c)(3). Nevertheless, in light of the substantial opposition to the "likely to bear" standard, the staff administering the docket will monitor closely the proceedings in which it is applied to ensure against its abuse. If necessary, at a later date, we may refine or modify the standard to ensure fair and expeditious completion of the initial document production on the Accelerated Docket.  X -x958.DOC PRO END` ` We note that, both with their initial document productions and subsequent productions that may be ordered, parties may have occasion to produce documents for which they wish to request confidential treatment. Production of such documents shall be made in  X -accordance with Rule 1.731.: B S-ԍ47 C.F.R. 1.731. : In the rare case in which a producing party believes that Rule 1.731 will not provide adequate protection for its assertedly confidential material, it may request either that the opposing party consent to greater protection, or that the staff supervising the proceeding order greater protection.  Xb-H xC.` ` Depositions and Other Discovery  X4-x:59.DEPS AVAILABLEWITNESS BAR` ` As indicated in the Public Notice,Q4 S-ԍPublic Notice at 4,  3. Q we also contemplate that, in many instances, parties to Accelerated Docket proceedings will have the opportunity to deposeH certain key witnesses who have personal knowledge of the relevant issues in dispute. We believe that a limited number of depositions in proceedings on this docket will serve our goal of ensuring that the parties fully may develop their cases so that staff decisions in the proceedings will be both fully informed and rendered with the speed that a complete record allows. In order to facilitate the scheduling of such depositions within the time constraints of the Accelerated Docket, we believe that, as suggested by MCI, parties should be required to exchange information about individuals with knowledge relevant to the issues of a  Xg-proceeding.Gg S"-ԍSee MCI Comments at 10. G It appears that this exchange of witness information will be accomplished most effectively through the use of the information designation set out in the rules accompanying"P!&0*%%ZZ"  X-the First Report & Order.^ Sy-ԍSeeĠ47 C.F.R.  1.721(a)(10), 1.724(f). ^ Thus, while the automatic document production discussed above will take the place of that portion of the information designation that calls for a description of relevant documents, we require that parties on the Accelerated Docket provide, with their initial pleadings, a designation containing the name, address, and position of each individual believed to have firsthand knowledge of the facts alleged with particularity in its pleading, along with a general description of the relevant facts within any such individual's  Xx-knowledge.dxj S -ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  1.721(a)(10)(i), 1.724(f)(1). d Alternatively, this designation may refer to the paragraph numbers of the appropriate pleading as a means of describing the scope of an individual's knowledge. As discussed below, in its filings before the initial status conference, a party may request approval to conduct the depositions of individuals with knowledge relevant to a complaint  X -proceeding, including those individuals listed in an opponent's information designation;t  S-ԍSee infra  REQUEST DEPS75; Appendix, Rule 1.733(i)(4). t in their prestatusconference filings, parties also may request additional document production or,  X -where appropriate, interrogatories.U  SM-ԍSee infra  INTERROGS62. U We expect that, where the requested discovery is reasonable and consistent with the applicable time constraints, staff will be inclined to grant it. In order to ensure diligence and completeness in each party's designation of individuals with relevant knowledge, no party, absent a showing of good cause, will be permitted to call as a witness at a minitrial, or otherwise offer evidence from, any individual in that party's employ who does not appear on the party's information designation with a general description  Xd-of the issues on which the individual will offer evidence.MdP Se-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.730(g)(4).M  X6-x;60.` ` Additionally, we note that parties may wish, in some instances, to rely on expert testimony in Accelerated Docket proceedings. As with fact witnesses, it is important that parties have an opportunity to explore the substance of, and the basis for, expert testimony offered by an opponent. Given the rapid pace of Accelerated Docket proceedings, however, it will be necessary for such witnesses to be identified, and for the substance of their testimony to be disclosed, as quickly as possible. A complainant who plans to introduce expert evidence for a purpose other than to rebut the defendant's expert evidence will be required to identify the witness or witnesses in the information designation accompanying its""0*%%ZZQ"  X-complaint.: Sy-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.729(i)(4)(i). We believe that disclosure, during the prefiling phase, of a party's intent to rely on expert testimony and the substance of that testimony may well increase the chances of reaching a negotiated resolution to a dispute. However, we have chosen not to mandate such disclosure because of our concern that prefiling discussions proceed quickly and on a relatively informal basis.  In addition to identifying its expert witness, complainants also will be required to provide, at the time they file their complaint, a brief statement of the opinions to be expressed by the expert, the basis and reasons therefor and any data or other information that the witness considered in forming her opinions, as is required in Federal Rule of Civil  X-Procedure 26(a)(2)(B).R S -ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.729(i)(4)(i). R  Xv-x<61.` ` We require that defendants who intend to rely on expert testimony identify  X_-their experts at the time that they file their answer.S_l S|-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.729(i)(4)(ii). S Defendants shall also disclose the other material relating to their expert witnesses that is required of complainants; however this disclosure may be made in the defendant's filing that is due two days before the initial status  X -conference.   S-ԍSee id. See also id, Rule 1.733(i)(4) (governing prestatusconference filing). If a complainant chooses to rely on previously unidentified experts to rebut any portion of the defendant's case, the complainant shall identify such experts and make the  X -other required disclosures about their testimony at the initial status conference.T  SM-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.729(i)(4)(iii). T By the end of the initial status conference, the parties will have provided full disclosure of any expert testimony on which they intend to rely, and they will be in a position to seek staff approval to depose expert witnesses from whom they may want additional discovery.  Xy-x=62.INTERROGS` ` In light of the numerous tasks that the parties will be required to complete at the beginning of Accelerated Docket proceedings, we see no purpose to routinely allowing the service of interrogatories before the initial status conference. Responding to interrogatories at the initial phase of an Accelerated Docket proceeding might well be difficult for parties that already will have other discovery and pleading requirements that they must meet. Moreover, we believe that interrogatories would be of limited utility in a process that will offer parties substantially more detailed discovery through document production and depositions. Accordingly, the rules that we adopt today provide that parties to Accelerated Docket proceedings may propound interrogatories only after the initial status conference and with the"#R 0*%%ZZ"  X-permission of the staff supervising the proceeding.O Sy-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.729(i)(3). O At the initial status conference, when the parties request leave to take depositions or request additional document production, they may also seek staff approval to serve a limited number of interrogatories on their opponent. The decision of whether to permit such interrogatories shall be within the discretion of the staff administering the proceeding; however, where the request is reasonable, we expect that staff will be inclined to grant it.  X_- xD.` ` Sanctions  X1-x>63.` ` The Public Notice also sought comment on what types of sanctions would be appropriate for parties who had failed to comply with their discovery obligations in  X -Accelerated Docket proceedings.K j S -ԍPublic Notice at 4,  3. K In a process that will move at the pace of the Accelerated Docket, it will be crucial that staff be able effectively to compel prompt action and adherence to its discovery orders. Without such sanction authority, a recalcitrant party likely would be able to delay a proceeding enough that many of the docket's projected benefits would vanish.  X-x?64.` ` Many commenters recognize the importance, and support the availability, of  X{-sanctions to enforce discovery obligations on the Accelerated Docket.{  S8-ԍSee, e.g., Cincinnati Bell Comments at 6; ICG Comments at 5; RCN Comments at 56; Sprint Comments at 45; WorldCom Comments at 7. Commenters offered diverse suggestions for appropriate sanctions. Some suggest that discovery violations be met with findings against the recalcitrant party on factual issues relating to the information that  X6-was improperly withheld or delayed.Y6 Sm-ԍSee, e.g., Cincinnati Bell Comments at 6. Y Sprint suggests the more severe sanction of dismissal of a complaint or default judgment against the party who has failed to fulfill its discovery  X-obligations.I( S-ԍSee Sprint Comments at 5. I One commenter even supports the announcement and imposition of monetary  X-penalties for discovery violations.K  Sl -ԍSee WorldCom Comments at 7. K Finally, RCN advocates a presumption in favor of sanctions so that a violating party would be required to show cause why it should not be  X-sanctioned for a particular violation.Ll  S#-ԍSee RCN Comments at 56.L x"$ 0*%%ZZ"Ԍ X-x@65.` ` We strongly believe that swift and effective sanctions will be necessary to ensure against attempts to prolong Accelerated Docket proceedings through discovery delay or abuse. Appropriate sanctions should also deter attempts to affect the substance of proceedings by improperly withholding information. Parenthetically, we note that attempts to hide damaging information in an unnecessarily voluminous production also amount to discovery abuse and may draw sanction. The appropriate sanction for a discovery violation necessarily depends heavily on the facts of the particular situation in which it occurs. It therefore is difficult to establish prospectively the precise facts under which a certain sanction may be available. Rather, we believe it will encourage the parties' strict compliance with discovery obligations for us to grant the staff administering the Accelerated Docket broad discretion to respond to discovery violations with the sanction that it deems to be appropriate. Thus, the staff may choose to deny or limit the discovery requests of a party that has failed to make discovery in compliance with the applicable rules and orders. Or it may choose to exclude from presentation at the minitrial some portion of the evidence to be offered by a  X -recalcitrant party.  S7-ԍSee Paradigm Sales, Inc v. Weber Marking Systems, 880 F.Supp. 1247 (N.D. Ind. 1995) (prohibiting presentation of witness or use of documents at trial if they were not disclosed under automatic disclosure provision).  For example, as noted above, absent a showing of good cause, the staff will not permit a party to present evidence from a witness in the party's employ if the witness has not been appropriately designated as an individual with relevant knowledge at the time of  Xy-the party's initial pleading.Oy SD-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.730(g)(4). O Similarly, the Commission staff would be within its discretion to exclude evidence on a certain issue as a sanction for a discovery violation. In other cases staff might choose to grant either dismissal or default judgment as a sanction for a violation. It could grant such summary disposition on either a single claim or a group of claims. Indeed, disposition of an entire proceeding may even be appropriate for especially serious  X-abuses.)> Ss-ԍSee BankAtlantic v. Blythe Eastman Paine Webber, Inc., 12 F.3d 1045 (11th Cir. 1994);  SM-Woodstock Ventures v. Perry, 164 F.R.D. 321, 32223 (N.D.N.Y. 1996); Davies v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1161 (10th Cir. 1981) (default as sanction for failure to respond to interrogatories was  S-appropriate); Payne v. Exxon Corp., 121 F.3d 503 (9th Cir. 1997) (upholding district court order dismissing plaintiff's claims for failure to comply with discover orders).) Finally, we note that, under section 503(b),M  Sy -ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(1). M the Commission retains the authority to impose forfeitures as a means of enforcing its rules and orders.  X-xA66.` ` We believe that there may be circumstances in which a party's failure to comply with discovery orders may be due to circumstances beyond its control. We therefore"%d 0*%%ZZ4" decline to create the presumption, suggested by RCN, that all discovery violations will be  X-subject to sanction.H Sb-ԍSee RCN Comments at 56. H Nevertheless, we expect parties on the Accelerated Docket to be  X-diligent in complying with their discovery obligations. Contrary to Ameritech's assertion,Kj S-ԍSee Ameritech Comments at 25.K we do not believe that inadvertent discovery violations will be commonplace on the Accelerated Docket. Throughout the initial phases of proceedings on the new docket, the responsible staff will be available to respond to discovery questions that the parties may have. Moreover, the discovery rules we adopt today are neither difficult to understand nor markedly different from the rules governing such matters in other forums. We therefore expect that truly inadvertent violations will be exceedingly rare. The majority of violations therefore likely will open the recalcitrant party to some combination of the above sanctions.  X - V.xStatus Conferences  X -xB67.` ` The Public Notice sought comment on the timing and content requirements for  X -the initial status conference in the Accelerated Docket proceedings.I  S}-ԍPublic Notice at 5,  6.I It proposed that, to accommodate the time constraints of the Accelerated Docket, the initial conference take place 15 calendar days after the filing of the complaint and that the parties be required to meet before the conference to discuss a variety of issues to be covered at the conference, including  Xd-issues in dispute and questions of discovery and scheduling.1d S-ԍId.1 It also proposed that the parties be required to draft a joint statement summarizing the issues on which they agreed and their remaining disputes, and to submit the statement to the Commission two days before the  X-initial status conference.1P S -ԍId.1  X- xA.` ` Timing of Initial Status Conference  X-xC68.