**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter )

)

Implementation of Section 402(b)(1)(A) ) CC Docket No. 96-187

of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 )

)

)

**ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION**

**Adopted: August 28, 2002 Released: September 12, 2002**

By the Commission:

######### I. INTRODUCTION

1\. In this order, we address petitions for reconsideration filed on
March 10, 1997 by AT&T Corporation (AT&T), MCI Telecommunications
Corporation (MCI), and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT)
(hereinafter \"the petitioners\") regarding the Commission\'s 1997
*Streamlined Tariff Report and Order.*[^1] For the reasons set forth
below, we deny the petitions for reconsideration filed by AT&T, MCI, and
SWBT. We also deny the requests for clarification filed by AT&T and MCI.

2\. The *Streamlined Tariff Report and Order* implemented amendments to
section 204(a) of the Communications Act made by the Telecommunications
Act of 1996.[^2]

Specifically, the 1996 Act allowed local exchange carriers (LECs) to
file new or revised charges, classifications, regulations or practices
with the Commission on a streamlined basis.[^3] The 1996 Act also
required the Commission to conclude any hearings initiated under that
section within five months after the date the charge, classification,
regulation, or practice subject to the hearing becomes effective.[^4]
These amendments apply to any charge, classification, regulation, or
practice filed on or after one year after the date of enactment of the
Act (*i.e.,* on or after February 8, 1997).[^5] The Commission proposed
rules to implement these tariff streamlining provisions[^6] and released
the *Streamlined Tariff Report and Order* on January 31, 1997.

**II. DISCUSSION**

#########  A. \"Deemed Lawful" Status of Streamlined LEC Tariff Filings

3\. Section 204(a)(3) of the Act provides that LEC tariffs filed on a
streamlined basis "shall be deemed lawful."[^7] In the *NPRM*, the
Commission considered two possible interpretations of "deemed lawful."
Under the first interpretation, a tariff filed pursuant to section
204(a)(3) that becomes effective without suspension and investigation
would be conclusively presumed to be a "lawful" tariff.[^8] The tariff
subsequently could be found unlawful in a hearing under section 205 of
the Act, or in a complaint proceeding under section 208.[^9] Because
section 204(a)(3) requires the tariff to be "deemed lawful," however,
the Commission could not award damages for the period that the tariff
was in effect; it could only order tariff revisions or provide
prospective relief if the LEC continued to apply the rate, term, or
condition after the effective date of a Commission order finding it
unlawful.[^10] Under the second interpretation, a tariff filed pursuant
to section 204(a)(3) that becomes effective without suspension and
investigation would be presumed to be lawful, but the Commission or
parties to a tariff proceeding could rebut the presumption of
lawfulness.[^11] Tariffs would still be subject to complaint and/or
investigation, and refunds or damages could be awarded for any period
that the tariff was in effect, subject to the applicable statute of
limitations.[^12]

4\. In the *Streamlined Tariff Report and Order*, the Commission adopted
the first alternative: a tariff filed pursuant to section 204(a)(3) that
becomes effective without suspension and investigation is a "lawful"
tariff.[^13] In their petitions, AT&T and MCI assert that the Commission
should have adopted the second alternative: a tariff filed on a
streamlined basis that becomes effective without suspension and
investigation is presumed lawful, but that presumption may be
rebutted.[^14] In support of their position, AT&T and MCI argue that the
\"deemed lawful\" language in section 204(a)(3) is ambiguous. In its
petition, SWBT asserts that "deemed lawful" creates a safe harbor in
which LECs can operate without fear of an attack on their rates or other
tariff provisions once the tariffs become effective.[^15] As such, SWBT
asserts that the Commission should reconsider the *Streamlined Tariff
Report and Order* and find that, after a tariff is deemed lawful, a
complainant may not file a section 208 complaint against a carrier
solely because the carrier is applying the tariffed rate or
practice.[^16]

