WPCW 2BJZ Courier3|X  >^x6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5SiHPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\v&~X@26 FKP Z3|X  "i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNa݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheading"0\ E A.  FOOTNOTEFootnote - Appearance#P2#$d!%!&"'X#HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd$+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date% X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style off&@@    HEADERHeader A - Appearance'2((1!$)1R%*1&+1'LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5( 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5)f 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11*L 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14+ 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   2*,n)-X).)/i^*TITLETitle of a Document,K\ * ăFOOTERFooter A - Appearanced-BLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indented.N X HEADING 33rd Heading Level/| X2+/0d*1j]+2+3E-HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold Large0B*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored1 V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/margins2u 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 Invoice3 ,, $0$0  244-]/58068172MEMORANDUMMemo Page Format4D.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice5:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macro6z 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice7+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX 2668X49[%5:[5;[5NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle8SMALLSmall Typestyle9FINEFine Typestyle:LARGELarge Typestyle;28<[h6=[6>7?X8EXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle<VERY LARGEVery Large Typestyle=ENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header>+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   MACNormal?,.2?@X+9A9B#:C:1@dfStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without MarginsA$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5B$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IICJ )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 2BDl?E@AFAG|hBStyle 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/TabsD )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsEDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 FontF4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5G$ )^ `> XifQ 2IHCICJVDKDStyle 5Dutch Bold 18 PointH$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5I$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 PointJ$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for AdvancedK 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 2 ZL/JM6ON;TOQYStyle 8PfInitial Codes for BeginninggLi )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 IntermediateM )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 ModuleN )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 Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph FontO11#XXz PQXP##Iz PQP#2T\P=ZQ}ZR9[S[head1 #P'd#2p}wC@ #a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfQ$ a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfR/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfS:` ` `  2@_T\U$]V]W^a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfTE` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfUP  ` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfV[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfWf  2bXr_Y<`Zpb[qxba8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfXq para numnumbered indented paragraphsY' Y- 1.(i) 1) 1.#Xw P7[hXP# 1. 1.ҲDocument[8]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CC -2( -Ct )BZ` ` ` Document[4]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CCW -2( -Ct )B[  . 2d\ec]ec^c_pxdDocument[6]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CCe -2( -Ct )B\  Document[5]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CCs -2( -Ct )B]  Document[2]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CC -2( -Ct )B^*    Document[7]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CC -2( -Ct )B_  ` ` ` 2g`eaebGfcfRight Par[1]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )B`8@  Right Par[2]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )BaA@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CC -2( -Ct )Bb0     Right Par[3]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )BcJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` 2jdge_hfigiRight Par[4]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )BdS` ` `  @  Right Par[5]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )Be\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )Bfe` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers  -2( -Ct )Bgn` ` `  hhh@  2cmhjikjYlklRight Par[8]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )Bhw ` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CCE -2( -Ct )BiF34   ׃  Technical[5]C^iTechnical Document StyleCCS -2( -Ct )Bj&56  . Technical[6]C^iTechnical Document StyleCCa -2( -Ct )Bk&78  . 2 plmm1nnnoZoTechnical[2]C^iTechnical Document StyleCCo -2( -Ct )Bl*9:    Technical[3]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC} -2( -Ct )Bm';<   Technical[4]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )Bn&=>   Technical[1]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )Bo4?$@     2KrpC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersu -2( -Ct )J` ` ` @  ` ` ` 11S&C?C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )S` ` `  @  2 t<12S&C@C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )\` ` `  @hhh hhh 13S&CAC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )e` ` `  hhh@ hhh 14S&CBC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )n` ` `  hhh@  15S&CCC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )w` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 2?~16S&CDC^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )F   ׃  17S&CEC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&  . 18S&CFC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&  . 19S&CGC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )*    2/ѝf20S&CHC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )'   21S&CIC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&   22S&CJC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )4$     23S&CKC^fTechnical Document StyleCC+ -2( -Ct )&  . 2~a}c24S&CLC^fTechnical Document StyleCC9 -2( -Ct )&  . 25S&CMC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CG -2( -Ct )$ 26S&CNC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CU -2( -Ct )/` ` ` 27S&COC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cc -2( -Ct ):` ` `  2jN28S&CPC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cq -2( -Ct )E` ` `  29S&CQC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )P` ` ` hhh 30S&CRC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )[ 31S&CSC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )f 2֨f432S&CTC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )q Default ParaC^fDefault Paragraph Font2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#_Equation CaC^f_Equation CaptionF2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#endnote refeC^fendnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>>#PP##PP#2vvvfootnote refC^ffootnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>#PP#heading 4heading 4 heading 5heading 5 heading 6heading 6 2 v2vvvheading 7heading 7 heading 8heading 8 endnote textendnote text footnote textfootnote text 2ʰ<ZZdtoa headingtoa heading` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#1, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.E1.A, B,t ?@65Uppercase Letters1 ?*1÷$t ?.E .footnote tex6footnote text̺=(?. 0&ܺ*?.ںd 0E2(2pqleݱeB33`O5hT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5h.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 34`O5iT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5i.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  . 35`O5jT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5j.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  36`O5kT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5k.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  2 ٲplܳn37`O5lT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5l.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>*   38`O5mT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5m.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 39`O5nT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>8@   40`O5oT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>A@` `  ` ` ` 2׷;еt!41`O5pT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5p.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>0    42`O5qT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>J` ` @  ` `  43`O5rT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>S` `  @  44`O5sT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>\` `  @hh# hhh 2 ȸa45`O5tT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>e` `  hh#@( hh# 46`O5uT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>n` `  hh#(@- ( 47`O5vT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 48`O5wT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5w.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>F *  ׃  2MһW49`O5xT(G2PTechnical Document Stylex.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 50`O5yT(G2PTechnical Document Styley.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 51`O5zT(G2PTechnical Document Stylez.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>*    52`O5{T(G2PTechnical Document Style{.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>'   2N53`O5|T(G2PTechnical Document Style|.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&   54`O5}T(G2PTechnical Document Style}.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>4$     55`O5~T(G2PTechnical Document Style~.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 56`O5T(G2PTechnical Document Style.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 2p}:?57`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>$ 58`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>/` ` ` 59`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>:` ` `  60`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>E` ` `  2K61`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>P` ` ` hhh 62`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>[ 63`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>f 64`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>q 2L65`O5T(G2PDefault Paragraph Font5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>OO#P P##P P#66`O5T(G2P_Equation Caption^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>OO#PP##PP#67`O5T(G2Pendnote reference^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>RR#PP##PP#68`O5T(G2Pfootnote reference^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>R#PP#2~pqea69 _5(_>7footnote text _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tZP70 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t` ` ` 71 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  . 