` ` Several commenters support the proposed timing of the initial status  X-conference.z SO"-ԍSee, e.g., WorldCom Comments at 8; Sprint Comments at 7; MCI Comments at 11.z Others contend that fifteen days after the filing of the complaint is too little time to accomplish the various tasks that must be completed before the conference. For example, some commenters argue, before the conference, counsel and certain corporate"~& 0*%%ZZP" personnel likely will have to resolve scheduling conflicts in order to accommodate the  X-schedule of the complaint proceeding.W Sb-ԍSee, e.g., Cincinnati Bell Comments at 8.W Additionally, both sides will have to be able to review and analyze their opponent's automatic document production before they will be able to conduct the meetings necessary to reach agreement on the relevant legal issues and  X-questions of fact.j S-ԍSee Cincinnati Bell Comments at 8, SBC Comments at 1617, Ameritech Comments at 3233.  Xv-xD69.` ` After careful consideration of the comments on this issue, we modify our proposed schedule and direct that the initial status conference in Accelerated Docket  XH-proceedings will take place ten calendar days after the answer is due to be filed.OH S -ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.733(i)(1). O This will place the conference twenty days after the service of the complaint, rather than fifteen as  X -proposed in the Public Notice. We recognize that this interval of time will require that counsel and parties work with substantial diligence and efficiency. However, we view this short time period as necessary to effectuate the speedy adjudication of disputes that is our main goal for the Accelerated Docket. Here again, we note that the staff's broad discretion in choosing which disputes to accept onto the Accelerated Docket will help guard against many of the difficulties that commenters envision as arising from the brief time before the initial status conference. The staff administering the docket will be able to consider the volume and  X{-complexity of the material likely to be subject to automatic production in a dispute.O{ S-ԍSeeĠAppendix, Rule 1.730(e)(3). O If this material appears to be so voluminous as to make it impossible for either party to comply with the time restrictions of the Accelerated Docket, the staff may simply decline to accept the matter onto the docket. Additionally, we believe that the requirement for supervised prefiling settlement discussions should further ease counsel's task in preparing for the initial  X-status conference.|( S-ԍSee supra,  PREFILING BEGIN25 PREFILING END30. | From these discussions, both parties will have extensive information about the other side's position in the dispute, and this information should simplify the task of preparing for the initial conference. "' 0*%%ZZ"Ԍ X- xB.` ` Issues to Be Addressed At Initial Status Conference  X-xE70.` ` The Public Notice proposed that, before the status conference, the parties meet and confer about a variety of issues, including settlement prospects, discovery, issues in  X-dispute, stipulations, and a schedule for the remainder of the proceeding. S-ԍPublic Notice at 5,  6. See First Report & Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22559,  145 (establishing meet and confer requirement in formal complaints proceedings). It also proposed that, before the status conference, the parties report jointly in writing to the Commission about the results of their discussions on these issues, including disputed and stipulated facts,  Xa-and key legal issues.aB ST -ԍPublic Notice at 5,  6. See First Report & Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22602, 03, 258260 (establishing similar reporting requirements in formal complaints proceedings).  X3-xF71.` ` Commenters generally favor the proposed substance and structure of the initial  X -status conference.  S-ԍSee, e.g., WorldCom Comments at 9; TRA Comments at 15; RCN Comments at 7; USTA Comments at 8; Sprint Comments at 7; MCI Comments at 11. Some commenters suggest, however, that the parties be allowed to file separate statements concerning facts and issues in dispute should they be unable to agree on a  X -joint statement.O 6 S-ԍSee RCN Comments at 7; TRA at 15.O One commenter also urges that we allow parties to confer by phone for  X -purposes of these meetings.E  S`-ԍSee TRA Comments at 15.E Finally, certain parties are concerned they may not be able  X -adequately to prepare the necessary submissions under the proposed schedule. z  S-ԍSee Cincinnati Bell Comments at 8, SBC Comments at 1617, Ameritech Comments at 3233.  X-xG72.` ` We believe that early discussion of the specific facts in dispute will assist the parties in focusing on the issues of central relevance to the proceeding; it is therefore critical to the overall success of the Accelerated Docket. However, we are somewhat persuaded by comments that it may be difficult and unnecessarily timeconsuming for parties to negotiate a joint statement on all issues discussed before the status conference, particularly the facts and legal questions in dispute. Additionally, because the parties will have extensively explored settlement prospects during the mandatory prefiling discussions, we question the utility of explicitly requiring further settlement negotiations and a report on them before the status conference. Finally, we think it important for the staff to maintain close control over the progress of Accelerated Docket proceedings. An important means of ensuring such control is"( 0*%%ZZ" to require staff approval of all discovery beyond the automatic production of documents with the parties' initial pleadings. Accordingly, we expect each party to come to the status conference prepared to justify any additional discovery that it may wish to conduct. It will speed this process for the parties to have agreed to the discovery each will allow the other to take. However, even when parties have reached agreement on discovery issues, the party seeking discovery should be prepared to justify to the staff the discovery for which it seeks approval. Consistent with our view of the importance of discovery in this process, staff will be inclined to grant such requests that are reasonable and meet the applicable timing constraints.  X -xH73.` ` We therefore require that, before the initial status conference, the parties discuss, and attempt to reach agreement on, discovery issues and the factual issues to which they can stipulate; they shall submit to the staff, two business days before the initial conference, a listing of these stipulations and the discovery issues on which they have reached  X -agreement.T  S7-ԍSeeĠAppendix, Rule 1.733(i)(2), (3). T Parties may conduct these meetings either in person or by telephone conference  X -call.O j S-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.733(i)(2). O We encourage parties to submit, with their stipulations and discovery agreements, a joint list of facts in dispute and legal issues. However, we realize that, given the brief time available for preconference discussions, the parties may be unable to agree to a joint statement covering all of these topics. If the parties are unable to agree on such a joint  XK-statement, they may submit separate statements of disputed factual and legal issues.OK  S-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.733(i)(4). O Whether these statements are submitted jointly or separately, they will be due, with the stipulations and agreed discovery, two business days before the initial status conference.  X-xI74.` ` Additionally, the complainant's submission before the initial status conference shall respond, as appropriate, to any affirmative defenses that the defendant may have raised  X-in its answer.] S -ԍSee Appendix, Rules 1.726(g)(1), 1.733(i)(4). ] We believe that, given the constraints of the Accelerated Docket, it will be more efficient to require a complainant to respond to affirmative defenses in this manner than it would be to provide for the filing of a separate reply.  Xe-xJ75.REQUEST DEPSSUBSEQUENT REQUEST` ` At the initial status conference, the responsible staff will review the parties' disputed and stipulated issues of fact. Based on the factual issues that appear from this material, the staff will determine what additional discovery, beyond the initial disclosures, the parties may take. Thus, at the status conference, parties should be prepared to demonstrate" )P0*%%ZZ" specifically how the discovery they seek relates to particular issues in dispute. As we note  X-above,Z Sb-ԍSee supra  DEPS AVAILABLE59. Z the discovery that the staff may grant at this status conference includes depositions and additional document production. Indeed, in light of the relative efficiency of depositions as a discovery tool, we expect that the staff typically will grant a limited number of depositions appropriate to the issues in, and complexity of, a particular case. Given the truncated nature of the Accelerated Docket, we believe that interrogatories will be of limited usefulness. However, at the initial conference, the staff may grant permission to propound interrogatories if it appears that they will function as an effective alternative to some other  XH-form of more timeconsuming discovery.qHj Sc -ԍSee supra  INTERROGS62; Appendix, Rule 1.729(i)(3). q As noted elsewhere, where discovery requests are reasonable, we expect that staff will be inclined to grant them.  X -xK76.` ` At the initial status conference, the Commission staff also will establish a schedule for the remainder of the proceeding, setting the deadlines for completion of discovery, the prehearing submissions discussed below, the minitrial and any posthearing submissions.  X-xL77.` ` Commenters also raise the issue of whether a defendant in an Accelerated Docket proceeding should be required to post a bond or to escrow funds to cover potential  Xb-damages. Under the First Report & Order, the Commission may order a defendant who has lost the liability phase of a bifurcated proceeding to post a bond or escrow funds pending  X6-resolution of damages issues.6  S-ԍFirst Report & Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22585,  206 (establishing factors Commission shall  S-examine in determining whether funds should be escrowed). See also 47 C.F.R.  1.722(d)(2). One commenter here recommends that, at the initial status conference on the Accelerated Docket, the responsible staff member should determine whether  X-to require a bond or escrow.> SA-ԍCompTel Comments at 7.> Another commenter asserts that the speed of Accelerated  X-Docket proceedings will make bonds or escrows unnecessary.=( S-ԍSBC Comments at 18. = We decline to modify the  X-escrow rules issued with the First Report & Order. The staff administering the Accelerated  X-Docket will retain the same discretion as staff does under the First Report & Order to require a defendant that has been found liable to post a bond or escrow funds pending a determination of damages. "* 0*%%ZZ2"Ԍ X- VI.xMinitrials  X-xM78.MINITRIAL BEGIN` ` The Public NoticeĠsought comment on one of the unique characteristics under consideration for the Accelerated Docket, a hearingtype proceeding or "minitrial" to be  X-conducted during each action.K S-ԍPublic Notice at 3,  2. K The notice stated that such a proceeding likely would offer certain advantages over the allpaper proceeding currently used for formal complaints. It noted that, given the need for dispatch on the Accelerated Docket, the minitrial likely would  Xa-occur between 40 and 45 days after the filing of a complaint. Furthermore, the Public Notice stated that, in order to expedite these minitrials, consideration was being given to allotting to each party a set amount of time in which to present its case.  X - xA.` ` Utility of Minitrial Process  X -xN79.` ` Many commenters indicate their support for minitrials at the end of Accelerated  X -Docket proceedings. j S-ԍSee, e.g., ATULong Distance Comments at 12; CompTel Comments at 4; MCI Comments at 7; RCN Comments at 3; Teligent Comments at 4; WorldCom Comments at 6. Their comments state the belief that live proceedings will improve the quality of the administrative record by allowing counsel and the decision maker to elicit more  X-detailed information on factual issues.] S)-ԍSee, e.g., ATULong Distance Comments at 12. ] Additionally, commenters agree that the decision maker's opportunity to observe live testimony likely will allow better credibility  Xf-determinations than typically are possible in paper proceedings.Qf S-ԍSee, e.g., CompTel Comments at 4. Q One commenter asserts that minitrials will allow parties to present their cases more quickly and efficiently than they  X8-can through briefs.Z8( S-ԍSee ATULong Distance Comments at 2 & n.2. Z On the other hand, some commenters oppose minitrials, arguing that it will not be possible to prepare for such a proceeding in the short time available on the  X -Accelerated Docket.M   S-ԍSee, e.g., GTE Comments at 8. M GTE asserts that the Public Notice fails to provide a sufficient reason for moving away from the paper process that has characterized formal complaints in the  X-past.6l  S"-ԍSee id. 6 Another commenter complains of the travelrelated expense that the minitrial process"+ 0*%%ZZ" will create for parties who are located a substantial distance from the Commission's offices in  X-Washington, D.C.R Sb-ԍSee Cincinnati Bell Comments at 8. R  X-xO80.` ` We strongly believe that minitrials held at the end of Accelerated Docket proceedings will substantially increase the quality and clarity of the record on which complaints are decided. As commenters note, live testimony will permit Commission staff to gauge credibility in a manner that is impossible in paper proceedings. Furthermore, live testimony will allow the parties and the decision maker to flesh out both factual and legal issues in a way that cannot be accomplished within the static limitations of an allpaper process. It goes without saying that direct and cross examination of a witness on a factual question will afford a more complete record than will even a series of affidavits submitted by a party seeking to establish a proposition. This is especially true for the complex, technical issues that often arise in disputes between carriers. Similarly, the give and take of argument possible in a live proceeding necessarily will allow a decision maker to explore the contours of a legal issue more effectively than can occur through briefs themselves. A related benefit of live proceedings is that they will permit the decision maker to focus the parties on those issues that it deems to be central to the dispute; the decision maker will not be required simply to accept the dispute in the posture presented by the parties' briefs.  XK-xP81.` ` One commenter notes that the availability of a minitrial on the Accelerated Docket may also increase parties' satisfaction with the Commission's decision making process  X-by contributing to the feeling that a party has had its day in court.Vj S8-ԍSee ATULong Distance Comments at 12. V A related benefit that we envision as likely to result from minitrials is the direct participation of parties' employees in the adjudicative process. We believe that the experience of testifying during a minitrial may give carriers' employees a more immediate appreciation of their individual roles in effectuating compliance with the Act. Thus, having once been called as a witness to explain their actions, employees whose regular duties may have an impact on their employer's compliance with the Act may be more inclined to consider that impact when executing their daily duties. Indeed, we are hopeful that the prospect alone of being called to account for decisions made during the regular course of their employment may cause a variety of carrier employees more frequently to bear in mind how their actions may affect compliance with the Act. We believe that the minitrial process, as well as the prospect, discussed above, of being  X -deposedZ   S"-ԍSee supra  DEPS AVAILABLE59. Z may give the constraints of the Act a new relevance and immediacy for those whose actions have a direct affect on carriers' compliance with the Act. We believe that this procedure may emphasize the strictures of the Act in a way that cannot be accomplished",0*%%ZZ<" under a paper process in which carrier employees' involvement with the process typically is restricted to the preparation of an affidavit to be presented by the carrier's counsel.  