5\. Subsequent to the filing of the petitions for reconsideration, the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
considered the meaning of "deemed lawful" in section 204(a)(3) in the
context of a section 208 complaint case.[^17] The court focused on
whether there was a distinction to be made between rates and rates of
return for determining whether the deemed lawful standard was applicable
to the case. In this context, however, the court specifically considered
the Commission's statements in the *Streamlined Tariff Report and Order*
that the term "deemed lawful" was "unambiguous" in the "consistent"
interpretation of the courts.[^18] That consideration led the court to
say, "\[t\]his being so \[that case law consistently found deemed lawful
to be unambiguous\], we find section 204(a)(3) equally unambiguous in
banning refunds purportedly for rate-of-return violations."[^19] Given
the court's conclusion, we cannot adopt the reading urged by AT&T and
MCI. We thus deny the petitions filed by AT&T and MCI with respect to
this issue.

6\. We also, however, deny SWBT's petition. The court's holding was
limited to the question of refund liability for rates that were "deemed
lawful"; it in fact acknowledged that the Commission might order
prospective relief "\[i\]f a later reexamination shows them to be
unreasonable."[^20] This is consistent with the express language of
section 205(a), which states that

> \[w\]henever, after full opportunity for hearing, upon a complaint or
> under an order for investigation and hearing made by the Commission on
> its own initiative, the Commission shall be of the opinion that any
> charge, classification, regulation, or practice of any carrier or
> carriers is or will be in violation of any of the provisions of this
> Act, the Commission is authorized and empowered to determine and
> prescribe what will be the just and reasonable charge or the maximum
> or minimum, or maximum and minimum, charge or charges to be thereafter
> observed . . . .[^21]

Therefore, a rate that is deemed lawful within the meaning of section
204(a)(3) may be the subject of a complaint alleging that the rate has
become unjust and unreasonable, and the Commission by order may
prescribe a new rate to be effective prospectively, even if the
Commission can not require a carrier to make refunds. Indeed, we have
previously stated that "\[s\]ection 205 thus expressly authorizes the
Commission to prescribe rates in the context of a complaint proceeding
under section 208."[^22] SWBT does not take issue with the Commission's
authority to prescribe rates prospectively pursuant to section 205.[^23]

**B. Notice Periods**

7\. In the *Streamlined Tariff Report and Order*, the Commission
established new filing periods for petitions to suspend and reject LEC
transmittals.[^24] In particular, the Commission required that petitions
against LEC tariff transmittals that are effective seven days from the
filing must be filed within three calendar days from the date of tariff
filing, and replies must be filed within two calendar days of service of
the petition.

8\. AT&T argues in its petition that the notice periods, in particular
the seven-day notice period, adopted by the Commission will encourage
LECs to submit tariffs at times that limit the ability of interested
parties to review them.[^25] Since these rules became effective, the
Commission has implemented an electronic tariff filing system (ETFS).
ETFS allows interested parties to review tariff transmittals as soon as
they are filed. As a result, our experience has been that the three-day
review period for LEC tariffs filed on seven days\' notice is reasonable
and has allowed commenters adequate time to review and respond to LEC
streamlined tariff filings proposing rate reductions. Moreover, the
seven-day notice period is limited to those tariffs proposing only rate
decreases.[^26] These tariffs raise fewer regulatory concerns and have
the potential to confer immediate benefits on customers. For these
reasons, we deny AT&T's petition for reconsideration with respect to
this issue.