72 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  2e]p`73 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  74 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t*   75 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t` ` ` 76 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+t8@   2$T77 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tA@` `  ` ` ` 78 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t0     79 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tJ` ` @  ` `  80 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tS` `  @  2L81 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+t\  ` `  @hh# hhh 82 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+te  ` `  hh#@( hh# 83 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tn ` `  hh#(@- ( 84 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2wV85 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tF *  ׃  86 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&  . 87 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&  . 88 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t*    2>89 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t'   90 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&   91 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t4$     92 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&   . 2V9};93 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&!"  . 94 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+t$#$ 95 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+t/%&` ` ` 96 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+t:'(` ` `  2B&97 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+tE)*` ` `  98 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+tP+,` ` ` hhh 99 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+t[-. 100_5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+tf/0 2tF>FK101_5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+tq12 102_5(_>7Default Paragraph Font5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tw3w4#PP##PP#103_5(_>7_Equation Caption _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tw5w6#PP##PP#"i~'^'-KCCp---CK#-#%CCCCCCCCCC--KKKC}`X``XShh3ChX}`hSh`KX````X-%-MC-CK;K;-CK%-K%pKCKK;3-KC`CC;55E-#EM---#------C-K%`C`C`C`C`C``;X;X;X;X;1%1%1%1%`KhChChChC`K`K`K`K`C`C`KgChC`C`CQK`C`C`C`;`;`E`;`cX;X;X;X;hChChChEhChKhM3%3K3-3KlKEEhKX%XI\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>\>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\nBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\nBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d"">iiffSSxSrff8SS?"xxSx[xxS姧0S88xcxxxxxxxxxx8S{g]ix{S8ixSi`xlxxxxxxxxxxYxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxx{]iY]S{Y`MfGx`Y.(oS{V]x]iG`x`cYccJiMrYuxPr{{`x8irr{Y]rrz88iiii{xiiirrr{8`SJ8Muu]daqqZZnn{{xu{{M{aZZ5M5M҅P?kTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicUnivers ItalicTimes New Roman Bold Italic"i~'^:LpddDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppdLd||p|||D8DpdDddXdXDdp88d8pdddLL8pXdXLD,DpD4ppDDD4DDDDDDdDd8dddddXXXXXL8L8L8L8pddddpppp|Xdddd|Xd|ddddXXpXXXXXdddpdppL8LdLDLdpppd|8|h|D|L|8pppddLLLpLpLpLpp|l|8|ppppppp|p|L|L|Ld|DppL|D|d4ddC8CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxHddLdddddd4sTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicUnivers ItalicTimes New Roman Bold ItalicCourier X4 X   df8 aE#6\  P6QمP#  S'  #&I\  P6Qu&P#Federal Communications Commission`(#jFCC 9947 ă  ~ yx.dddy dՊ#XP\  P6QynXP#+` Before the w Federal Communications Commission  X'-Washington, D.C. 20554 ă In the Matter of) )  Xv4Policy and Rules Concerning the)CC Docket No. 9661 Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace) ) Implementation of Section 254(g) of the) Communications Act of 1934, as amended)  X 4 SECOND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION AND ERRATUM \  X4X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:"(# 1  X4XX` ` A.` ` Overview ` p>"(# 1  X4XX` ` B.` ` Procedural Background ` p>"(# 5  X|4XX` ` C.` ` Discussion ` p!(# 14 X\II. ERRATUM p"(# 20 X\III. ORDERING CLAUSES p"(# 21  X4X\APPENDIX A List of Parties  X\APPENDIX B Final Rules  X\APPENDIX C Procedural Issues " ,Z)Z)H"Ԍ X4_  I. SECOND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION׃  X'A.XOverview (#  X41.` ` INTROPARAIn this Second Order on Reconsideration, we consider again whether  X4nondominant interexchange carriers (IXCs)p r {O'ԍThe rules established in this order, like those in the Second Report and Order in this proceeding, apply  {O'only to nondominant IXCs and do not apply to commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers. Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace; Implementation of Section 254(g) of the  {Ob 'Communications Act of 1934, as amended, CC Docket No. 9661, Report and Order, 11FCCRcd9564 (1996)  {O, '(adopting rules implementing the rate averaging and rate integration requirements of section 254(g)) (Rate  {O 'Averaging and Rate Integration Requirements Order), Second Report and Order, 11FCC Rcd 20730 (1996)  {O '(Second Report and Order), stay granted, MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, No. 961459 (D.C. Cir. Feb.  {O '13, 1997), Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 15014 (1997) (Order on Reconsideration). The Commission forbore from requiring or permitting tariffs for interstate service offered directly by CMRS providers to their customers and temporarily forbore from requiring or permitting CMRS providers to file interstate access tariffs.  {M'See Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act; Regulatory Treatment of Mobile  {O'Service, GEN Docket No. 93252, Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1411, 1480 (1994). should be required to make available to the public _information concerning the rates, terms, and conditions for all of their interstate, domestic,  X_4interexchange services._ r yO'ԍIn this order, we also refer to this requirement as the "public disclosure requirement." Like other common carriers, IXCs historically have been required to file tariffs with the appropriate regulatory body (this Commission, in the case of interstate  X14services) establishing the rates, terms, and conditions of service.N1 r {Or'ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  203.N The tariff does not simply serve as a public source of such information; under the judicially created "filedrate" doctrine, the tariffed rate for a service is the only lawful rate that the carrier may charge for that  X 4service.$ "r yO'ԍFILEDRATEDOCTRINEThe United States Supreme Court recently held that the filedrate doctrine preempted a carrier's state {O'law contract claims for provisioning and billing of tariffed services. AT&T v. Central Office Telephone, Inc.,  {OQ'524 U.S. 214 (1998). For a discussion of the "filedrate" doctrine, see Second Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20754, 20762, paras. 45 n.122, 55.  Even if a carrier intentionally misrepresents its rate and a customer relies on the misrepresentation, the carrier cannot be held to the promised rate if it conflicts with the  X 4tariffed rate. r {O} 'ԍKansas City Southern R. Co. v. Carl, 227 U.S. 639, 653 (1913). For a detailed discussion of the  {OG!'harmful effects of the "filedrate" doctrine on consumers, see Second Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20762, para. 55. For arguments that complete detariffing would eliminate the possible invocation of the "filedrate"  {O"'doctrine, see, e.g., Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee Second Report and Order Reply at 46;  {O#'American Petroleum Institute Second Report and Order Comments at 89; General Services Administration  {Om$'Second Report and Order Comments at 89. When a single carrier dominated the interstate, interexchange market, tariffing was an effective tool for ensuring compliance with various common carrier requirements, including rules that require nondiscrimination among customers.",''"Ԍ X4ԙ2.` ` With the advent of competition in the provision of interstate, interexchange services, however, tariffing became less beneficial and, in some ways, harmful to consumers. The Commission previously has concluded that tariffing can discourage competitive pricing, restrict the flexibility of carriers seeking to offer service arrangements tailored to an individual  X4customer's needs, and impose unnecessary regulatory costs on carriers.< r {O'ԍSecond Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2076162, para 53; see Competitive Carrier Sixth Report and  {O'Order, 99 FCC 2d 1020 at 103031, paras. 1314. Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Competitive Common  {O'Carrier Services and Facilities Authorizations Therefor, CC Docket No. 79252, Notice of Inquiry and Proposed  {O{'Rulemaking, 77 FCC 2d 308 (1979); First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d 1 (1980) (Competitive Carrier First  {OE 'Report and Order); Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 84 FCC 2d 445 (1981); Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC82187, 47 Fed. Reg. 17,308 (1982); Second Report and Order, 91 FCC 2d 59 (1982); Order on Reconsideration, 93 FCC 2d 54 (1983); Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 48 Fed.Reg. 28,292 (1983); Third Report and Order, 48 Fed. Reg. 46,791 (1983); Fourth Report and Order, 95  {Og 'FCC 2d 554 (1983) (Competitive Carrier Fourth Report and Order), vacated, AT&T v. FCC, 978 F.2d 727 (D.C.  {O1 'Cir.1992), cert. denied, MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. AT&T, 509 U.S. 913, 113 S.Ct. 3020 (1993); Fifth  {O 'Report and Order, 98 FCC 2d 1191 (1984); Sixth Report and Order, 99 FCC 2d 1020 (1985), vacated, MCI  {O'Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, 765 F.2d 1186 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (Competitive Carrier Sixth Report and  {O'Order). In view of these concerns as well as the potentially harsh consequences of the "filedrate" doctrine for consumers, and pursuant to a statutory amendment contained in the Telecommunications Act  X_4of 1996,$_ r {O'ԍTelecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104104, 110 Stat. 56, codified at 47 U.S.C.  151 et  {O'seq. (1996 Act). Hereinafter, all citations to the 1996 Act will be to the 1996 Act as it is codified in the United States Code. The 1996 Act amended the Communications Act of 1934. We will refer to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, as the "Communications Act" or the "Act." the Commission in the Second Report and Order required the complete detariffingkZ_r yO'ԍ"Complete detariffing" refers to a policy of neither requiring nor permitting nondominant IXCs to file tariffs pursuant to section 203 of the Communications Act for their interstate, domestic, interexchange services.  {OX'See, e.g., Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 15016, para. 2 n.5.k of interstate, domestic, interexchange services offered by nondominant carriers.  X 43.