X-xQ82.` ` Given the above benefits that we view as likely to arise from minitrials, we believe that, on balance, the advantages of the process outweigh the drawbacks identified by some commenters. We recognize that preparing for a minitrial to be held 40 days after the filing of a complaint may require counsel for both sides to expend some more effort and time than required to prepare and submit a brief under our general complaint rules. However, this increased burden is justified by the more complete record, and the consequently more informed decision, that likely will emerge from the process. Indeed, to the extent that the live presentation of evidence will ensure high quality decisions in complaint proceedings, it appears that all parties to the process will benefit. Moreover, in those cases when the burden of preparing for a minitrial or the burden of any other portion of the process truly appears to be too great for a party to bear, this may be taken into account when the staff decides whether to admit a proceeding onto the Accelerated Docket. The same is true of the expense posed by the prospect for travel to Washington, D.C., which is identified by another  X-commenter as a drawback of the minitrial process.R S -ԍSee Cincinnati Bell Comments at 8. R  Xb- xB.` ` Structure of Minitrial  X4-xR83.` ` As noted above, the Public Notice inquired about the how the minitrial should be structured. Specifically, it proposed that the minitrial take place between 40 and 45 days after the filing of the complaint and that each side be allotted a specific amount of time in  X-which to present its case.Oj S -ԍSee Public Notice at 3,  2. O We received a variety of comments on several different aspects of the minitrial process.  X-xS84.` ` As noted above, we believe that important benefits will flow from the use of  X-minitrials in Accelerated Docket proceedings. The Public Notice indicates that minitrials will go well beyond the scope of the hearings likely to take place under the normal complaint procedures when the Common Carrier Bureau designates an issue for hearing before an  XR-ALJ.hR  S!-ԍCf. First Report & Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22555,  135. h Within the time limitations discussed below, minitrials will allow parties to Accelerated Docket proceedings to present all aspects of their case to the decision making  X$-authority. As also stated in the Public Notice, the Accelerated Docket minitrials will not be"$-0*%%ZZz"  X-subject to the ontherecord hearing requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.f Sy-ԍSee Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures To Be Followed When Formal Complaints  SS-Are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report & Order, 58 Fed. Reg. 25,569, 8 FCC Rcd 2614, 2625,  S--65 (1993). See also 5 U.S.C.  554. Absent a specific statutory requirement, the APA does not require formal, ontherecord hearings. Section 208 does not impose such a requirement. Nonetheless, where possible, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") will preside at each  X-minitrial.O Sy-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.730(g)(1). O The ALJ or other presiding staff will run the minitrial, administer oaths to witnesses, and will be in charge of the timing system discussed below. Additionally, where an ALJ participates in the minitrial process, he will render any necessary procedural rulings in consultation with the staff member administering the proceeding who also will be present  Xv-during the minitrial.7v S -ԍSee id. 7 Because the staff's prior participation in the proceeding will have given it substantial familiarity with the relevant issues, the Commission staffwill serve as the decision maker in Accelerated Docket proceedings, and it, rather than the ALJ who runs the minitrial, will issue the decision in the proceeding. Notwithstanding the staff's responsibility to render decisions in Accelerated Docket proceedings, we believe that the long experience of ALJs in Commission hearing procedures will suit them well to control the courtroom and move along the minitrial in order to ensure the prompt completion of the process.  X -xT85.` ` Commenters were generally supportive of the proposal to allocate to each party  X -a specific amount of time in which to present their case at the minitrial. : S-ԍSee Ameritech Comments at 1417; MCI Comments at 7; RCN Comments at 3; USTA Comments at 5; WorldCom Comments at 6. Accordingly, the  X-rules we adopt provide for this type of "chessclock" timing method.O  S-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.730(g)(2). O Thus, the ALJ or other Commission personnel who runs the minitrial will deduct from each party's allotment any time that the party's counsel spends examining witnesses, otherwise presenting evidence  XK-or presenting argument. KV  SR-ԍSee, e.g., Reagan W. Simpson & Cynthia A. Leiferman, Innovative Trial Techniques:  S, -Timesaving Litigation Devices or Straight Lines to Disaster, 26 ABA Fall Brief 21, 22 (1996) (noting that "trial by chess clock" is one innovative technique used to streamline trials); Patrick E. Longan,  S!-The Shot Clock Comes to Trial: Time Limits for Federal Civil Trials, 35 Ariz. L. Rev. 663, 664-668  S"-(1993) (time limits on trials are not unusual). Cf. MCI Communications Corp. v. American Tel. &  S#-Tel. Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1170-72 (7th Cir. 1983) (district court did not abuse discretion by placing"j$0*%%#"  Sh-time limits on antitrust trial); McKnight v. General Motors Corp., 908 F.2d 104, 114-15 (7th Cir. 1990) (endorsing "hour glass" method of limiting the length of trial only if limits are not arbitrarily  S-imposed and are not enforced inflexibly). But see Flaminio v. Honda Motor Co., 733 F.2d 463, 473 (7th Cir. 1984) (expressing disapproval of practice of placing rigid hour limits on a trial, but concluding that method of economizing time did not warrant reversal).  Additionally, the ALJ may exercise broad discretion in"K.0*%%ZZI" determining any time penalty or deduction that he deems appropriate for a party who appears  X-intentionally to be slowing the process or attempting to delay its opponent's presentation.O S> -ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.730(g)(2). O This timing method should ensure that minitrials are conducted quickly, in keeping with the goals of the Accelerated Docket, while maintaining fairness and allowing both parties an adequate opportunity to present evidence and argument.  Xv-xU86.` ` Depending on whether they viewed themselves as most likely to be a complainant or a defendant, some commenters asserted that one side or the other should receive more than half of the total time allotted for the minitrial because of the claimed  X1-complexities of presenting their particular side of a dispute.1F S(-ԍSeeĠ ICG Telecom Group Comments at 4; SBC Comments at 8; Cincinnati Bell Telephone comments at 34. We are unpersuaded by this argument and decline to adopt a rule that assumes either side routinely will need more than half of the time allowed for a minitrial. Rather, under the rules that we adopt today, the Commission staff has broad discretion to allocate the amount of time for a minitrial that it believes to be appropriate based on the complexity of the issues and the amount and type of evidence that appears reasonably necessary for an adequate presentation of each party's case. Under the rules, the staff would be within its discretion to assign either side of a particular dispute more than half of the allowed time, but we expect that such instances will be very rare.  XK-xV87.` ` Some commenters also suggest that parties be allowed or required to file written, direct testimony before the beginning of the minitrial so that only cross examination  X-and counsel's argument would take place live during the proceeding.^  S-ԍSee RCN Comments at 7; Teleport Comments at 6. ^ We believe that a decision maker's observation of witness demeanor on direct examination is as important and revealing as it is on cross examination. Similarly, we believe that the filing of written direct testimony often would result in parties burdening the record with unnecessary or irrelevant information that simply would slow down the process of reaching a final decision. Accordingly, we decline to adopt this system for introducing evidence in the Accelerated"/b 0*%%ZZ4" Docket. Both sides shall rely on live, rather than written, presentations of their cases at  X-minitrials.O Sb-ԍSeeĠAppendix, Rule 1.730(g)(2). O We note, however, that the precise format of a party's presentation during a minitrial will be a question on which that party has wide latitude. While we expect that many parties will choose to present witness testimony in support of their cases, nothing in our rules will require such a presentation. Instead, a party might choose to rely on counsel for the presentation of its case. The decision maker necessarily will take the format of a party's case into account in making its findings of fact or credibility determinations. However, apart from refusing the invitation to accept written direct testimony, we decline to impose additional restrictions on the format of parties' presentations during Accelerated Docket minitrials.  X -xW88.` ` It will aid in the efficient completion of minitrials for the parties to have notified each other, in advance, of the exhibits they may introduce and the witnesses they may call during the minitrial. This will allow for the disposition of most objections to exhibits before the beginning of the minitrial so that they will not delay the proceeding. We therefore require that, three days in advance of the scheduled beginning of the minitrial, each party shall serve by hand or facsimile, on all other parties to the proceeding, a copy of their  Xy-exhibits and a list of witnesses that they may call.Oyj S-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.730(g)(3). O The ALJ presiding at the minitrial may then hear and rule on any witness or exhibit objections before the beginning of the hearing itself. As discussed below, relevance rarely will be an appropriate basis for objection during minitrials; we also expect that, owing to the administrative nature of the proceeding, other  X-objections will be minimal.h  S-ԍWe note, however, that, as discussed above at paragraph WITNESS BAR59, absent a showing of good cause, a party will not be permitted to introduce at a minitrial evidence from a witness in that party's employ unless the witness and an adequate description of the issues on which she will testify appeared  Sb-in the information designation accompanying the party's initial pleading. See 47 C.F.R.  S<-1.721(a)(10)(i), 1.724(f)(1) (requirements for information designations); see also Appendix, Rule 1.730(g)(4). h We are hopeful that it will speed the minitrials to provide for the advance disposition of objections in this manner.  X-xX89.` ` One commenter suggests that we apply certain portions of the Federal Rules of Evidence to the minitrial process. Thus, it is argued, we should adopt the Federal Rules' definition of relevance and impose their restrictions on the admissibility of irrelevant evidence"0 0*%%ZZ4"  X-and on the scope of cross examination. Sy-ԍSee Ameritech Comments at 17 (advocating application of Federal Rules of Evidence 40103 and 611(b)). We believe that the minitrial process will function most effectively if, to the greatest extent possible, its conduct is left to the discretion of the ALJ and the staff administering the Accelerated Docket. We therefore decline to adopt the suggested evidentiary rules. Rather, we believe that the strict time limitations under which parties will operate in minitrials should serve to deter and sanction the introduction of extensive amounts of irrelevant material: the introduction of irrelevant evidence merely will  Xv-reduce the time available for other, more pertinent portions of the proponent's case.PvB Si -ԍCf. Ameritech Comments at 17P  XH-xY90.MINITRIAL ENDFINDINGS PARA` ` As we have noted above, we are hopeful that the minitrial process will serve as a more effective and informative alternative to the briefs that typically are filed in complaint proceedings. However, we also believe that it will aid the parties in focusing their presentations, and the responsible staff in promptly rendering a decision, if the parties submit some documentation outlining their arguments. Thus, we require that parties submit proposed  X -findings of fact and conclusions of law two days before the beginning of the minitrial.O  Sj-ԍSeeĠAppendix, Rule 1.730(g)(5). O In length, these shall not exceed 40 pages per party. Additionally, no more than three days after the conclusion of the minitrial, parties may, but are not required to, submit revised proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to respond to evidence and legal argument raised  Xy-during the minitrial.1y S-ԍId.1 This second set of submissions should permit the parties a final opportunity to explain complex technical issues involved in the proceeding and to rebut their  XK-opponents' arguments.DK( S$-ԍCf. GTE Comments at 8.D This second set of submissions shall not exceed 20 pages per party.  X- VII.xDamages  X-xZ91.DAMAGES BEGIN` ` The Public Notice sought comment on limiting the Accelerated Docket to bifurcated liability claims, with damages claims being handled separately under the  X-procedures in the First Report & Order.K  S>"-ԍSee Public Notice at 6, no.7.K The overwhelming majority of commenters"1l 0*%%ZZ"  X-support our proposal,|d Sy-ԍSee Ameritech Comments at 3435; GTE Comments at 1314; MCI Comments at 12; RCN Comments at 8; SBC Comments at 18; Sprint Comments at 7; TRA Comments at 15; USTA  S+-Comments at 8; WorldCom Comments at 9; CompTel Comments at 7. But see ICG Comments at 8 (arguing that cases need not always be bifurcated).| although certain commenters recommend that Commission staff be permitted to determine damages issues on the Accelerated Docket when  X-it appears to be appropriate.X Sw-ԍSee ALTS Comments at 5; ICG Comments at 8.X  X-x[92.` ` As we stated above, the staff administering the docket may consider a complaining party's decision to bifurcate its damages claims from the liability portion of its  Xv-case in determining whether to accept a matter onto the Accelerated Docket.#v S -ԍSee supra,  BIFURCATE19; Appendix, Rule 1.730(d)(3). Naturally, although this decision may affect a party's ability to gain admission to the Accelerated Docket, a complainant remains free to bring its damages claims as it chooses.