**C. Annual Access Tariff Filings**

9\. Section 69.3(h) of the Commission\'s rules requires price cap LECs
to file annual access tariffs to be effective on July 1 of each
year.[^27] In connection with their annual access tariff filings, price
cap LECs are required to file supporting material, usually in the form
of tariff review plans (TRPs), to support the revisions to rates in the
annual access tariffs.[^28] These tariff filings may be made on a
streamlined basis. For price cap carriers that elect to make their
annual access tariff filing on a streamlined basis, section 61.49(k) of
our rules requires them to submit their supporting materials, absent
rate information, 90 days prior to July 1 of each year.[^29] LECs
subject to rate-of-return regulation must file access tariffs every two
years.[^30] These tariffs shall be filed with a scheduled effective date
of July 1.[^31] In order for these access service tariffs to be
effective by the scheduled effective date of July 1st, rate-of-return
carriers must comply with the Commission's notice requirements by filing
these access service tariffs by June 15th*.*[^32]

10\. AT&T argues that rate-of-return LECs also should be required to
file their supporting materials, without proposed rate information, 90
days prior to July 1.[^33] AT&T also asserts that the Commission should
require early filing of cost support data associated with any mid-term
tariff filing that proposes changes to a price cap LEC's price cap
indices (PCIs), based on the same reasoning used to require early
filings of material supporting the annual access tariff filings.[^34]

11\. We reject AT&T\'s argument that rate-of-return LECs should be
required to file supporting material associated with their annual access
tariffs 90 days prior to the effective date of those tariffs.
Rate-of-return LECs utilize financial data from the calendar year
preceding the annual access tariff filing in the development of tariffed
rates. Many of these carriers are small and participate in either the
NECA common line or traffic-sensitive pool, or both. It takes time for a
carrier to prepare its annual financial data, which then must be
submitted to NECA along with the carrier's demand data. NECA then
reviews the submitted data and develops tariff rates based on the
combined data submitted by all carriers participating in the tariff. It
would be extremely difficult for the parties to prepare and submit this
90 days prior to the effective date of the annual access tariff filing.
Our experience reviewing the rate-of-return LECs\' annual access
tariffs, including the cost support, filed on a streamlined basis has
been that interested parties and the Commission\'s staff have been able
to review adequately those filings during the notice period provided. In
the event that some issues cannot be resolved prior to the effective
date of the tariff, the Commission may suspend and investigate the
tariff filing, thereby protecting the interests of consumers.

12\. For similar reasons, we also reject AT&T's argument that price cap
LECs should file supporting materials associated with mid-term tariff
filings 90 days before the filings take effect. In those instances where
a LEC submits streamlined mid-term tariff filings revising its PCIs, we
have found that interested parties and the Commission\'s staff are able
to review those filings during the streamlined notice periods because,
unlike the annual access filing, LECs do not make simultaneous mid-term
filings and the number of issues is generally limited. Moreover, we may
suspend and investigate a tariff filing if we have a concern that cannot
be resolved during the seven- or fifteen-day review period.

13\. SWBT argues that the Commission should reconsider its decision to
require price cap LECs to file their supporting material for their
annual access tariff early because the early filing is contrary to the
intent of the 1996 Act to streamline the procedures for LEC tariff
filings.[^35] We are unpersuaded by SWBT's arguments. The data filed
with the TRP do not constitute rates within the meaning of the Act. The
rate language does not limit the Commission's ability to request that
the TRP data be filed in advance of the rate filing. The early filing of
the price cap LECs' supporting material has enabled the Commission\'s
staff to resolve most of the complex issues associated with annual
access tariff filings before the tariffs become effective. Thus, we deny
SWBT's petition on this issue.

#########  D. Protective Orders

14\. Parties present three main objections to the protective order
adopted with the *Streamlined Tariff Report and Order*.[^36] First, SWBT
again argues that the standard protective order issued in the
*Streamlined Tariff Report and Order* is deficient because it does not
forbid the making of copies or the possession of those copies at the
offices of the commenting party, even for information warranting the
highest degree of confidentiality.[^37] We addressed this issue in the
*Streamlined Tariff Report and Order*. In the *Streamlined Tariff Report
and Order,* we declined to bar the copying of confidential information
because we found that such a bar would impose an unnecessary burden on
the review of such information. [^38] Because SWBT has not presented any
new facts or changed circumstances with respect to these issues, we see
no reason to revisit this issue.