` ` At the same time, the Commission sought to retain the one aspect of tariffing that continued to serve the public interest, i.e., giving consumers access to information about the rates, terms and conditions of services offered by these carriers. Thus, in the same order in which the Commission eliminated tariffing of interstate, domestic, interexchange services,  X 4the Commission imposed a public disclosure requirement.u r {OK!'ԍSecond Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2077378, paras. 7887.u  X44.` ` Following a stay of the Second Report and Order by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and upon the petitions of a number of parties who claimed that the public disclosure requirement would lead to some of the same ills that prompted the Commission to order complete detariffing, the Commission eliminated the public disclosure"Ol ,''"  X4requirement in the Order on Reconsideration.v r {Oy'ԍOrder on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 1504754, paras. 5973.v Acting on petitions for reconsideration of that order, we now conclude that in a detariffed and increasingly competitive environment, consumers should have ready access to information concerning the rates, terms, and conditions governing the provision of interstate, domestic, interexchange services offered by nondominant IXCs. We therefore reinstate the public disclosure requirement that was  X4originally established in the Second Report and Order, and also require nondominant IXCs that have Internet websites to post this information online.  XL' B.XProcedural Background(#  X54  X 45.` ` PERNICIOUSOn October 29, 1996, the Commission adopted the Second Report and Order in its proceeding reviewing the regulation of interstate, domestic, interexchange telecommunications services. Throughout this proceeding, the Commission's objective has remained constant: to foster increased competition in the market for interstate, domestic, interexchange telecommunications services by eliminating unnecessary regulation, in accordance with the goals established by Congress in the 1996 Act. The 1996 Act added section 10 to the Communications Act, which requires the Commission to forbear from applying any provision of the Communications Act, or any of the Commission's regulations, to a telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service, or class thereof, if the  XQ4Commission makes certain specified findings with respect to such provisions or regulations. QZr yO\'ԍ CRITERIA Section 10 requires forbearance if the Commission determines that: (1)enforcement of such regulation or provision is not necessary to ensure that the charges, practices, classifications, or regulations by, for, or in connection with that telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service are just and reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory; (2)enforcement of such regulation or provision is not necessary for the protection of consumers; and (3)forbearance from applying such provision or regulation is consistent with the public interest. 47 U.S.C.  160(a). In making the public interest determination, the Commission must consider whether forbearance will promote competitive market conditions, including the extent to which forbearance will enhance competition among providers of telecommunications services. If the Commission determines that such forbearance will promote competition among providers of telecommunications services, that determination may be the basis for a Commission finding that forbearance is in the public interest. 47U.S.C.160(b).  X#46.` ` TARIFFSBAD1For more than a decade prior to the 1996 Act, the Commission attempted to  X 4forbear from tariff regulation of nondominant IXCs, but was struck down by the courts. &  r {Ow!'ԍCompetitive Carrier Fourth Report and Order, 95 FCC 2d 554 (1983), vacated AT&T v. FCC, 978 F.2d  {OA"'727 (D.C. Cir. 1992), cert. denied MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. AT&T, 509 U.S. 913 (1993); Competitive  {O #'Carrier Sixth Report and Order, 99 FCC 2d 1020, vacated MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, 765 F.2d 1186 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Subsequently, the Commission requested, and Congress granted in section 10 of the Act, forbearance authority, with the express understanding that it would be used to effectuate interexchange detariffing. Exercising its forbearance authority, the Commission eliminated its" ,'' "  X4tariff filing requirements for nondominant IXCs in the Second Report and Order. While tariffs originally were required to protect consumers from unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory rates in a virtually monopolistic market, the Commission concluded that such  X4tariffs had become unnecessary for this purpose in an increasingly competitive market.A \r {O6'ԍSee, e.g., Second Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2073868, paras. 1466; Competitive Carrier First  {O'Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d 1 at 15, paras. 18; Competitive Carrier Sixth Report and Order, 99 FCC 2d 1020 at 102735, paras. 1125.A The Commission found that it is highly unlikely that interexchange carriers that lack market power could successfully charge rates, or impose terms and conditions, for interstate, domestic, interexchange services that violate sections 201 and 202 of the Communications Act because consumers could simply switch to a competing provider that offered better rates, terms, and  XJ4conditions.nJr {O 'ԍSecond Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20750, para. 36.n Instead of tariffs, the Commission found that it could rely on market forces, the section 208 complaint process, and its ability to reimpose tariff requirements, if necessary, to fulfill its mandate under the Communications Act to ensure that rates are just and reasonable  X 4and not unreasonably discriminatory, and to protect consumers. ~r {O4'ԍSecond Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2074247, 2075053, paras. 2128, 3643. Moreover, the Commission concluded that tariffs can have negative effects that impair market efficiency and increase  X 4costs to consumers.u r {O'ԍSecond Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2076068, paras. 5266.u The Commission found that, in particular, tariffs impede competition by  X 4permitting carriers to invoke the "filedrate" doctrine\ r {O'ԍSee supra para. INTROPARA1.\ and by not requiring carriers to provide  X 4rate and service information directly to consumers. 4 r {O'ԍSecond Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2074546, 20751, 20765, paras. 25, 39, 59. The Commission also stated that tariffs  X4provide a source of information that carriers can use to engage in tacit price coordination. r {O 'ԍSecond Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20752, 20761, 20766, paras. 41, 53, 61; Competitive Carrier  {O'Further Notice, 84 FCC 2d at 454, para. 26.  Xd47.` ` Although the Commission concluded that tariffs harm competition in the  XM4market for interstate, domestic, interexchange services,uM"r {O !'ԍSecond Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2076068, paras. 5266.u it also acknowledged that in the absence of some rate disclosure requirement, even in a competitive market, consumers might not have access to sufficient information about such services for purposes of bringing  X4complaints under section 254(g) of the Act+X\r yOm%'ԍ 254(G) 47 U.S.C.  254(g). Section 254(g) requires that a provider of interexchange telecommunications services charge its subscribers in rural and high cost areas rates that do not exceed the rates that the carrier charges subscribers in urban areas (i.e., that rates be geographically averaged). Section 254(g) also requires that"&,'' '" providers of interexchange telecommunications services charge subscribers in each State rates that do not exceed  {OX'the rates it charges subscribers in another State (i.e., that rates be integrated). Id., see Rate Averaging and Rate  {O"'Integration Requirements Order, 11 FCC Rcd 9564 (1996), recon., 12 FCC Rcd 11812 (1997).+ or for choosing the particular rate plan that best",''6"  X4suits their individual needs.ur {O'ԍSecond Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2077677, paras. 8485.u Yet the Commission also recognized that requiring carriers to make such information publicly available for these purposes may be at odds with its goals to reduce regulatory burdens on nondominant IXCs and to foster additional competition in the  X4interstate, domestic, interexchange market.n~r {O 'ԍSecond Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20777, para. 86.n In addition, an information disclosure requirement may detract from the Commission's goal of deterring any tacit price coordination that might exist because rate and service information would be collected and made available  Xv4in a single, central location.}vr {O7'ԍSecond Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2076061, 20777, paras. 53, 86.}  XH48.` ` The Commission determined in the Second Report and Order that the statutory forbearance criteria in section 10 of the Communications Act were met for complete  X 4detariffing of the interstate, domestic, interexchange services offered by nondominant IXCs. r {Oo'ԍSecond Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2073873, paras. 1477; see also 47 U.S.C.  160. The Commission concluded that complete detariffing would foster increased competition without failing to protect consumers by eliminating the possible invocation of the "filedrate" doctrine in ways that would otherwise lead to harsh results for consumers, establishing market conditions that more closely resemble an unregulated environment, and deterring any potential  X 4for tacit price coordination. 4 r {O'ԍSecond Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20733, 20744, 20760, paras. 4, 23, 52.  X{49.` ` The Commission also adopted a public disclosure requirement in the Second  Xf4Report and Order because it recognized that, even in a competitive market, nondominant IXCs might not provide complete information about the rates, terms, and conditions of their interstate, domestic, interexchange services to enable customers to bring to the Commission's attention violations of the Communications Act and to choose the calling plan that best suits  X 4their individual needs.q  r {O!'ԍSecond Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2074546, para. 25.q For example, nondominant IXCs might engage in targeted advertising concerning particular discounts and rate plans that might be the most appropriate  X4plan for some, but not all, consumers.pX r {O$'ԍSecond Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 20746, para. 25 n.74.p The Commission required nondominant IXCs to disclose to the public information about the rates, terms, and conditions of all of their interstate, domestic, interexchange services, in at least one location during regular business",''" hours. The Commission did not, however, require that public disclosure be made in any particular format or at any particular location, although it encouraged nondominant IXCs to consider ways to make this information more widely available to the public, for example, posting such information online, mailing relevant information to consumers, or responding to  X4inquiries over the telephone.ur {O'ԍSecond Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2077378, paras. 