# We believe that bifurcation of the issues in this manner generally will aid in the decision of complaint proceedings within the expedited timeframe of the new docket. We agree, however, that parties should have the option at least to request adjudication of their damages issues on the  X -Accelerated Docket.k  S-ԍSee MCI Comments at 12. See also ALTS Comments at 5. k Accordingly, the staff administering the docket will retain the discretion to accept a complaint presenting both liability and damages issues. Additionally, a complainant that has prevailed on the question of liability may request Accelerated Docket treatment for its subsequent damages complaint. We agree with the commenters asserting  X -that damages issues should be resolved as quickly as possible after a finding of liability;L  S-ԍSee, e.g., MCI Comments at 12.L however, we decline the invitation to set a deadline for the conclusion of the damages phase  X-when the damages phase is not accepted onto the Accelerated Docket.,  Sm-ԍSee Comptel Comments at 7 (recommending that damages phase be completed within 60 days of the conclusion of the liability portion).  Xb-x\93.DAMAGES END` ` One commenter expresses the concern that injunctive or declaratorytype relief should not necessarily await the conclusion of the damages phase of an Accelerated Docket  X4-proceeding.4 S#-ԍSee USTA Comments at 8.  See also CompTel Comments at 8 ("The Commission clearly has the power to order injunctive relief, whether on a permanent or interim basis."). On the contrary, the routine bifurcation of proceedings on the new docket will"42 0*%%ZZH" not affect the staff's authority to declare a violation of the Act, or a Commission rule or  X-order, when it is presented in a complaint. The First Report & Order discusses certain  X-instances in which the Commission may grant injunctive relief. SM-ԍFirst Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22565,  159. See also General Telephone Co. v.  S'-FCC, 413 F.2d 390 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 888 (1969). In Accelerated Docket proceedings, the staff will have the Commission's full delegated authority to declare violations of the Act, Commission rules or orders, and to impose injunctive relief. The staff will address such requests as appropriate on a casebycase basis. We decline, however, to impose one commenter's suggested requirement that the Commission rule on such requests within  Xa-seven days of the filing of an answer.HaD SV -ԍSee CompTel Comments at 8.H  X3- VIII.xOther Issues  X -x]94.` ` The Public Notice also requested comment on whether it would be necessary to modify any other rules in order to accommodate the time constraints of the Accelerated  X -Docket.I  Sp-ԍPublic Notice at 6,  8.I Commenters have made several recommendations, including that we: (1)limit the effect of Accelerated Docket decisions on future cases; (2)allow compulsory counterclaims to be pursued on the Accelerated Docket; and (3) issue a formal notice of proposed rulemaking in this proceeding.  Xf-x^95.` ` Precedential Value of Accelerated Docket Proceedings: Bell Atlantic suggests that, in light of the expedited nature of the new docket, rulings in Accelerated Docket proceedings be limited to the particular case in question and that they be accorded no  X#-preclusive or precedential effect in other proceedings or other forums.P# S\-ԍSeeĠBell Atlantic Comments at 8. P We decline to impose such a limit on Accelerated Docket proceedings. Rather, staff rulings on the docket will have the same precedential value as any other adjudicative decision issued under delegated authority. The swift resolution of issues under the Accelerated Docket does not diminish the importance of these decisions. As discussed above, we expect that the complete record to be compiled in Accelerated Docket proceedings will ensure carefully reasoned and fully supported decisions. Such decisions will serve as valuable precedent to parties negotiating or litigating similar conflicts in the future.  XT- x_96.` ` Counterclaims: CompTel suggests that counterclaims be permitted in Accelerated Docket proceedings if they arise from the same transaction or occurrence, and"?3*0*%%ZZ"  X-would be eligible for the Accelerated Docket if brought separately.H Sy-ԍSeeĠCompTel Comments at 8.H In the First Report &  X-Order, we prohibited all counterclaims in complaint proceedings, requiring that such claims  X-be filed as separate, independent actions.fj S-ԍSeeFirst Report & Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22588,  217.f We took this action to ensure that complaint  X-proceedings would be resolved within the statutory deadlines in the 1996 Act.5  S|-ԍSeeid.5 This reasoning applies with even greater force to the Accelerated Docket proceedings, which we expect to be resolved even more quickly than required by the statutory deadlines. Defendants will be required to file any counterclaims that they may have as separate actions for which they will be required independently to seek inclusion on the Accelerated Docket.  X5-x`97.` ` Need for Formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: BellSouth contends that the notice provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") require that, before issuing rules to govern the Accelerated Docket, we must issue a formal notice of proposed  X -rulemaking, including specific proposed rules.P  SQ-ԍSeeĠBellSouth Comments at 2 & n.4.P We disagree. Section 553(b) of the APA requires that an agency afford interested parties adequate notice of, and an opportunity to  X -comment on, the provisions that appear in the agency's final regulations.; P S-ԍ5 U.S.C.  553. ; Courts have interpreted this to require that an agency provide "sufficient factual detail and rationale for the  X-rule to permit interested parties to comment meaningfully." S7-ԍFlorida Power & Light Co. v. United States, 846 F.2d 765, 771 (D.C. Cir. 1988), cert.  S-denied, 490 U.S. 1045 (1989). The Public Notice appeared in the Federal Register, and it contained adequate notice of the provisions we adopt today. Accordingly, we believe that no further notice is required to comply with the notice provisions of the APA.  X%- IX.xReview by the Commission  X-xa98.` ` The 1996 Act imposes a fivemonth deadline on the Commission's resolution of certain categories of complaint proceedings, and it requires that they be decided by order of  X-the Commission itself, rather than under delegated authority.l  S#-ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  155(c)(1), 208(b)(1). See also First Report & Order 12 FCC Rcd at 2251213,  3437 (discussing categories of complaints to which shorter deadlines apply). To comply with this statutory"4 0*%%ZZ"  X-deadline when it arises in cases on the Accelerated Docket, the Public Notice proposed that all briefing on any challenge to a staff decision on the new docket be completed between 20  X-and 30 days after the decision's release.M SM-ԍSeePublic Notice at 6,  9.M It also proposed the possibility of en banc oral argument before the Commission for some Accelerated Docket proceedings in which the  X-Commission decides not to adopt summarily the staff's decision.1j S-ԍId.1  Xz-xb99.` ` Commenters support the proposal concerning the briefing schedule for  Xc-Commission review of final staff rulings on the Accelerated Docket.c  S -ԍSee, e.g., Ameritech Comments at 36; Cincinnati Bell Comments at 9; MCI Comments at 12. Commenters also  XL-support the idea of having en banc oral argument in some cases when the Commission does  X7-not summarily affirm or adopt the staff decision.g7 Sn-ԍSee, e.g.,Ameritech Comments at 36; ICG Comments at 89.g In order to comply with the fivemonth statutory deadline when it is applicable and, more generally, to ensure prompt Commission action on proceedings on the new docket, we adopt the following schedule and procedures for challenges to final staff decisions in Accelerated Docket proceedings.  X -xc100.` ` Certain categories of issues that arise in Accelerated Docket proceedings will properly be the subject of delegated authority decisions by the Bureau. These issues will be  X-those that fall outside of section 5(c)(1) of the Act( So-ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  155(c)(1), 208(b)(1). See also First Report & Order 12 FCC Rcd at 2251213,  3437 (discussing categories of complaints to which shorter deadlines apply). and that do not raise novel issues of law  X-or policy.L  S-ԍCf. 47 C.F.R.  0.291(d). L Such staff decisions issued on delegated authority after the minitrial will be,  Xh-pursuant to our rules, immediately effective and binding on the parties.LhD  S]-ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  1.102(b). L A party to the proceeding that seeks to challenge such a decision may do so by filing its application for review. Applications for review of Accelerated Docket staff decisions based on delegated  X#-authority will be due 15 calendar days after the release date of the staff decision.N#  S"-ԍSee Appendix Rule 1.115(e)(4). N As under our current rules, the opposition to the application for review will be due 15 calendar days" 50*%%ZZF"  X-after the application for review is filed,L Sy-ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  1.115(d). L and the party seeking review may file its reply 10  X-calendar days after the due date of the opposition.5j S-ԍSee id.5  X-xd101.` ` Alternatively, certain other Accelerated Docket proceedings will raise issues that may not be decided on delegated authority. Thus, the Act requires that certain questions  X-be the subject of Commission orders.L  SJ -ԍSee 47 U.S.C. 155(c)(1). L Similarly, our delegation rules reserve to the  Xv-Commission novel questions of law or policy.Lv S -ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  0.291(d). L Accordingly, in proceedings raising issues that the Commission must decide, the staff decision, issued after the minitrial, will not be immediately effective. Rather, such decisions will be recommended decisions, which the  X1-Commission will either adopt or modify.L1P S2-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.730(h). L A party to the proceeding that seeks to challenge the staff decision before the Commission may do so by filing its comments on the recommended decision according to the same schedule as that applicable for applications for  X -review on the Accelerated Docket.5  S-ԍSee id.5 Opposition and reply comments similarly are permitted on the same schedule as that for applications for review.  X -xe102.` ` In the event that neither party files comments to challenge a recommended staff decision in an Accelerated Docket proceeding, the Commission will issue its order either  Xy-adopting or modifying the staff decision within fortyfive days of its release.Ly  S-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.730(i). L If the staff's recommended decision is challenged by any party to the proceeding, the Commission will issue its order either adopting or modifying the decision no more than thirty days after the  X4-filing of the final comments on the decision.546  S -ԍSee id.5 "6 0*%%ZZe"Ԍ X-xf103.` ` The Commission may summarily affirm a staff decision from the Accelerated Docket before it for review. Additionally, in cases where it appears that argument would aid  X-in our decision, we may schedule an oral argument before the full Commission. SK-ԍSee ICG Comments at 89 (recommending that panel of Commissioners instead of whole Commission hearing application for review, citing 47 C.F.R.  0.212, 0.218).  X-xg104.` ` We are not persuaded by Cincinnati Bell's argument that the en banc hearing  X-procedure proposed in the Public Notice somehow would prejudice one of the parties to the  Xz-complaint proceeding.QzB Sm -ԍSee Cincinnati Bell Comments at 9. Q The en banc argument of petitions for review merely would give the Commission the opportunity to clarify issues that may remain unclear after the parties' briefs on the petition for review. That this argument may take place after the Commission has decided not to summarily affirm the staff decision can hardly be said to disadvantage either party. Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, regularly decide whether they will hear argument in matters before them, without prejudicing any party. The procedure we adopt today will have no different effect.  X - X.xConclusion  X-xh105.` ` In this Second Report & Order, we amend our rules governing formal complaint proceedings to create an Accelerated Docket, which will be administered by the Enforcement Division of the Common Carrier Bureau. The rules of practice and procedure relating to the Accelerated Docket will promote competition in all telecommunications markets by providing an expedited process for resolving complaints of unreasonable, discriminatory, or otherwise unlawful conduct by telecommunications carriers.  X-xi106.` ` We recognize that many of the procedures we adopt for the Accelerated Docket are, to a substantial extent, new and untried. Accordingly, we expect that both staff and the Commission will accumulate valuable experience in the implementation of these new rules. We will monitor closely the effect and utility of the Accelerated Docket procedures; and we expect to receive periodic reports from the Common Carrier Bureau regarding its administration of the new docket. Based on this information and within a year of the effective dates of these rules, we will consider revisions to these procedures to make them  XV-more effective.bV S!-ԍIf, at some future point we should determine that revisions to the rules of the Accelerated Docket are appropriate, such changes likely would fall within the Commission's broad discretion over  S#-its procedural rules. See, e.g.,47 U.S.C.  154(j). Accordingly, we likely would implement such changes without publishing notice of them and seeking comment. "V7 0*%%ZZ"Ԍ X-ԙ XI.xProcedural Matters  X- xA.` ` Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis  X-xj107.` ` The decision herein has not yet been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 10413. Accordingly, the information collection requirements in this item are contingent upon approval by the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB").  X1- xB.` ` Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis  X -xk108.` ` As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act ("RFA"),Pb  S| -ԍSee 5 U.S.C.  603. The RFA, 5 U.S.C.  601 et seq., has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) ("CWAAA"), Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ("SBREFA").P an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA") was incorporated in the notice of proposed rulemaking in this  X -docket.-   Sx-ԍSee Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Amendment of Rules Governing  SR-Procedures to Be Followed When Formal Complaints Are Filed Against Common Carriers, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 20823 (1996) (NPRM). - The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. The Commission sought additional comment in a public  X -notice.  F S-ԍCommon Carrier Bureau Seeks Comment Regarding Accelerated Docket for Complaint  Sx-Proceedings, Public Notice, CC Dkt No. 96238, DA 972178 (rel. Dec. 12, 1997). The Commission has prepared this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the  X-possible significant economic impact on small entities of the rules promulgated in this Second  X{-Report & Order. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("FRFA") conforms to  Xf-the RFA.D f  S-ԍSee 5 U.S.C.  604.D "O8d 0*%%ZZ+"Ԍ X< Lx` ` 1.  Need for and Objectives of the Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to be Followed When Formal Complaints Are Filed  X<Against Common Carriers, Second Report and Order, and the Rules Adopted Herein(#  X-  Xx-xl109.` ` The Commission is issuing this Second Report & Order to create an Accelerated Docket designed to provide for the prompt resolution of carrierrelated disputesL and to carriers to obtain more extensive discovery from their opponents than has been routinely available in formal complaint proceedings. Additionally, the new docket will provide for the full and effective presentation of each party's case in a hearingtype proceeding. Generally, the amended rules will: (1) require parties to engage in staffsupervised prefiling settlement discussions, (2) modify the form of initial pleadings, (3) shorten filing deadlines, (4) modify the discovery process, (5) provide for the live presentation of evidence to the decision maker, and (6) require provide for expedited briefing and review of staff decisions.  X}- x` ` 2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in  Xf-Response to the IRFA (#  X8-xm110.` ` The IRFA solicited comment on alternatives to our proposed rules that would minimize the impact on small entities consistent with the objectives of this proceeding. No comments were submitted directly in response to the IRFA. However, as described below in Sections 4 and 5, we have taken into account those portions of the rules that appear most likely to affect small entities.  X- x` ` 3.  Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which  X<the Rules Adopted in the Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96238  X-Will Apply (#  XS-xn111.` ` The RFA generally defines small entity as having the same meaning as the  X<-terms "small business," "small organization," and "small governmental jurisdictions."= < S-ԍ5 U.S.C.  601(6).= In addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632, unless the Commission has  X-developed one or more definitions that are appropriate to its activities. h S#-ԍSee 5 U.S.C.  601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of "small business concern" in 5 U.S.C.  632). Under the Small Business Act, a "small business concern" is one that: (1) is independently owned and"9 0*%%ZZJ" operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria  X-established by the Small Business Administration ("SBA").; Sb-ԍ15 U.S.C.  632.; Moreover, the SBA has defined a small business for Standard Industrial Classification ("SIC") categories 4812 ("Radiotelephone Communications") and 4813 ("Telephone Communications, Except  X-Radiotelephone") to be small entities when they have no more than 1,500 employees.?h S-ԍ13 C.F.R.  121.201.? We first discuss the estimated number of potential complainants, which may include entities that are not telephone companies. Next we discuss generally the estimated number of potential defendants, which would be included in the total number of small telephone companies falling within the SBA definitions of small business concerns and small businesses. Then, we discuss the number of small businesses within the SIC subcategories, and attempt further to refine those estimates to correspond with the categories of telephone companies that are commonly used under our rules.  X -xo112.` ` Consistent with our prior practice, we shall continue to exclude small incumbent LECs from the definition of "small entity" and "small business concerns" for the purpose of this FRFA. We do this because the small incumbent LECs subject to these rules are either dominant in their field of operations or are not independently owned and  Xy-operated,oy S2-ԍLocal Competition First Report and Order at paras. 132830, 1342.o and they thus are excluded from the definition of "small entity" and "small business concerns." Out of an abundance of caution, however, for regulatory flexibility analysis purposes, we will consider small incumbent LECs within this analysis and use the term "small incumbent LECs" to refer to any incumbent LECs that arguably might be defined  X-by SBA as "small business concerns."1 Sx-ԍId.1  X- x` `  a.Potential Complainants  X-xp113.` ` Section 208(a) provides that formal complaints against a common carrier may  X-be filed by "[a]ny person, any body politic or municipal organization.">L S -ԍ47 U.S.C.  208(a).> Beyond this definition, the FCC has no control or information regarding the filing frequency of complaints, nor identities of parties that will file complaints. The filing of complaints depends entirely upon the complainant's perception that it has a cause of action against a common carrier subject to the Act, as amended, and it is the complainant's decision to file its"N:0*%%ZZ" complaint with the FCC. Therefore we are unable at this time to estimate the number of future complainants that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition.  X-xq114.` ` As noted, the RFA includes "small businesses," "small organizations" (nonprofits), and "small governmental jurisdictions." Nationwide, there are 4.44 million small  X-business firms, according to SBA reporting data. S-ԍ1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6, (special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration). A small organization is generally "any notforprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its  X_-field."=_@ SP -ԍ5 U.S.C.  601(4).= Nationwide, there are 275,801 small organizations._ S -ԍ1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6, (special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration). Last, "small governmental jurisdiction" generally means "governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages,  X1-school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than 50,000."=1X S:-ԍ5 U.S.C.  601(5).= As of 1992,  X -there were 85,006 such jurisdictions in the United States.v  S-ԍUS Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "1992 Census of Governments."v  X - x` `  b. ` Potential Defendants (#  X -xr115.` ` Estimate of Potential Defendants that may be Classified as Small Businesses. Section 208(a) provides for the filing of formal complaints for "anything done or omitted to  X-be done by any common carrier subject to this Act.">  S-ԍ47 U.S.C.  208(a).> The FCC has no control as to the filing frequency of complaints because such filing depends entirely upon the complainant's perception that it has a cause of action against a common carrier subject to the Act, as amended, and it is the complainant's decision to file its complaint with the FCC. This inability to predict the number of future defendants necessitates conducting this FRFA based on the number of potential small business defendants, which is the number of common carriers that qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Additionally, we note that these rules initially will be applied only to certain complaints handled by the Common Carrier Bureau; however, as we gain more experience with that bureau's application of these rules, we may extend them to certain complaints handled by the Wireless";8 0*%%ZZ"  X-Telecommunications Bureau.> Sy-ԍSee supra n.9. > Accordingly, we have included certain wireless carriers in the discussion below.  X-xs116.` ` The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers of certain common carriers nationwide appears to be data the Commission publishes annually in its  X-Telecommunications Industry Revenue report, regarding the Telecommunications Relay  Xx-Service (TRS).xj S -ԍFCC, Telecommunications Industry Revenue: TRS Fund Worksheet Data, Figure 2  Sk -(Number of Carriers Paying Into the TRS Fund by Type of Carrier) (Nov. 1997) (Telecommunications  SE -Industry Revenue).  According to data in the most recent report, there are 3,459 interstate  Xa-carriers.3a S -ԍId. 3 These carriers include, inter alia, local exchange carriers, wireline carriers and service providers, interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, providers of telephone toll service, providers of telephone  X -exchange service, and resellers.U ` S/-ԍSee 13 CFR 121.201, SIC code 4813.U  X -xt117.` ` Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected. The decisions and rules adopted herein may have a significant effect on a substantial number of small telephone companies identified by the SBA. The United States Bureau of the Census ("Census Bureau") reports that, at the end of 1992, there were 3,497 firms engaged in providing  X-telephone service, as defined therein, for at least one year.  SI-ԍUnited States Department of Census, Bureau of the Census, 1992 Census of Transportation,  S#-Communications, and Utilities: Establishment and Firm Size, at Firm Size 1123 (1995) ("1992  S-Census"). This number contains a variety of different categories of carriers, including local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, cellular carriers, mobile service carriers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, PCS providers, covered SMR providers, and resellers. It seems certain that some of those 3,497 telephone service firms may not qualify as small entities or small incumbent LECs because they are not "independently owned and  X -operated."A X  S"-ԍ15 U.S.C.  632(a)(1).A For example, a PCS provider that is affiliated with an interexchange carrier having more than 1,500 employees would not meet the definition of a small business. It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that no more than 3,497 telephone service firms are"< 0*%%ZZ" small entity telephone service firms or small incumbent LECs that may be affected by this Order. We estimate below the potential defendants affected by this order by service category.  X-xu118.` ` Wireline Carriers and Service Providers. The SBA has developed a definition of small entities for telecommunications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies (Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone). The Census Bureau reports that there were 2,321 such telephone companies in operation for at least one year at the end  Xa-of 1992.aa S-ԍ1992 Census, supra, at Firm Size 1123.a According to the SBA's definition, a small business telephone company other than  XJ-a radiotelephone company is one employing no more than 1,500 persons.s Jj Se -ԍ13 C.F.R.  121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 4813.s Of the 2,321 nonradiotelephone companies listed by the Census Bureau, 2,295 companies (or, all but twentysix) were reported to have no more than 1,000 employees. Thus, at least 2,295 nonradiotelephone companies might qualify as small incumbent LECs or small entities based on these employment statistics. However, because it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, this figure necessarily overstates the actual number of nonradiotelephone companies that would qualify as "small business concerns" under the SBA definition. Consequently, we estimate using this methodology that there are no more than 2,295 small entity telephone communications companies (other than radiotelephone  X{-companies) that may be affected by the actions taken in this Report and Order.  XO-xv119.` ` NonLEC wireline carriers. We next estimate more precisely the number of nonLEC wireline carriers, including interexchange carriers ("IXCs"), competitive access providers ("CAPs"), Operator Service Providers ("OSPs"), Pay Telephone Operators, and resellers that may be affected by these rules. Because neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed definitions for small entities specifically applicable to these wireline service types, the closest applicable definition under the SBA rules for all these service types is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. However, the TRS data provides an alternative source of information regarding the number of IXCs, CAPs, OSPs, Pay Telephone Operators, and resellers nationwide. According to our most recent data: 143 companies reported that they are engaged in the provision of interexchange services; 109 companies reported that they are engaged in the provision of competitive access services; twentyseven companies reported that they are engaged in the provision of operator services; 441 companies reported that they are engaged in the provision of pay telephone services; and 339 companies reported that they are engaged in the resale of  X-telephone services and thirtyeight reported being "other" toll carriers.]!  S#-ԍTelecommunications Industry Revenue, Figure 2. ] Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more"=!0*%%ZZ<" than 1,500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of IXCs, CAPs, OSPs, Pay Telephone Operators, resellers and other toll carriers that  X-would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Firms filing TRS  X-Worksheets are asked to select a single category that best describes their operation. As a result, some long distance carriers describe themselves as resellers, some as OSPs, some as "other," and some simply as IXCs. Consequently, we estimate that there are no more than 130 small entity IXCs; fiftyseven small entity CAPs; twentyfive small entity OSPs; 271 small entity pay telephone service providers; and 260 small entity providers of resale telephone service; and thirty "other" toll carriers that might be affected by the actions and  X5-rules adopted in this Report and Order.   X -xw120.` ` Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition for small providers of local exchange services ("LECs"). The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other  X -than radiotelephone (wireless) companies.1"  S?-ԍId.1 According to the most recent  X -Telecommunications Industry Revenue data, 1,371 carriers reported that they were engaged in  X-the provision of local exchange services.\#j S-ԍTelecommunications Industry Revenue, Figure 2.\ We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are either dominant in their field of operations, are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of LECs that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that fewer than 1,371 providers of local exchange service are small entities or small ILECs that may be affected by  X-the rules adopted in this Report and Order.  X-xx121.` ` Radiotelephone (Wireless) Carriers. The SBA has developed a definition of small entities for Wireless (Radiotelephone) Carriers. The Census Bureau reports that there  X-were 1,176 such companies in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992.U$  Su-ԍ1992 Census, supra, at Firm Size 1123.U According to the SBA's definition, a small business radiotelephone company is one employing  X-no more than 1,500 persons.O% S -ԍ13 C.F.R.  121.201 (SIC Code 4812).O The Census Bureau also reported that 1,164 of those radiotelephone companies had no more than 1,000 employees. Thus, even if all of the remaining twelve companies had more than 1,500 employees, there would still be 1,164 radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small entities if they are independently owned and operated. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently".>N%0*%%ZZ" owned and operated, and, we are unable to estimate with greater precision the number of radiotelephone carriers and service providers that would both qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are no more than 1,164 small entity radiotelephone companies that might be affected by the actions and rules  X-adopted in this Report and Order.  