7887.u In addition to adopting the public disclosure requirement, the Commission required nondominant IXCs to: (1)file an annual certification stating that they are in compliance with the geographic rate averaging and rate integration requirements of  X_4section 254(g) of the Communications Act_Zr {Oj 'ԍSecond Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20775, para. 83. See supra note 254(G)22. and (2)maintain supporting documentation on the rates, terms, and conditions of all of their interstate, domestic, interexchange services that they could submit to the Commission and to state commissions within ten business days upon  X 4request. r {O'ԍSecond Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2077778, para. 87; Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 15052, para. 69.  X 4 10.` ` Several parties filed petitions for review of the Second Report and Order in the  X 4District of Columbia Circuit and filed motions requesting that the court stay the Second  X 4Report and Order pending judicial review.  Fr yO'ԍParties argued, among other things, that the Commission: (1) lacked statutory authority to order complete detariffing and (2) acted arbitrarily and capriciously in relying on deterrence of tacit price coordination as one of the reasons to order complete detariffing and at the same time requiring public disclosure, which could  {O'be used as a mechanism to coordinate prices. See, e.g., Motion for Stay Pending Judicial Review and for  {O'Expedited Consideration and a Briefing Schedule (MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC), No. 961459 (Jan. 7, 1997). On February 13, 1997, the court granted these  X 4motions.! r {O 'ԍMCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, No. 961459 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 13, 1997). In addition, a number of parties filed petitions requesting that the Commission  X4reconsider or clarify the rules it adopted in the Second Report and Order.  Xj4 11.` ` On August 15, 1997, the Commission adopted the Order on Reconsideration.b"jT r {Oo'ԍOrder on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 15014.b The Commission placed more weight on its concern that making available rate and service information to the public may detract from its objectives of deterring tacit price coordination  X'4and allowing market forces rather than regulation to discipline carriers.v#'r {O#'ԍOrder on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 1505054, paras. 6673.v The Commission recognized that elimination of the public disclosure requirement could make the access to rate and service information more difficult for businesses, including consumer groups that offer their analyses of the rates and services of IXCs to the public, as well as for resellers that are"x#,''"  X4both customers and competitors of IXCs.v$r {Oy'ԍOrder on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 1505054, paras. 6673.v The Commission nevertheless concluded that the benefits of eliminating the public disclosure requirement would outweigh any adverse  X4effects.v%Zr {O'ԍOrder on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 1505354, paras. 7172.v The Commission determined that elimination of the public disclosure requirement would decrease the regulatory burden on nondominant IXCs and deter any tacit price  X4coordination that might exist.v&r {OA 'ԍOrder on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 1505152, paras. 6869.v The Commission also found that, in all likelihood, consumers would still receive the information they need to ensure that they have been correctly billed and to bring to the Commission's attention possible violations of section 254(g) and other  X_4provisions of the Act.v'_~r {O 'ԍOrder on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 1505154, paras. 6872.v The Commission stated, however, that it remained willing to revisit  XH4its decision regarding the elimination of the public disclosure requirement.s(Hr {O 'ԍOrder on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 1505354, para. 71. s The Commission  X14did not modify the requirements adopted in the Second Report and Order that nondominant IXCs file an annual certification and that they maintain supporting documentation on their interstate, domestic, interexchange services that they could submit to the Commission and to  X 4state regulatory commissions within ten business days upon request.o) r {OA'ԍOrder on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 15052, para. 69.o  X 4 12.` ` Five parties filed petitions for further reconsideration asking the Commission to  X 4reinstate the public disclosure requirement.b*~ 4 r yO'ԍTwo of those parties ask the Commission to reinstate the public disclosure requirement for "mass  {OV'market" services. See The Utility Reform Network (TURN)/Telecommunications Management Information Systems Coalition (TMISC) Petition at 3; Telecommunications Research and Action Center (TRAC)/Consumer Action/Consumer Federation of America (CFA) Petition at 2. The other three parties ask the Commission to  {O'reinstate the public disclosure requirement for individuallynegotiated service arrangements. See Econobill Petition at 1; Harmony Petition at 1; Abe's Electronics Petition at 1. Thirteen parties filed oppositions to those  {OB'petitions or comments, and two of the petitioners filed replies. See Appendix A for a list of these parties.b The D.C. Circuit subsequently deferred the  X4briefing schedule in the appeal of the Second Report and Order to allow the Commission to  X}4act on these petitions.+}zr {O!'ԍMCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, No 961459 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 9, 1998). The judicial stay of the Commission's rules adopted in this  Xf4proceeding, therefore, remains in effect.&,\f r {O#$'ԍSee Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 1501718, 15074, paras. 4, 117; Policy and Rules  {O$'Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace, CC Docket No. 9661, Public Notice, DA 97493 (rel. Mar. 6, 1997).& "O0,,''"Ԍ X4 13.` ` The single issue raised on reconsideration is whether the Commission should require nondominant IXCs to make available to the public information on the rates, terms, and conditions of their interstate, domestic, interexchange services. For the reasons set forth below, we reinstate the public disclosure requirement that was originally specified in the  X4Second Report and Order and also require that carriers make this information publicly available online at their Internet websites.  Xx'  Xa'C.XDiscussion(#  X34  14.` ` The parties who filed the petitions for reconsideration that are before us today express grave concerns about the effects on consumers of the Commission's decision to eliminate the public disclosure requirement. These parties generally disagree with the  X 4Commission's finding in the Order on Reconsideration that consumers will have access to the information they need to select a telecommunications carrier and to bring to the Commission's attention possible violations of the Communications Act without a specific public disclosure  X 4requirement.z- r {O$'ԍSee Abe's Electronics Petition at 1; Econobill Petition at 12; Harmony Petition at 1; TRAC/Consumer  {O'Action/CFA Petition at 26; TURN/TMISC Petition at 410; see also, e.g., Colorado Commission Comments at 24; Colorado Consumer Counsel Comments at 2; Market Dynamics Comments at 2; Maryland People's Counsel Comments at 13; National Consumer League Comments at 12; Rural Telephone Coalition Comments at 3; South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs; Utility Consumers Action Network Comments at 13; West Virginia Consumer Advocate Comments at 2. z Eightyfive percent of consumers believe that the public disclosure requirement will serve their interests, according to a study commissioned by one of the members of  X}4petitioner TURN/TMISC.J.}Dr yOr'ԍTURN/TMISC Petition at 5.J Consumers find that IXCs' billing information often is "inaccurate and difficult to understand" and that their marketing information is "confusing,"  XO4according to findings of other studies cited by petitioners.E/XOr yO'ԍLetter from Andy Schwartzman and Cheryl Leanza, Media Access Project, Counsel for TRAC; Cheryl A. Tritt, Morrison & Foerster, L.L.P., Counsel for TMISC; and Emmitt Carlton, Counsel for TRAC; to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (Dec. 23, 1998).E Consumers find it impossible to obtain accurate and detailed information directly from carriers concerning their calling plans, according to TURN/TMISC and TRAC, on the basis of their own experiences in attempting to  X 4obtain such information directly from IXCs.b0  r yO 'ԍTURN/TMISC Petition at 79, TRAC Petition at 24.b These petitioners claim that carrier representatives: (1) provided information that was generally incomplete or inaccurate; (2)referred callers to their filed tariffs rather than provide information verbally; (3) withheld information about lowercost calling plans; and (4)provided information verbally, but only  X4reluctantly confirmed it in writing.1 r yO%'ԍTRAC Petition at Attachment B, Declaration of Geoffrey T. Mordock; TURN/TMISC Petition at Attachment C, Declaration of Kimberly Sierk. We also note that MCI WorldCom recently ended its" 1,''" cooperation with TRAC to provide information that TRAC summarizes in its comparative chart of long distance calling plans, citing the "timeconsuming nature of gathering and  X4confirming information," and referred the organization to its filed tariffs.2$r {OK'ԍTelephony, Vol. 18, No. 245, Communications Daily (Dec. 22, 1998). TRAC states that it is a non {O'profit, taxexempt, membership organization that, among other things, publishes TeleTips, a periodic newsletter that provides comprehensive consumer information and rate comparisons to help consumers make informed decisions regarding their long distance options. TRAC Petition at 1 n.1.  X415.` `  ABUNDANT There is abundant evidence that making information available to consumers is beneficial to competitive markets. In addition to the evidence set forth above and in prior orders in this proceeding, several of our recent decisions clearly recognize the beneficial effects of publicly available information on competitive markets and consumers. For instance,  XH4we proposed rules in the TruthinBilling Notice to make telephone bills more readable and accurate, because we believe that "consumers must have adequate information about the services they are receiving, and the alternatives available to them, if they are to reap the  X 4benefits of a competitive market."3 r {Oj'ԍTruth-in-Billing and Billing Format, CC Docket No. 98170, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC  {O4'Rcd 18176 (1998) (TruthinBilling Notice). In 1998, we adopted a price disclosure requirement for long distance carriers providing service at public phones that "more readily enables consumers to obtain valuable information necessary in making the decision whether to have that [carrier]  X 4carry the call at the identified rates, or to use another carrier."4 r {O'ԍBilled Party Preference for InterLATA 0+ Calls, Second Report and Order and Order on  {OK'Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd 6122 (1998) (Billed Party Preference Second Report and Order). We took these actions to address concerns that consumers were not receiving sufficient information to protect themselves against fraud and misinformation, and to select telecommunications services and  X{4providers that best suit their individual needs.5{l r {O'ԍTruth in Billing Notice; Billed Party Preference Second Report and Order. There are many examples of government  Xd4mandating disclosure of information to protect and promote consumer interests.6d r {O'ԍSee, e.g., Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act, Pub. L. No. 102556, 106 Stat. 4181  {O'(1992), codified at 47 U.S.C.  228 (requiring the Commission to adopt rules that, among other things, require separate disclosure of rate and service information on paypercall services); Truth in Lending Act, Pub. L.  {Oo'No.90321, 82 Stat. 146 (1968), as amended, codified at 15 U.S.C.  1601 et seq. (imposing minimum disclosure requirements for credit card bills in order to enable the consumer to compare more readily the various credit terms available to him and to protect the consumer against inaccurate and unfair credit billing and credit  yO!'card practices); Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101535, 104 Stat. 2353 (1990),  {O"'codified at 21 U.S.C.  343(I), (q) and (r) (requiring food makers to adopt uniform labels for products that give consumers information about the foods' nutritional content and limit the health and other claims that can be made).  X6416.` `  SPARSE IXCS CAN GET INFOIn comparison with abundant evidence in this proceeding of the benefits of information to competition and consumers, the anticompetitive effect of a public disclosure" 6,''" requirement is sparse and indeterminate. Moreover, the growing number of competitors in  X4this market substantially lessens the risk of tacit price collusion.7r {Ob'ԍSee Long Distance Market Shares Third Quarter 1998, Industry Analysis Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (Dec. 1998). As antitrust law recognizes, tacit price collusion is more likely to occur where there are only a few competitors who have  X4an oligopoly in the market.8"r {O'ԍF. M. Scherer and D. Ross, Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance 277315 (1990). Where there are greater numbers of competitors and low barriers to entry, as in the long distance market, the likelihood of such coordinated behavior is  X4marginal.9|r {O 'ԍF. M. Scherer and D. Ross, Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance 277315 (1990); see Application of WorldCom, Inc. and MCI Communications Corporation for Transfer of Control of MCI  {O 'Communications Corporation to WorldCom, Inc., CC Docket No. 97211, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13FCC Rcd 18025, 1804770, paras. 3676 (concluding that the merger will not make coordinated action more likely to occur in the interstate, domestic, interexchange market because the market has become progressively less concentrated over the past decade and because barriers to deploying excess long distance transmission capacity are low). In light of the "conflicting and inconclusive" evidence of tacit price collusion!:\ r {O6'ԍSecond Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2079596, paras. 12325; Motion of AT&T Corp. to be  {O'Reclassified as a Nondominant Carrier, Order, 11 FCC Rcd 3271, 330507 (1995), recon., 12 FCC Rcd 20787 (1997).! and the competitive nature of the market, we now are convinced that the public availability of pricing information presents only the slimmest opportunity for collusion and thus a public disclosure requirement need not be eliminated on that basis. Consequently, in light of the very positive public benefits of a limited public disclosure requirement, we believe that the  X 4Commission erred in previously eliminating that requirement in the Order on Reconsideration. In addition, the growth of competition in the long distance market means that consumers have more choices and, in turn, need more information in order to choose the long distance service plan that best suits their needs. We also note that IXCs have superior resources and incentives to stay informed of the rate plans of their competitors whether or not rate and  X 4service information is made publicly available.; r {Ov'ԍSee Econobill Petition at 12; TRAC Petition, Attachment A at 4; TURN/TMISC Petition at 16 n.35, 1718; Market Dynamics, Inc. Comments at 3; Econobill Reply at 8. Therefore, it is consumers who likely will  X4experience the most harm in the absence of a meaningful public disclosure requirement.?<vr yO 'ԍAnd, in order for this disclosure requirement to be meaningful, it must apply to all arrangements,  {O!'including mass market services and individuallynegotiated service arrangements. See Econobill Petition (stating that many of its clients are small and mediumsized businesses that were paying basic rates for mass market services and obtained lower prices by using an existing individuallynegotiated service arrangement for another customer with a similar calling pattern). For this reason, we disagree with the argument raised in the Ad Hoc  {O$'Nov. 24, 1998 ex parte letter that there is a greater risk of anticompetitive behavior with respect to individually {Om%'negotiated service arrangements of large users. See Letter from Henry D. Levine and Valerie Yates, Levine Blaszak, Block & Boothby, LLP, Counsel for the Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee, the California Bankers Clearinghouse Association, The New York Clearing House Association L.L.C., ABB Business Services,"&;,''&" and The Prudential Insurance Company of America, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, Federal Communications  {OX'Commission (Nov. 24, 1998) (Ad Hoc Nov. 24, 1998 ex parte letter).? We" "<,''l" clearly recognize that tacit price collusion is one of the grounds on which the Commission relied in choosing to forbear from the tariffing requirement and that basis is incongruous with our current holding. Nonetheless, we emphasize that the Commission substantially rested its detariffing decision on grounds other than collusion that remain compelling; thus, we find no conflict between the Commission's decision to order complete detariffing and our decision to  X4require public disclosure._="r {O` 'ԍSee infra para. POWELLCROSS19._  X_417.` ` We agree with Ad Hoc that the "filedrate" doctrine that the courts have  XH4applied to the tariff filing requirement should not apply to the public disclosure requirement.>\Hr {O 'ԍAd Hoc Nov. 24, 1998 ex parte letterat 4 (alleging that MCI attempted to create impression that rate and service information maintained at its Washington, D.C., office in accordance with the public disclosure  {O?'requirement in the Second Report and Order was a "tariff" to which the "filedrate" doctrine applied). The "filedrate" doctrine is applied to the rates, terms, and conditions of services specified in tariffs that are "duly filed" with the Commission in accordance with section 203 of the  X 4Communications Act.x? r {O'ԍSee, e.g., AT&T v. Central Office Telephone, 524 U.S. 214 (1998).x The "filedrate" doctrine is inapplicable to the public disclosure requirement because it is not a filing requirement within the meaning of section 203, but  X 4rather simply requires carriers to make information available to the public.r@ j r {O'ԍSee Second Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20777, para. 86.r Moreover, the Commission has long held that the "filedrate" doctrine is harmful to competition and  X 4consumers, as noted above.A r {OT'ԍSee supra para. TARIFFSBAD16; Second Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20762, para. 55.  Xy418.` ` REGFLEX ONEIn the face of opposing positions on whether public disclosure should be required, we strike the balance once again in favor of consumer concerns. We therefore  XK4reinstate the public disclosure requirement as originally established in the Second Report and  X64Order. Specifically, we require nondominant IXCs to make information available to the public concerning current rates, terms, and conditions for all of their interstate, domestic,  X 4interexchange services, in at least one location during regular business hours.uB  r {OI"'ԍSecond Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2077578, paras. 8387.u We also  X4require such carriers that have Internet websites to post this information online.C r {O$'ԍThe Commission merely encouraged IXCs to do so in the Second Report and Order. See Second Report  {O%'and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20777, para. 86 n.236. Carriers should post rate and service information at their Internet websites in a timely and easily" |C,''"  X4accessibleDr yOy'ԍFor example, the availability of the rate and service information should be prominently and clearly announced on the carrier's homepage with a link. manner and update such information regularly. We agree with TRAC and Ad Hoc that an online public disclosure requirement will make rate and service information more readily available and beneficial for consumers directly, as well as for businesses and consumer organizations that collect and analyze rate and service information and offer their analyses to  X4the public,E r {Ou'ԍSee, e.g., TRAC Petition at 6, Attachment A at 4, Mordock Affidavit at 2; Ad Hoc Nov. 24, 1998 ex  {O? 'parte letter). particularly in view of the tremendous growth in usage of the Internet since the  X4adoption of the Second Report and Order in 1996 and forecasts for additional growth.F|r {O 'ԍSee, e.g., Cheri Paquet, Report Counts 147 Million Global Net Users, The Industry Standard, Feb.10, 1999 (Computer Industry Almanac reports that the number of people who accessed the Internet at least once a week from their businesses and homes grew to 147 million worldwide in 1998, up from 61 million in 1996....The United States' lead in Internet access accounted for almost 52 percent of Internet users  {O'worldwide in 1998 . . . .); Growth of Internet, Practical Accountant, Aug. 19, 1998 (survey results estimate that  {O'the number of PCs that use the Internet has grown more than 140% from 18.6 million two years ago); Ovum  {Op'Posts Global Internet Growth Forecasts, M2 Presswire, Dec. 16, 1998 (forecasts 206 million dialup connections and 17.5 million permanent connections to the Internet by 2005, representing a fourfold increase on current figures). We find that an online requirement is not unduly burdensome, because the growth of Internet usage has increased the benefits of an online requirement to consumers, and the costs of maintaining an Internet website and posting the information online for carriers are  X34moderate.G3T r {O8'ԍSee, e.g., Paul Cox, Serving It Up: Before Buying Hardware To Put a Business Online, Some Questions  {O'Should Be Answered, The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 7, 1998 (estimating that "for as little as $25 per month, a  {O'small business owner can have a few pages in cyberspace, touting products and services"); MindSpring  {O'Introduces LAN On Demand; CostEffective, HighSpeed Internet Connectivity for Small Businesses, Business  {O`'Wire, Oct. 6, 1998.; Thomas L. Friedman, Amazon.you, The New York Times, Feb. 26, 1999. We exempt from the Internet posting requirement nondominant IXCs that do not have Internet websites, to avoid imposing undue burdens on such carriers.  