Xx-xy122.` ` Cellular and Mobile Service Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities applicable to cellular licensees. Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is the definition under the SBA rules applicable to radiotelephone (wireless) companies. This provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone  X -company employing no more than 1,500 persons.P&  S -ԍ13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC code 4812. P According to the Bureau of the Census, only twelve radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,178 such firms which operated during  X -1992 had 1,000 or more employees.f' h S -ԍ1992 Census, Series UC92S1, at Table 5, SIC code 4812.f Therefore, even if all twelve of these firms were cellular telephone companies, nearly all cellular carriers were small businesses under the SBA's definition. In addition, we note that there are 1,758 cellular licenses; however, a cellular licensee may own several licenses. In addition, according to the most recent  X-Telecommunications Industry Revenue data, 804 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either cellular service or Personal Communications Service ("PCS") services,  Xh-which are placed together in the data.\(h  S#-ԍTelecommunications Industry Revenue, Figure 2.\ We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cellular service carriers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 804 small cellular service carriers that  X-might be affected by the actions and rules adopted in this Report and Order.  X-xz123.` ` Mobile Service Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to mobile service carriers, such as paging companies. The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is that for radiotelephone  X-(wireless) companies,P) S -ԍ 13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC code 4812.P and the most recent Telecommunications Industry Revenue data shows  Xq-that 172 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either paging or "other"q?L)0*%%ZZ"  X-mobile" services.\* Sy-ԍTelecommunications Industry Revenue, Figure 2.\ Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 172 small mobile  X-service carriers that might be affected by the rules adopted in this Report & Order.  X-x{124.` ` Broadband PCS Licensees. The broadband PCS spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission defined "small entity'' for Blocks C and F as an entity that has  Xz-average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years.+fzj S -ԍSee Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules Broadband PCS  So -Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Cap, Report and Order, FCC 96278, WT Docket No. 9659,  57 60 (released June 24, 1996), 61 FR 33859 (July 1, 1996);  S! -see also 47 C.F.R.  24.720(b). For Block F, an additional classification for "very small business" was added and is defined as an entity that, together with their affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15  X5-million for the preceding three calendar years. ],5 S~-ԍSee Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules Broadband PCS  SX-Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Cap, Report and Order,  S2-FCC 96278, WT Docket No. 9659,  60 (1996), 61 Fed. Reg. 33859 (July 1, 1996).] These regulations defining "small entity'' in  X -the context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the SBA.-  S-ԍ See, e.g., Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act Competitive  S-Bidding, Fifth Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5532, 558184 (1994). No small businesses within the SBAapproved definition bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately 40% of the 1,479  X -licenses for Blocks D, E, and F.. h  S-ԍFCC News, Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes, No. 71744 (released January 14, 1997). Based on this information, we conclude that the number of small broadband PCS licensees will include the 90 winning C Block bidders and the 93 qualifying bidders in the D, E, and F blocks, for a total of 183 small entity PCS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules.  XO- x` ` 4.  Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other  X8-Compliance Requirements (#  X -x|125.` ` Below, we analyze the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements that may apply to small entities and small incumbent LECs, and we mention some of the skills needed to meet these new requirements. Overall, we anticipate"@.0*%%ZZ" that the impact of these rules will be beneficial to small businesses and other filers. By requiring supervised prefiling settlement discussions, and offering a faster alternative for the resolution of competitive disputes, these rules will assist in the settlement of disputes without litigation, and they will result in the speedier disposition of complaints that are actually filed. Moreover, Commission staff retains the discretion to refuse to accept a complaint proceeding onto the Accelerated Docket if it appears that such acceptance would place an inordinately high burden on one party, including small business entities.  XH-x}126.` ` Supervised Settlement Discussions. The amended rules will require a prospective complainant to notify Commission staff of its intention to file a complaint and then to participate in staffsupervised, prefiling settlement discussions before its complaint,  X -once filed, will be accepted onto the Accelerated Docket.L/  S~ -ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.730(b). L Similarly, the amended rules require a defendant seeking admission to the Accelerated Docket to submit its written request to the staff and then to participate in any supervised settlement discussions that the staff  X -deems appropriate.L0 j S-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.730(c). L Although these supervised negotiation requirements may delay slightly a complainant's filing of a formal complaint or the progress of a proceeding in which a complaint has already been filed, we conclude that these requirements will serve to settle or narrow disputes, or to facilitate the compilation and exchange of relevant documentation or other information prior to the filing of a formal complaint with the Commission.  X6-x~127.` ` Pleadings and Discovery. The amended rules require complaints and answers to be accompanied by copies of all documents within the filing party's possession, custody or  X -control which are likely to bear significantly on any claim or defense in the proceeding.X1   S-ԍSee Appendix, Rules 1.721(e)(1) and (2). X  X-The defendant must file its answer within ten days after service of the complaint.U2 SR-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.724(k)(1). U No separate reply pleading shall be permitted, but complainants that would otherwise file a reply  X-may include that material in their prestatusconference filing.O3P S-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.733(i)(4). O In addition to the automatic document production that will accompany both parties' initial pleadings, parties may include in their prestatusconference filings, requests for additional discovery, including requests for  X-depositions, interrogatories or additional document production.S4 S#$-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.729(i)(2).S "A 40*%%ZZ2"Ԍ X-ԙx128.` ` Status Conferences. An initial status conference will take place ten calendar  X-days after the filing of the answer unless otherwise ordered by the staff.S5 Sd-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.733(i)(1).S Before this status conference, the parties shall have conferred regarding: (1) discovery; (2) issues in dispute;  X-(3)facts to which they can stipulate; (4) factual and legal issues in dispute.S6j S-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.733(i)(2).S The parties shall submit, two days before the initial status conference, a joint statement of stipulated facts  X-and, if possible, joint statements regarding agreed discovery and disputed issues.S7  SL -ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.733(i)(3).S Where opposing parties cannot agree on discovery issues or on a joint statement of disputed issues, each party shall submit, two days before the status conference, a separate statement on these  XJ-issues.S8J S-ԍSee Appendix, Rule 1.733(i)(3).S  X -x129.` ` These amended rules may place a greater burden on parties, including small business entities, to file their answers and provide copies of discoverable documents to their opponents within a short period of time. However, in many other respects, the rules pleading, discovery and status conference rules under the Accelerated Docket are significantly less burdensome than under the rules applicable more generally to formal complaint proceedings. For example, it will be substantially less burdensome for defendant simply to provide copies of the appropriate documents to their opponents than it will be to compile the document inventory required in other formal complaint proceedings. Additionally, in light of the substantial time that it may take to negotiate joint statements of disputed issues, parties on the Accelerated Docket are permitted to submit separate statements containing this information. These rules will enable the Commission to resolve many preliminary issues efficiently at the initial status conference and thereby prevent the parties from wasting resources through delay. Furthermore, the rules will enable the parties quickly to receive substantial discovery through an automatic document production. This should substantially speed parties' preparation of their cases.  X-x130.` ` Minitrials and Petitions for Review. Between forty and fortyfive days after a complaint is filed in an Accelerated Docket proceeding, the parties will participate in a minitrial proceeding at which they will present their case through live testimony and/or argument of counsel. Parties will be required to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law two days before the minitrial; rebuttal proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law may be filed three days after the conclusion of the minitrial. Once the staff has issued a decision or a recommended decision, any application for review by the"$BP80*%%ZZ" Commission or other challenge to the Bureau decision will be due fifteen days after the release of the decision. Oppositions will be due fifteen days after the application or other challenge is filed; and replies will be due ten days thereafter.  X-x131.` ` These amended rules may place a burden on parties, including small business entities, to prepare the required proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and to prepare and present their cases at the minitrial. However, this burden will be offset by a corresponding reduction in the work that the parties would have been required to expend preparing briefs under the generally applicable formal complaint rules. Additionally, the compressed briefing deadlines will impose some additional burden on parties challenging staff decisions. These rules will permit parties to present their cases directly to the Commission staff and to respond immediately to questions or concerns that the staff may have. Furthermore, the compressed briefing schedule for applications for review will ensure that the review process for Accelerated Docket proceedings progresses quickly, thereby affording the parties a decision by the full Commission in as short a time as possible.  X-x132.` ` As noted above, Commission staff retains the discretion to decline to admit a formal complaint proceeding to the Accelerated Docket where it appears that such admission would place an unreasonable burden on a party to the proceeding, including a small business entity. It is also important to note that these rules apply only to section 208 complaints that are filed with the Commission. Complainants wishing to participate in a less accelerated process, for example, may file their complaints in federal district court.  X- x` ` 5. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small  X-Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered (#  X-x133.` ` These amended rules may place a greater burden on a small business entity to provide greater discovery early in the process and to litigate their cases more quickly than in the past. However, we conclude that the rules do not significantly alter the level of evidentiary and legal support that would be ultimately required of parties in formal complaint actions pursuant to the past rules. Additionally, potentially higher initial costs may be somewhat offset by the prompt resolution of complaints and the avoidance of protracted and costly discovery proceedings and briefing requirements. It has been noted, for example, that the overall litigation costs of "rocket docket" cases in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern  X-District of Virginia are lower than the costs of cases that take longer to resolve.9b Sk!-ԍIn rocket docket cases, the total litigation costs may be lower than in traditional federal litigation. Furthermore, because a preliminary injunction and damages judgment can be obtained so quickly, a complainant's market share can be preserved. George F. Pappas and Robert G. Sterne,  S#-Patent Litigation in the Eastern District of Virginia, 35 IDEA: J.L. & Tech. 361, 363 (1995). Indeed, by requiring better and more complete submissions earlier in the process, these amended rules"C90*%%ZZ" reduce the need for discovery and other information filings, thereby significantly reducing the burden on small business entities.  X-x134.` ` Overall, we conclude that there will be a significant positive economic impact on small entity carriers that, as a result of the new Accelerated Docket, will find their complaints resolved more expeditiously than in the past. The establishment of these rules of practice and procedure, by providing a forum for prompt resolution of complaints of unreasonable, discriminatory, or otherwise unlawful conduct by BOCs and other telecommunications carriers, will foster robust competition in all telecommunications markets.  X - x` ` 6. Report to Congress  X -x135.` ` The Commission will send a copy of the Amendment of Rules Governing  X -Procedures to be Followed When Formal Complaints Are Filed Against Common Carriers,  X -Second Report & Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to  X -the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, see 5 U.S.C.  801  X-(a)(1)(A). A summary of this Report and Order and this FRFA will also be published in the  X-Federal Register, see 5 U.S.C.  604(b), and will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.  X>- XII.xOrdering Clauses  X-x136.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to sections 1, 4, 201205, 208, 260, 271, 274, and 275 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 201205, 208, 260, 271, 274, and 275, the policies, rules, and requirements set forth herein ARE ADOPTED.  X-x137.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 47 C.F.R. Part 1 IS AMENDED as set forth in the Appendix, effective thirty days after publication of the text thereof in the Federal Register.  XA-x138.