X 419.` ` POWELLCROSSOur decision to reinstate the public disclosure requirement can be reconciled with our previous decision to implement complete detariffing. The Commission's decision to forbear from applying the tariff filing requirements to nondominant IXCs and require complete detariffing is amply supported by evidence of numerous concerns that are independent of, and more compelling than, tacit price coordination. These concerns, as set  X{4forth in the Second Report and Order and the Order on Reconsideration, include promoting competitive market conditions, eliminating problems resulting from the "filedrate" doctrine,  XO4and preserving the public's reasonable commercial expectations.HZOr {O%'ԍSecond Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2073868, paras. 1466; Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 1501926, paras. 617. We note that Sprint argues that the public disclosure requirement "effectively impose[s] a tariff filing obligation," but does not argue that the "filedrate" doctrine applies to the public"&G,''&" disclosure requirement. Sprint Opposition at 4. We believe that our"O XH,''" decision to reinstate the public disclosure requirement retains the one positive aspect of tariffing, making information on the rates, terms, and conditions of interstate, interexchange  X4services available to the public, without the negative aspects of tariffing.^IXr {O'ԍSee supra para. TARIFFSBAD16.^  X4AN II. ERRATUM ă  Xv420.` ` This Erratum corrects a final rule in the Order on Reconsideration, which was released by the Commission on August 20, 1997. In order to comply with the formal  XJ4requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, Appendix B to the Order on  X54Reconsideration is corrected to include a reference to state regulatory commissions that was  X 4contained in the text of paragraph 69 of the Order on Reconsideration, but was inadvertently  X 4not included in the rule to be codified at 47 C.F.R.  42.11.J r {O'ԍ12 FCC Rcd at 15052, 15078; see also 62 Fed. Reg. 59583 (Nov. 4, 1997) (summarizing the Order on  {Op'Reconsideration). The corrected final rule is contained in Appendix B to this order.  X '  X 4    III. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  X421. ` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that, pursuant to sections 14, 10, 201205, 215, 218, 220, 226, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151154, 160, 201205, 215, 218, 220, 226, and 254, the SECOND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION AND ERRATUM are hereby ADOPTED. The requirements adopted in this Second Order on Reconsideration shall be effective 30 days after publication of a summary thereof in the Federal Register or on the date when the requirements adopted in the Second Report and Order in this proceeding become effective, whichever is later. The collections of information contained within are contingent upon approval by the Office of Management and Budget.  X422. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions for Further Reconsideration filed in this proceeding ARE GRANTED to the extent described in this order.  Xm423.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Part 42 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  42, IS AMENDED as set forth in Appendix B hereto. "?FJ,''+"Ԍ X4 24.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Office of Public Affairs, Reference Operations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this Second Order on Reconsideration, including the Supplemental FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. ` `  hhCFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  X14` `  hhCMagalie Roman Salas ` `  hhCSecretary " J,''"  X4  @A-@U APPENDIX A׃ @LIST OF PARTIES  X4  X' List of Petitioners  X4 Abe's Cameras and Electronics Econobill Corp. Harmony Computer and Electronics, Inc. The Utility Reform Network/Telecommunications Management Information Systems Coalition X(TURN/TMISC)(# Telecommunications Research and Action Center/Consumer Action/Consumer Federation of XAmerica (TRAC/Consumer Action/CFA)(#  X ' List of Parties Filing Oppositions and Comments Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee/ California Bankers Clearing House XAssociation/ New York Clearing House Association/ ABB Business Services, Inc./ The Prudential Insurance Company of America (Ad Hoc Users Committee)(# Colorado Office of Consumer Counsel Consumer Advocate Division, State of West Virginia Public Service Commission Market Dynamics, Inc. Maryland People's Counsel MCI Telecommunications Corp. National Consumers League Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado (Colorado Commission) Rural Telephone Coalition South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs Sprint Corp. United States Telephone Association (USTA) Utility Consumers Action Network  X7' List of Parties Filing Reply Comments Econobill Corp. The Utility Reform Network/Telecommunications Management Information Systems Coalition X(TURN/TMISC)(# "!J,''"  X'  @A-B-@ |APPENDIX B FINAL RULES AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 2 PART 42 PRESERVATION OF RECORDS OF COMMUNICATIONS COMMON CARRIERS  X4  Xv41.XThe authority citation for part 42 continues to read as follows:(# AUTHORITY: Sec. 4(i), 48 Stat. 1066, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i). Interprets or applies secs. 219 and 220, 48 Stat. 107778, 47 U.S.C.  219, 220.  X 42.XNew section 42.10 and a preceding centered heading are added to read as follows:(#  X 4 Specific Instructions for Carriers Offering Interexchange Services ă  X '  42.10` ` Public availability of information concerning interexchange services. (#` (a) A nondominant interexchange carrier (IXC) shall make available to any member of the public, in at least one location, during regular business hours, information concerning its current rates, terms and conditions for all of its interstate, domestic, interexchange services. Such information shall be made available in an easy to understand format and in a timely manner. Following an inquiry or complaint from the public concerning rates, terms and conditions for such services, a carrier shall specify that such information is available and the manner in which the public may obtain the information. (b) In addition, a nondominant IXC that maintains an Internet website shall make such rate and service information specified in paragraph (a) of this section available online at its Internet website in a timely and easily accessible manner, and shall update this information regularly.  XN43.Section 42.11 is amended by revising paragraph (a). Paragraph (b) is unchanged.  X '  42.11` ` Retention of information concerning interexchange services. (a) A nondominant IXC shall maintain, for submission to the Commission and to state regulatory commissions upon request, price and service information regarding all of the carrier's interstate, domestic, interexchange service offerings. The price and service information maintained for purposes of this subparagraph shall include documents supporting the rates, terms, and conditions of the carrier's interstate, domestic, interexchange offerings. The information maintained pursuant to this subsection shall be maintained in a manner that allows the carrier to produce such records within ten business days."h$J,''""  X'@B-C-@   APPENDIX C PROCEDURAL ISSUES  X4  X' A.XSupplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis(#  X4 \  X4 I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 1 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)1.` ` As required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5U.S.C.  Xv4603, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice.PK^vr {O'ԍPolicy and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace; Implementation of Section  {O'254(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, CC Docket No. 9661, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,  {O '11 FCC Rcd 7141 (1996) (Notice).P The  Xa4Commission sought written public comments on the proposals in the Notice. In addition, pursuant to section603, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) was incorporated in  X54the Second Report and Order and a Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis  X 4(Supplemental FRFA) was incorporated in the Order on Reconsideration.L r {O'ԍSecond Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20798809, paras. 12958; Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 1506272, paras. 88113. These analyses conform to the RFA, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act  X 4of 1996 (SBREFA).M Hr {O'ԍ5 U.S.C.  601 et seq. The SBREFA is TitleII of the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA), Pub.L. No. 104121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996). The Supplemental FRFA in this Second Order on Reconsideration also conforms to the RFA.  X ' 1.` ` Need for and Objectives of this Second Order on  X'Reconsideration and the Rules Adopted Herein x`  Xj42.` ` In this Second Order on Reconsideration, we grant the petitions filed for  XS4reconsideration of the Order on Reconsideration, to further the same needs and objectives as  X>4those discussed in the FRFA in the Second Report and Order and the Supplemental FRFA in  X)4the Order on Reconsideration.N)r {O|'ԍSecond Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2079899, paras. 13031; Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 15062, para. 89. We reinstate the public disclosure requirement for all interstate, domestic, interexchange services offered by nondominant IXCs, as originally  X4specified in the Second Report and Order._O r {O!'ԍSee supra para. REGFLEX ONE18._ In addition, we require nondominant IXCs that have Internet websites to post this information online in a timely and easily accessible  X4manner, and to update such information regularly._P r {O%'ԍSee supra para. REGFLEX ONE18._ pp " P,''\"Ԍ X' 2.` ` Analysis of Significant Issues Raised in Response to the  X'Supplemental FRFA x`  X43.