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Office of Public Affairs,  X*-Reference Operations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this Second Report & Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. "D90*%%ZZ"Ԍ X- x139.` ` The Second Report & Order IS ADOPTED, and the requirements contained herein will become effective 60 days after publication of a summary in the Federal Register. The collection of information contained within is contingent upon approval by OMB. Notice of that approval will be published in the Federal Register. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhMagalie Roman Salas x` `  hhSecretary " E90*%%ZZ "  X- F  0APPENDIX X81Í Í X01Í Í@ă  X-u AMENDMENT OF FORMAL COMPLAINT RULES AND PROCEDURES |CC DOCKET NO. 96238  X-  TEXT OF RULE CHANGES ă  X_- PART 1 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE  X1-140.xSection 1.115 is amended by adding subparagraph (e)(4) to read as follows:  X - xSection 1.115` Application for review of action taken pursuant to delegated  X -authority. (# l<* * * * * (e) * * * x(4) Applications for review of final staff decisions issued on delegated authority in formal complaint proceedings on the Common Carrier Bureau's Accelerated Docket (see, e.g., 1.730) shall be filed within 15 days of public notice of the decision, as that date is defined in section 1.4(b). These applications for review, oppositions and replies in Accelerated Docket proceedings shall be served on parties to the proceeding by hand or facsimile transmission.  X7-141.xSection 1.720 is amended by revising the introductory paragraph as follows:  X -x Section 1.720 General pleading requirements. xFormal complaint proceedings are generally resolved on a written record consisting of a complaint, answer, and joint statement of stipulated facts, disputed facts and key legal issues, along with all associated affidavits, exhibits and other attachments. Commission proceedings may also require or permit other written submissions such as briefs, written"Q%F90*''ZZ $" interrogatories, and other supplementary documents or pleadings. Those formal complaint proceedings handled on the Common Carrier Bureau's Accelerated Docket are subject to pleading and procedural rules that differ in some respects from the general rules for formal complaint proceedings.  XH-142.xSection 1.721 is amended by revising the section title, paragraph (a) and subparagraph (a)(10)(ii) and by adding paragraph (e) as follows:  X - xSection 1.721 Format and Content of Complaints. x(a) Subject to paragraph (e) of this section governing Accelerated Docket proceedings, a formal complaint shall contain: l<* * * * * (10) * * *  X-x(ii) A description of all documents, data compilations and tangible things in the complainant's possession, custody, or control, that are relevant to the facts alleged with particularity in the complaint. Such description shall include for each document: l<* * * * * x(e) Complaints on the Accelerated Docket. For the purpose of this paragraph (e), the term document also shall include data compilations and tangible things. x(1) Formal complaints that have been accepted onto the Accelerated Docket shall conform to the requirements set out in this section with the following listed exceptions: x(i) The requirement in  1.720(c) and paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(11) of this section that factual assertions be supported by affidavit shall not apply to complaints on the Accelerated"h$G90*%%ZZ(#" Docket. Nevertheless, allegations of material fact, whether based on personal knowledge or information and belief, that cannot be supported by documentation remain subject to the provisions of 1.52. x(ii) Complaints on the Accelerated Docket are not required to include proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and legal analysis relevant to the claims and arguments set forth in the complaint, as required in paragraph (a)(6) of this section. Nevertheless, complaints on the Accelerated Docket shall fully set out the facts and legal theories on which the complainant premises its claims. x(iii) In light of the requirement for staffsupervised settlement negotiations in 1.730(b), complaints on the Accelerated Docket are not required to include a certification that the complainant has discussed or attempted to discuss the possibility of settlement with each defendant, as required in paragraph (a)(8) of this section. x(iv) In light of the automatic document production required in  1.729(i)(1), complaints on the Accelerated Docket are not required to include a description of all relevant documents in the complainant's possession, custody or control, as required in paragraph (a)(10)(ii) of this section. x(v) Complaints on the Accelerated Docket are not required to provide the description, required in paragraph (a)(10)(iii) of this section, of the manner in which the complainant identified persons with knowledge of, and documents relevant to, the dispute. " H90*%%ZZ"Ԍx(2) Formal complaints that have been accepted onto the Accelerated Docket will comply with the following requirements in addition to those requirements generally applicable in formal complaint proceedings: x(i) As required in  1.729(i)(1), complaints on the Accelerated Docket shall be accompanied, when served on defendants, by copies of documents, within the complainant's possession, custody or control, that are likely to bear significantly on the issues raised in the complaint. Unless otherwise directed, these documents shall not be filed with the Commission. x(ii) Complaints on the Accelerated Docket will bear the following notation in bold typeface above the normal caption on the first page: "Accelerated Docket Proceeding: Answer Due Within Ten Days of Service Date."  X-143.xSection 1.724 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and by adding paragraph (k) as follows:   X- xSection 1.724 Answers. x(a) Subject to paragraph (k) of this section governing Accelerated Docket proceedings, any carrier upon which a copy of a formal complaint is served shall answer such complaint in the manner prescribed under this section within twenty days of service of the formal complaint by the complainant, unless otherwise directed by the Commission. l<* * * * * x(k) Accelerated Docket Proceedings. For the purpose of this paragraph (k), the term document also shall include data compilations and tangible things. "h$I90*%%ZZ(#"Ԍx(1) Any party named as a defendant in an Accelerated Docket formal complaint shall answer such complaint in the manner prescribed under this section within ten days of service of the complaint by the complainant, unless otherwise directed by the Commission. Except as set forth in this paragraph (k), answers in Accelerated Docket proceedings shall comply with the requirements of this section. x(2) The requirement in  1.720(c) and paragraph (g) of this section that factual assertions be supported by affidavit shall not apply to answers in Accelerated Docket proceedings. Nevertheless, allegations of material fact, whether based on personal knowledge or information and belief, that cannot be supported by documentation remain subject to the provisions of 1.52. x(3) Answers on the Accelerated Docket are not required to include proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and legal analysis relevant to the defenses and arguments set forth in the answer, as required in paragraph (c) of this section. Nevertheless, answers on the Accelerated Docket shall fully set out the facts and legal theories on which the defendant premises its defenses. x(4) In light of the requirement for staffsupervised settlement negotiations required in 1.730(b), answers on the Accelerated Docket are not required to include a certification that the defendant has discussed, or attempted to discuss, the possibility of settlement with the complainant, as required in paragraph (h) of this section. x(5) As required in  1.729(i)(1), answers on the Accelerated Docket shall be accompanied, when served on complainants, by copies of documents, within the defendant's"h$J90*%%ZZ(#" possession, custody or control, that are likely to bear significantly on the issues raised in the proceeding. Unless otherwise directed, these documents shall not be filed with the Commission. In light of this automatic document production requirement, answers on the Accelerated Docket are not required to include a description of all relevant documents in the defendant's possession, custody or control, as required in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. x(6) Answers on the Accelerated Docket are not required to provide the description, required in paragraph (f)(3) of this section, of the manner in which the defendant identified persons with knowledge of, and documents relevant to, the dispute. x(7) In Accelerated Docket proceedings, the defendant, as required in  1.729(i)(1), shall serve, contemporaneously with its answer, the complainant(s) with copies of documents, within the defendant's possession, custody or control, that are likely to bear significantly on the issues raised in the complaint and/or the answer.  X-144.xSection 1.726 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (g) as follows:  X|- xSection 1.726 Replies.  XN- x(a) Subject to paragraph (g) of this section governing Accelerated Docket proceedings, within three days after service of an answer containing affirmative defenses presented in accordance with the requirements of  1.724(e), a complainant may file and serve a reply containing statements of relevant, material facts that shall be responsive to only those specific factual allegations made by the defendant in support of its affirmative defenses. Replies""K90*%%ZZf!" which contain other allegations or arguments will not be accepted or considered by the Commission. l<* * * * * x(g) Accelerated Docket Proceedings. For the purpose of this paragraph (g), the term document also shall include data compilations and tangible things. x(1) The filing of a separate pleading to reply to affirmative defenses is not permitted in Accelerated Docket proceedings. Complainants in such proceedings may include, in the 1.733(i)(4), prestatusconference filing, those statements that otherwise would have been the subject of a reply. x(2) In Accelerated Docket proceedings, the failure to reply, in the prestatusconference filing, to an affirmative defense shall be deemed an admission of such affirmative defense and of any facts supporting such affirmative defense that are not specifically contradicted in the complaint. x(3) If a complainant replies to an affirmative defense in its  1.733(i)(4), prestatusconference filing, it shall include in that filing the information, required by paragraph (d)(1) of this section, identifying individuals with firsthand knowledge of the facts alleged in the reply. x(4) An Accelerated Docket complainant that replies to an affirmative defense in its 1.733(i)(4), prestatusconference filing also shall serve on the defendant, at the same time as that filing, those documents in the complainant's possession, custody or control that were not previously produced to the defendant and that are likely to bear significantly on the issues"h$L90*%%ZZ(#" raised in the reply. Such a complainant is not required to comply with the remainder of the requirements in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.  X-145.xSection 1.727 is amended by revising paragraph (a) as follows:  Xv- xSection 1.727 Motions x(a) A request to the Commission for an order shall be by written motion, stating with particularity the grounds and authority therefor, and setting forth the relief or order sought.  X -146.xSection 1.729 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (i) as follows:  X- xSection 1.729 Discovery. x(a) Subject to paragraph (i) of this section governing Accelerated Docket proceedings, a complainant may file with the Commission and serve on a defendant, concurrently with its complaint, a request for up to ten written interrogatories. A defendant may file with the Commission and serve on a complainant, during the period starting with the service of the complaint and ending with the service of its answer, a request for up to ten written interrogatories. A complainant may file with the Commission and serve on a defendant, within three calendar days of service of the defendant's answer, a request for up to five written interrogatories. Subparts of any interrogatory will be counted as separate interrogatories for purposes of compliance with this limit. Requests for interrogatories filed and served pursuant to this procedure may be used to seek discovery of any non-privileged matter that is relevant to the material facts in dispute in the pending proceeding, provided, however, that requests for interrogatories filed and served by a complainant after service of"h$M90*%%ZZ(#" the defendant's answer shall be limited in scope to specific factual allegations made by the defendant in support of its affirmative defenses. This procedure may not be employed for the purpose of delay, harassment or obtaining information that is beyond the scope of permissible inquiry related to the material facts in dispute in the pending proceeding. l<* * * * * x(i) Discovery in Accelerated Docket proceedings. x(1) Each party to an Accelerated Docket proceeding shall serve, with its initial pleading and with any reply statements in the prestatusconference filing (see  1.726(g)(1)), copies of all documents in the possession, custody or control of the party that are likely to bear significantly on any claim or defense. For the purpose of this paragraph (i), document also shall include data compilations and tangible things. A document is likely to bear significantly on a claim or defense if it: x(i) Appears likely to have an influence on, or affect the outcome of, a claim or defense; x(ii) Reflects the relevant knowledge of persons who, if their potential testimony were known, might reasonably be expected to be deposed or called as a witness by any of the parties; x(iii) Is something that competent counsel would consider reasonably necessary to prepare, evaluate or try a claim or defense; or x(iv) Would not support the disclosing party's contentions. ""N90*%%ZZf!"Ԍx(2) In their  1.733(i)(4) prestatusconference filings, parties to Accelerated Docket proceedings may request the production of additional documents. In their  1.733(i)(4) filings, parties may also seek leave to conduct a reasonable number of depositions, including depositions of expert witnesses, if any. When requesting additional discovery, each party shall be prepared at the status conference to justify its requests by identifying the specific issue or issues on which it expects to obtain evidence from each request. x(3) Interrogatories shall not be routinely granted in Accelerated Docket proceedings. A party to an Accelerated Docket proceeding that prefers interrogatories to the other forms of available discovery, for reasons of convenience or expense, may seek leave in its  1.733(i)(4) prestatusconference filing to propound a limited number of interrogatories. x(4) Expert Witnesses. x(i) Any complainant in an Accelerated Docket proceeding that intends to rely on expert testimony for a purpose other than to rebut a defendant's expert evidence, shall identify its expert witnesses in the information designation required by  1.721(a)(10)(i). In its 1.721(a)(10)(i) information designation, such a complainant shall also provide its expert statement. For purposes of this paragraph (i)(4), an expert statement shall include a brief statement of the opinions to be expressed by the expert, the basis and reasons therefor and any data or other information that the witness considered in forming her opinions. x(ii) Any defendant in an Accelerated Docket proceeding that intends to rely on expert testimony shall identify its expert witnesses in the information designation required by""O90*%%ZZf!" 1.724(f)(1). Such a defendant shall provide its expert statement with its  1.733(i)(4), prestatusconference filing. x(iii) Any complainant in an Accelerated Docket proceeding that intends to rely on previously undisclosed expert testimony to rebut any portion of the defendant's case shall identify the expert and provide the appropriate expert statement at the initial status conference. x(iv) Expert witnesses shall be subject to deposition in Accelerated Docket proceedings under the same rules and limitations applicable to fact witnesses.  X-147.xSection 1.730 is amended by adding paragraphs (a) through (i) as follows:  Xb- xSection 1.730 The Common Carrier Bureau's Accelerated Docket x(a) Parties to formal complaint proceedings within the responsibility of the Common Carrier Bureau (see  0.291 of this chapter) may request inclusion on the Bureau's Accelerated Docket. As set out in  1.720 1.736, proceedings on the Accelerated Docket are subject to shorter pleading deadlines and certain other procedural rules that do not apply to other formal complaint proceedings before the Common Carrier Bureau. x(b) Any party that contemplates filing a formal complaint may submit a request to the Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau's Enforcement Division, either by phone or in writing, seeking inclusion of its complaint, once filed, on the Accelerated Docket. In appropriate cases, Commission staff shall schedule and supervise prefiling settlement negotiations between the parties to the dispute. If the parties do not resolve their dispute and the matter is accepted for handling on the Accelerated Docket, the complainant shall file its complaint with"h$P90*%%ZZ(#" a letter stating that it has gained admission to the Accelerated Docket. When it files its complaint, such a complainant shall also serve a copy of its complaint on the Commission staff that supervised the prefiling settlement discussions. x(c) Within five days of receiving service of a complaint, any defendant in a formal complaint proceeding may submit by facsimile or hand delivery, to the Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau's Enforcement Division, a request seeking inclusion of its proceeding on the Accelerated Docket. Such a defendant contemporaneously shall transmit, in the same manner, a copy of its request to all parties to the proceeding. A defendant submitting such a request shall file and serve its answer in compliance with the requirements of 1.724(k), except that the defendant shall not be required to serve with its answer the automatic document production required by  1.724(k)(7) and 1.729(i)(1). In proceedings accepted onto the Accelerated Docket at a defendant's request, the Commission staff will conduct supervised settlement discussions as appropriate. After accepting such a proceeding onto the Accelerated Docket, Commission staff will establish a schedule for the remainder of the proceeding, including the parties'  1.729(i)(1) automatic production of documents. x(d) During the thirty days following the effective date of these rules, any party to a pending formal complaint proceeding in which an answer has been filed or is past due may seek admission of the proceeding to the Accelerated Docket by submitting a request by facsimile or hand delivery to the Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau's Enforcement Division, with facsimile copies to all other parties to the proceeding by the same mode of transmission. If a pending proceeding is accepted onto the Accelerated Docket, Commission"h$Q90*%%ZZ(#" staff will conduct supervised settlement discussions if appropriate and establish a schedule for the remainder of the proceeding, including the parties'  1.729(i)(1) automatic production of documents if necessary. x(e) In determining whether to admit a proceeding onto the Accelerated Docket, Commission staff may consider factors from the following, nonexclusive list: x(1) Whether it appears that the parties to the dispute have exhausted the reasonable opportunities for settlement during the staffsupervised settlement discussions. x(2) Whether the expedited resolution of a particular dispute or category of disputes appears likely to advance competition in the telecommunications market. x(3) Whether the issues in the proceeding appear suited for decision under the  X4-constraints of the Accelerated Docket. This factor may entail, inter alia, examination of the number of distinct issues raised in a proceeding, the likely complexity of the necessary discovery, and whether the complainant bifurcates any damages claims for decision in a separate proceeding. See  1.722(b). x(4) Whether the complainant states a claim for violation of the Act, or Commission rule or order that falls within the Commission's jurisdiction. x(5) Whether it appears that inclusion of a proceeding on the Accelerated Docket would be unfair to one party because of an overwhelming disparity in the parties' resources. x(6) Such other factors as the Commission staff, within its substantial discretion, may deem appropriate and conducive to the prompt and fair adjudication of complaint proceedings.""R90*%%ZZf!"Ԍx(f) If it appears at any time that a proceeding on the Accelerated Docket is no longer appropriate for such treatment, Commission staff may remove the matter from the Accelerated Docket either on its own motion or at the request of any party. x(g) Minitrials. x(1) In Accelerated Docket proceedings, the Commission may conduct a minitrial, or hearingtype proceeding, as an alternative to requiring that parties submit briefs in support of their cases. Minitrials typically will take place between 40 and 45 days after the filing of the complaint. A Commission Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") typically will preside at the minitrial, administer oaths to witnesses, and time the parties' presentation of their cases. In consultation with the Commission staff, the ALJ will rule on objections or procedural issues that may arise during the course of the minitrial. x(2) Before a minitrial, each party will receive a specific time allotment in which it may present evidence and make argument during the minitrial. The ALJ or other Commission staff presiding at the minitrial will deduct from each party's time allotment any time that the party spends presenting either evidence or argument during the proceeding. The presiding official shall have broad discretion in determining any time penalty or deduction for a party who appears to be intentionally delaying either the proceeding or the presentation of another party's case. Within the limits imposed by its time allotment, a party may present evidence and argument in whatever manner or format it chooses, provided, however, that the submission of written testimony shall not be permitted. ""S90*%%ZZf!"Ԍx(3) Three days before a minitrial, each party to a proceeding shall serve on all other parties a copy of all exhibits that the party intends to introduce during the minitrial and a list of all witnesses, including expert witnesses, that the party may call during the minitrial. Service of this material shall be accomplished either by hand or by facsimile transmission. Objections to any exhibits or proposed witness testimony will be heard before the beginning of the minitrial. x(4) No party will be permitted to call as a witness in a minitrial, or otherwise offer evidence from, an individual in that party's employ, unless the individual appears on the party's information designation (see  1.721(a)(10)(i) or 1.724(f)(1)) with a general description of the issues on which she will offer evidence. No party will be permitted to present expert evidence unless the party has complied fully with the expertdisclosure requirements of 1.729(i)(4). The Commission may permit exceptions to the rules in this paragraph (g)(4) for good cause shown. x(5) Two days before the beginning of the minitrial, parties shall file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. These submissions shall not exceed 40 pages per party. Within three days after the conclusion of the minitrial, parties may submit revised proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to meet evidence introduced or arguments raised at the minitrial. These submissions shall not exceed 20 pages per party. x(6) The parties shall arrange for the stenographic transcription of minitrial proceedings so that transcripts are available and filed with the Commission no more than three days after""T90*%%ZZf!" the conclusion of the minitrial. Absent an agreement to the contrary, the cost of the transcript shall be shared equally between the parties to the proceeding. x(h) Applications for review of staff decisions issued on delegated authority in Accelerated Docket proceedings shall comply with the filing and service requirements in 1.115(e)(4). In those Accelerated Docket proceedings which raise issues that may not be decided on delegated authority (see 47 U.S.C. 155(c)(1); 47 C.F.R.  0.291(d)), the staff decision issued after the minitrial will be a recommended decision subject to adoption or modification by the Commission. Any party to the proceeding that seeks modification of the recommended decision may do so by filing comments challenging the decision within 15 days of its release by the Commission's Office of Public Affairs. (Compare  1.4(b)(2).) Opposition comments may be filed within 15 days of the comments challenging the decision; reply comments may be filed 10 days thereafter and shall be limited to issues raised in the opposition comments. x(i) If no party files comments challenging the recommended decision, the Commission will issue its decision adopting or modifying the recommended decision within 45 days of its release. If parties to the proceeding file comments to the recommended decision, the Commission will issue its decision adopting or modifying the recommended decision within 30 days of the filing of the final comments.  X -148.xSection 1.733 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) and adding paragraph (i) as follows:""U90*%%ZZf!"Ԍ X- vxSection 1.733 Status conference. x(a) In any complaint proceeding, the Commission may, in its discretion, direct the attorneys and/or the parties to appear before it for a status conference. Unless otherwisev ordered by the Commission, and with the exception of Accelerated Docket proceedings, governed by paragraph (i) below, an initial status conference shall take place, at the time and place designated by the Commission staff, ten business days after the date the answer is due to be filed. A status conference may include discussion of: l<* * * * * x(b)(1) Subject to paragraph (i) of this section governing Accelerated Docket proceedings, parties shall meet and confer prior to the initial status conference to discuss: x(i) Settlement prospects; x(ii) Discovery; x(iii) Issues in dispute; x(iv) Schedules for pleadings; x(v) Joint statement of stipulated facts, disputed facts, and key legal issues; and x(vi) In a 47 U.S.C. 271(d)(6)(B) proceeding, whether or not the parties agree to waive the 47 U.S.C. 271(d)(6)(B) 90-day resolution deadline. x(2) Subject to paragraph (i) of this section governing Accelerated Docket proceedings, parties shall submit a joint statement of all proposals agreed to and disputes remaining as a result of such meeting to Commission staff at least two business days prior to the scheduled initial status conference."h$V90*%%ZZ(#"Ԍl<* * * * * x(i) Accelerated Docket Proceedings. x(1) In Accelerated Docket proceedings, the initial status conference will be held 10 days after the answer is due to be filed. x(2) Prior to the initial status conference, the parties shall confer, either in person or by telephone, about: x(i) Discovery to which they can agree; x(ii) Facts to which they can stipulate; and x(iii) Factual and legal issues in dispute. x(3) Two days before the status conference, parties shall submit to Commission staff a joint statement of: x(i) The agreements that they have reached with respect to discovery; x(ii) The facts to which they have agreed to stipulate; and x(iii) The disputed facts or legal issues of which they can agree to a joint statement. x(4) Two days before the status conference, each party also shall submit to Commission staff a separate statement which shall include, as appropriate, the party's statement of the disputed facts and legal issues presented by the complaint proceeding and any additional discovery that the party seeks. A complainant that wishes to reply to a defendant's affirmative defense shall do so in its prestatusconference filing. To the extent that this filing contains statements replying to an affirmative defense, the complainant shall include, and/or serve with the statement, the witness information and documents required in"h$W90*%%ZZ(#" 1.726(g)(3)(4). A defendant that intends to rely on expert evidence shall include its expert statement in its prestatus conference filing. (See 1.729(i)(4)(ii).)   /$Z`.(#July 9, 1998  /  X- SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER HAROLD FURCHTGOTTROTH  X-   Vv-Re:XxAmendment of Rules Governing Procedures to Be Followed When Formal Complaints  V_-Are Filed Against Common Carriers, CC Docket No. 96238.(# xToday we adopt a new procedure to ensure the speedy resolution of formal complaint  X -proceedings filed against common carriers. Prompt decisionmaking by regulatory agencies provides a stable playing field, which allows competitive markets to thrive. But while prompt decisionmaking can facilitate competition, it is unfortunate that much more frequently regulatory delay acts to impede markets. xThe complaint procedures adopted here provide for an initial decision within 60 days of the formal complaint being accepted on to the "Accelerated Docket." It also ensures the opportunity for prompt review of staff decisions or recommendations by the full Commission. I support this timeframe with the hope that it will facilitate competition. I also support today's decision because the Commission expressly notes that nothing in this Order expands the Commission's jurisdiction. The modifications adopted today are important procedural  X-changes, but it is not the Commission's intent that this new process would provide parties with a forum to bring complaints that they could not have brought before. I feel comfortable  X-with today's decision because it recognizes these jurisdictional limitations. xIt is my hope that the accelerated process we adopt today will ensure the prompt resolution of disputes among market participants, thus facilitating a vibrant competitive market. Indeed, as the telecommunications market becomes increasingly competitive and markets are reacting ever more rapidly, these new procedures may be necessary to ensure that the Commission can respond to market disputes while the issues are still relevant. Finally, I appreciate that as many of these procedures are new and untried, we expect to review and revise these procedures within a year. With these limits in mind, I support today's decision.