` ` Although not in response to the Supplemental FRFA in the Order on  X4Reconsideration, several parties argue that consumers, some of which are small businesses, will not have access to information they need to select a telecommunications carrier and to bring to the Commission's attention possible violations of the Communications Act without a  Xc4specific public disclosure requirement.kQcr {O'ԍSee, e.g., Abe's Electronics Petition at 1; Econobill Petition at 12; Harmony Petition at 1;  {O 'TURN/TMISC Petition at 3, 8, 17; see also, e.g., Colorado Commission Comments at 24; Colorado Consumer Counsel Comments at 12; Market Dynamics Comments at 14; Maryland People's Counsel Comments at 2; National Consumer League Comments at 12; Rural Telephone Coalition Comments at 13; South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs Petition at 1; Utility Consumers Action Network Comments at 2; West Virginia Consumer Advocate Comments at 2. k As discussed in the Second Order on Reconsideration, we reinstate the public disclosure requirement as originally specified in the  X54Second Report and Order._R5Dr {O*'ԍSee supra para. REGFLEX ONE18._ In addition, we require nondominant IXCs that have Internet websites, some of which are small entities, to make such rate and service information available online in a timely and easily accessible manner, and to update this information  X 4regularly._S r {Oy'ԍSee supra para. REGFLEX ONE18._ We exempt from this requirement nondominant IXCs that do not have Internet  X 4websites. We believe that the rules adopted in the Second Report and Order and as reestablished and modified in this Second Order on Reconsideration, will benefit consumers, some of which are small entities, and will minimize the regulatory burdens on nondominant IXCs, including small IXCs.  Xj' 3.` ` Description and Estimates of the Number of Small Entities Affected by this  XS'Second Order on Reconsideration (#`  X%4 4.` ` The RFA generally defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning  X4as the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small governmental jurisdiction."FTh r yO''ԍ5 U.S.C.  601(6).F In addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the term "small business  X4concern" under the Small Business Act.SU r yO"'ԍ5 U.S.C.  601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of "small business concern" in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to the RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency  {O%'and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register." 5 U.S.C.  601(3).S A small business concern is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and"U,''X"  X4(3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA)._Vr yOy'ԍSmall Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632 (1996)._ A small organization is generally "any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned  X4and operated and is not dominant in its field."FWXr yO'ԍ5 U.S.C.  601(4).F As of 1992, there were approximately  X4275,800 small organizations nationwide.Xr yOT'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). "Small governmental jurisdiction" generally means "governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special  X4districts, with a population of less than 50,000."FY@r yO~ 'ԍ5 U.S.C.  601(5).F As of 1992, there were approximately  Xv485,000 such jurisdictions in the United States.Zvr {O'ԍU.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 Census of Governments.Ā This number includes 38,978 counties, cities,  X_4and towns, of which 37,566 (96 percent) have populations of fewer than 50,000.[_b r {Or'ԍU.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 Census of Governments.Ā The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is basically accurate for all governmental entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600 (91 percent) are small entities.  X 45.` ` The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers of certain common carriers and related providers nationwide, appears to be data the Commission  X 4publishes annually in its Telecommunications Industry Revenue report, regarding the TRS.A\^ r {Oc'ԍFederal Communications Commission, Telecommunications Industry Revenue: TRS Fund Worksheet  {O-'Data, Fig. 2 (Number of Carriers Paying Into the TRS Fund by Type of Carrier) (Nov. 1996)  {O'(Telecommunications Industry Revenue).A  X 4According to data in the most recent report, there are 3,459 interstate carriers.[] r {Or'ԍTelecommunications Industry Revenue.[ These carriers include, among other things, local exchange carriers, wireline carriers and service providers, IXCs, competitive access providers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, providers of telephone toll service, providers of telephone exchange service, and resellers. The SBA has designated companies engaged in providing "Radiotelephone Communications" and "Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone" as small  X4businesses if they employ no more than 1,500 employees. ^r {Oz$'ԍ13 C.F.R.  121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 4812 and 4813. See also Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987).  "^,'']"Ԍ X46.` ` Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected. The U.S. Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) reports that, at the end of 1992, there were 3,497 firms engaged in  X4providing telephone services, as defined therein, for at least one year._r yOM'ԍU.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications, and  {O'Utilities: Establishment and Firm Size, at Firm Size 1123 (1995) (1992 Census). This number contains a variety of different categories of carriers, including local exchange carriers, IXCs, competitive access providers, cellular carriers, mobile service carriers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, personal communications services providers, covered specialized mobile radio providers, and resellers. It seems certain that some of those 3,497 telephone service firms may not qualify as small entities because they are not independently  XJ4owned and operated.^`J"r {O 'ԍSee generally 15 U.S.C.  632(a)(1).^ For example, a PCS provider that is affiliated with an IXC that has more than 1,500 employees would not meet the definition of a small entity. It is reasonable to conclude that fewer than 3,497 telephone service firms are small entity telephone service firms that may be affected by this Second Order on Reconsideration.  X 47.` ` IXCs. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to IXCs. The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless)  X4companies.War yO'ԍ13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC Code 4813.W According to the most recent Telecommunications Industry Revenue data, 143  X}4carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of interexchange services.cb}Dr {Or'ԍTelecommunications Industry Revenue, Fig. 2.c 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. Thus, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of IXCs that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 143 small entity IXCs that may be affected by the rule changes herein.  X' 4.` ` Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other  X'Compliance Requirements (#`  X48.` ` Summary of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance  X4Requirements. In the Second Report and Order, we required nondominant IXCs, among other things, to make information on current rates, terms, and conditions for all of their interstate, domestic, interexchange services available to the public in at least one location during regular  X?4business hours.bc?r {O%'ԍSecond Report and Order at 20777, para. 86.b We also required carriers to inform the public that this information is available when responding to consumer inquiries or complaints and to specify the manner in"(h c,''c"  X4which the consumer may obtain the information.bdr {Oy'ԍSecond Report and Order at 20777, para. 86.b We eliminated these requirements in the  X4Order on Reconsideration.veZr {O'ԍOrder on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 1505054, paras. 6672.v  X49.` ` In this Second Order on Reconsideration, we reinstate the public disclosure  X4requirement as originally specified in the Second Report and Order._fr {OC 'ԍSee supra para. REGFLEX ONE18._ In addition, we require nondominant IXCs that have Internet websites, some of which are small entities, to make such rate and service information available online in a timely and easily accessible manner, and to  Xc4update this information regularly.{_gc~r {O 'ԍSee supra para. REGFLEX ONE18._ Compliance with this obligation may require the use of{ accounting, billing, computer, and legal skills.  X ' X5.X` ` Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact of this Order on Reconsideration on Small Entities, Including the Significant  X 'Alternatives Considered and Rejected (#`  X 4 10.` ` The Second Order on Reconsideration finds that an online disclosure requirement will be beneficial to consumers, particularly in light of the tremendous growth in  X4usage of the Internet since the adoption of the Second Report and Order._hr {OU'ԍSee supra para. REGFLEX ONE18._ To avoid undue burdens on nondominant IXCs that do not have Internet websites, many of which are small entities, the Second Order on Reconsideration exempts such IXCs from the online public  XQ4disclosure requirement._iQr {O'ԍSee supra para. REGFLEX ONE18._  X#4 11.` ` Although not included in this Supplemental FRFA because they are not directly  X 4subject to the requirements in the Second Order on Reconsideration,j$ 4 r yO'ԍThis Supplemental FRFA is required to include only the effects of this Second Order on Reconsideration  {O 'on entities that are directly subject to its requirements. See MidTex Electric Cooperative, Inc., v. FERC, 773  {O!'F.2d 327, 34043 (D.C. Cir. 1985), aff'd, Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Ass'n. v. EPA, 142 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 1998). we recognize that such requirements should make the collection of information less costly for businesses, including consumer groups that analyze and compare the rates and services of IXCs and offer their" j,''" analyses to the public for a fee, as well as for resellers that are both customers and  X4competitors of IXCs.zkr {Ob'ԍSee Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 1505354, paras. 7172.z Some of these businesses and resellers are small entities.lZr {O'ԍSecond Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2080506, paras. 14647; Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 1506667, paras. 9899.  X' 5.` ` Report to Congress  X4 12.` ` The Commission shall send a copy of the Second Order on Reconsideration, including this Supplemental FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small  X_4Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, see 5 U.S.C.  801(a)(1)(A). In addition, a copy of the Second Order on Reconsideration and Supplemental FRFA (or  X34summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C.  604(b).  X 4 B.XSupplemental Final Paperwork Reduction Analysis (#  X 4 13.` ` The Notice from which this Second Order on Reconsideration issues proposed  X 4changes to the Commission's information collection requirements.Wm r {O)'ԍNotice, 11 FCC Rcd at 719394. W As required by the  X 4Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 10413 (PRA),an Fr {O'Ѝ44 U.S.C.  3501 et seq. a the Notice invited the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the  X4proposed changes.aor {O 'ЍNotice, 11 FCC Rcd at 719394. a On June 12, 1996, OMB approved all of the proposed changes to our  Xj4information collection requirements in accordance with the PRA. pjj r {O'ԍNotice of Office of Management and Budget Action, OMB No. 30600704 (June 12, 1996). In approving the proposed changes, OMB "strongly recommend[ed] that the [Commission] investigate potential mechanisms to provide consumers, State regulators, and other interested parties with some standardized pricing information," which "could be provided as part of the certification process or could be made available to the  {O'public in other ways." Id.   X<4 14.` ` This Second Order on Reconsideration contains two new proposed collections: (1) nondominant IXCs must make available to the public information concerning the rates, terms, and conditions of all interstate, domestic, interexchange services, in at least one  X4location during regular business hours, as originally specified in the Second Report and Order; and (2) nondominant IXCs that have Internet websites also must post this rate and service information online in a timely and easily accessible manner, and must update this information"p,''e"  X4regularly._qr {Oy'ԍSee supra para. REGFLEX ONE18._ These requirements are new collections of information within the meaning of the  X4PRA.NrZr yO'ԍ44 U.S.C.  35013520.N Implementation of these requirements is subject to approval by the OMB, as prescribed by the PRA. "r,''"  X4 ~&} y4 ~&} SEPARATE STATEMENT  X4 ~&} l~ ~&} OF  X4 ~&} ; ~&} COMMISSIONER NESSă  V4o>Body TextRe: Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace; and  V4Implementation of Section 254(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.  =Body Text   X_4#XP\  P6QynXP#This Second Order on Reconsideration ensures that consumers will have information they need to make informed choices about the services they choose in a competitive  X14marketplace.   X 4The long distance marketplace is substantially competitive. As a result of this  X 4competition, many consumers are calling more and paying less. This is good.   X 4But there have been two major problems that have limited the benefits consumers have  X 4enjoyed. One is the filed rate doctrine, under which a tariff deposited in some obscure corner  X4of this agency is deemed to trump whatever arrangement the consumer makes directly with the carrier. The second is the confusing array of rate schedules and calling plans and  Xb4surcharges that interexchange carriers have established. pp The Commission has sought to attack the first problem, the filed rate doctrine, by preventing nondominant carriers from filing tariffs. When the courts rebuffed our initial efforts, we sought and obtained explicit forbearance authority from the Congress. I hope this order will clear the way for the court to lift its stay of the complete detariffing regime, so that carriers are compelled to honor the terms of the deals they strike with their customers, and no longer can circumvent them by invoking the entirely fictional approval of this agency for a tariff that no one has ever read, much less approved.  The Commission is attacking the second problem, public information about the terms of offerings, through todays order (and through a forthcoming truthinbilling item). Carriers will now be required to provide reliable information upon reasonable request to consumers and to consumer advocates. They will also make the same information available on their Websites, if they have them (all major carriers do). The result is likely to be a more informed buying decision on the part of consumers, and fewer unpleasant surprises when the bill arrives.  In an earlier phase of this proceeding, I voted with all of my colleagues to establish the public disclosure requirement, and I later dissented when three of my colleagues voted to eliminate this requirement. In the second decision, the Commission was wrestling with a perceived conflict between maintaining a public disclosure requirement, on the one hand, and invoking concern about the dangers of tacit price collusion as a reason for requiring detariffing, on the other. I acknowledged that conflict but resolved it differently, because for"Q%r,''e#" me there was ample justification for complete detariffing independent of the price collusion rationale. Frankly, I dont really think it is all that likely that the absence of tariffs ! or of a public disclosure requirement ! will keep AT&T from finding out about MCIs Five Cent Sundays. Indeed, common sense tells me that carriers are likely to be able to learn the terms of their major competitors offerings, regardless of tariffs or public disclosure requirements.  X4The question is whether consumers will have the information they need to make informed decisions. Todays ruling ensures that they will. I also want to note that the public disclosure requirement was initially established at the specific request of Senators Stevens and Inouye, who felt it was useful to ensure that interexchange carriers honor their rate averaging and rate integration obligations under Section 254(g) of the Communications Act. Although todays order will be good for consumers throughout the country, I believe the citizens of Alaska and Hawaii will particularly benefit from the action we are taking today. " r,''\ " XX` ` X XXhhCXqXXppMarch 18, 1999(#p  a4(#^\  P6Q_P# Separate Statement of  a4 Commissioner Gloria Tristani  X4\#XP\  P6QynXP#  V4o>Body TextRe:Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace; and  V4Implementation of Section 254(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.  OBody Text  I am pleased to support todays decision requiring long distance carriers to disclose their rates on their websites. This will increase the availability of information to consumers who want to see for themselves what other carriers are offering. This will be a very useful tool for consumers who are online and who want to shop around. Todays decision also ensures that long distance rate information will continue to be available to those entities that organize this information and make it available to customers who want to quickly sift through the offerings of hundreds of long distance companies. In short, this decision is about providing more information to consumers. As any economist will tell you, markets operate best when buyers and sellers have more information, not less. Although requiring greater public disclosure is a positive step, it does not eliminate the confusion that is sometimes involved in choosing a long distance carrier. Even with todays decision to reinstate the public disclosure requirement, most consumers are likely to encounter practical difficulty in comparing the rates of two or more long distance carriers. The reason is that many long distance carriers use incomplete or misleading descriptions for the new charges they are placing on phone bills. To address that problem, the FCC is moving rapidly toward completion of the truthinbilling proceeding. I expect that proceeding will ultimately result in much clearer phone bills for consumers. More comprehensible phone bills, in combination with the public disclosure requirement, should make it much easier for consumers to shop for long distance service.  #XP\  P6QynXP#Although todays decision is limited to reinstatement of the information disclosure requirement, I wish to register my strong support for the prior Commissions decision to forbid tariffing by long distance carriers.  Tariffs filed by long distance carriers served a useful purpose in the past, but in todays long distance market, tariffs give carriers unfair control over the terms under which they provide service to customers. In what other line of business can a seller tell its customers one thing, then turn around and file a tariff with the government that legally overrides what the seller just promised its customers? Long distance carriers can ! and have  X%4! done that. Its called the filed rate doctrine and its perfectly legal if the FCC allows long distance carriers to file tariffs. "~&r,''$"Ԍ Without tariffs, carriers must establish agreements with each of their customers, just  X4like any other type of company. And without tariffs, carriers must inform customers directly of changes to the rates or terms of service. That puts buyers and sellers of long distance on the same footing as buyers and sellers of all other products in a free market. So I applaud the prior Commissions decision to do away with tariffs and I hope the D.C. Court of Appeals upholds that decision. "ar,'' " ` `  hhCqppMarch 18, 1999  X'G~&}  DISSENTING STATEMENT OF  COMMISSIONER HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH \  V_4 Re:X In the Matter of Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace; (CC Docket No. 9661).(#  X14 I dissent from today's Second Order on Reconsideration establishing requirements that long distance carriers disclose their rates even after these services are detariffed. The long distance market today is extremely competitive, as evidenced by the Commission's own decision to detariff these services. Yet the Commission today has imposed new disclosure requirements that are not only overly regulatory, but may even undermine some of the benefits of detariffing. American consumers are familiar with how competitive markets work. They purchase groceries, clothes and a number of goods and services. Practically all of these purchases are made without the overbearing review of a federal nanny charged with the sole responsibility of making sure that the seller discloses the price to the consumer. In competitive markets, federal nannies and federal regulation are unnecessary to protect consumers; indeed consumers ultimately pay the high cost of meddlesome regulation. In competitive markets, sellers serve customers; sellers fall over themselves to help customers; sellers tell customers their prices constantly in the hope of wooing new customers and in an effort to retain existing ones. Under section 10, the Commission must forbear from regulating companies as industries become more competitive. There is no dispute that the long distance industry is competitive. Indeed, the Commission acknowledges that it "determined in the Second Report and Order that the statutory forbearance criteria in section 10 of the Communications Act were met for complete detariffing of the interstate, domestic, interexchange services offered  X74by nondominant IXCs."]s7r yO'ԍSecond Order on Reconsideration, at para. 8.] The industry is more competitive today than it was at that time; indeed it is more competitive today than it was last month. Despite increasing long distance competition, however, the Commission uses a section 10 proceeding to justify expanding regulation as it imposes new regulatory requirements on carriers. By any reading of the statute, today's action is diametrically opposed to Congressional intent. Congress did not say that when the section 10 criteria are met that the Commission should forbear from statutorybased regulation and adopt other requirements that it prefers. I fear that future Commissions may see this as a precedent: rather than forbearing entirely from regulation in the face of competition, we have created new regulation. This precedent is bad for the Commission and worse for consumers who will surely suffer.