15\. Second, SWBT contends that the Commission should revise its
standard protective order because the protective order does not permit
LECs to withhold information that is subject to confidentiality claims
by third party vendors.[^39] AT&T counters that the Supreme Court has
rejected the claim that a company may withhold information from the
Commission that is subject to a confidentiality agreement with third
parties.[^40] SWBT's position runs counter to this precedent, and also
to our long experience in dealing with confidential information.
Historically, the Commission has withheld cost support data from public
inspection only in limited circumstances, such as where it has been
necessary to protect third party vendor data, and it has often made that
data available subject to a protective order.[^41] SWBT has not
presented any evidence indicating that the protective order adopted in
the *Streamlined Tariff Report and Order* is inconsistent with
Commission precedent on this issue. Accordingly, we reject SWBT\'s claim
that it has a right to withhold third party confidential information.

16\. Third, MCI argues that the standards that a LEC must meet to file
cost support data under confidential cover are so minimal that they
place no real limits on the LEC\'s ability to gain confidential
treatment.[^42] Subsequent to the filing of MCI's petition, the
Commission addressed these concerns in the *Confidentiality Report and
Order* by: (1) amending section 0.459 to require parties to explain how
disclosure could result in a significant competitive harm and to
describe the circumstances giving rise to the submission; and (2)
modifying the procedures adopted in the *Streamlined Tariff Report and
Order* to require that applicants include the supporting information
required by the amended section 0.459(b).[^43] We find that the measures
adopted in the *Confidentiality Report and Order* respond to MCI\'s
concerns, and we accordingly deny MCI any further relief.

17\. In addition to the concerns identified above, parties present two
alternatives to the current protective order. First, according to SWBT,
the Commission should make protective orders unnecessary by eliminating
the cost support requirements for tariffs or, at a minimum, it should
adopt procedures that allow LECs to file streamlined tariff changes
without requiring them to compromise the confidentiality of their
sensitive information.[^44] In the *Streamlined Tariff Report and
Order*, the Commission considered a similar option raised by USTA and
Ameritech and adopted the routine use of a standard protective
order.[^45] We see no reason to depart from that practice. The
Commission found that routine use of a standard protective order would
eliminate delay during the shortened tariff review process as well as
address concerns about the protection of competitively sensitive
financial data.[^46] Second, MCI and TRA contend that individual Bell
Operating Companies (BOCs) should not be permitted to file cost support
under confidential cover until they have met the competitive
requirements of section 271 of the Act, and other incumbent LECs also
should have to meet an equivalent competitive test.[^47] Although the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) generally provides for release of
information, it allows certain materials to be withheld from public
inspection upon a sufficient showing by the party requesting
confidentiality.[^48] The FOIA sets forth the specific exemptions for
release of information.[^49] Therefore, a decision to withhold materials
is determined on a case-by-case basis and by an assessment of the
showing made pursuant to the exceptions of the FOIA. We decline to set
any preconditions to our consideration of a request for confidential
treatment, as MCI and TRA request.

18\. Third, MCI suggests that the Commission should give customers the
option of entering into a standing protective agreement with the
LECs.[^50] Ameritech opposes MCI\'s suggestion, explaining that it is
essential that those with access to confidential information be required
to execute a protective agreement each time confidential information is
made available in order to underscore the importance of their legal
obligation to adhere to the terms of the protective agreement. The
Commission, in its *Confidentiality Report and Order*, emphasized the
importance of a case-by-case balancing of, *inter alia*, the type of
proceeding, the relevance of the information, and the nature of the
information.[^51] Requiring LECs to enter into standing protective
agreements would run counter to this policy. Accordingly, we reject
MCI's alternative proposal and affirm the protective order that was
adopted in the *Streamlined Tariff Report and Order* and modified in the
*Confidentiality Report and Order*.[^52]

> E. Application of Tariff Streamlining Provisions Solely to Exchange
> Access Services

19\. MCI asks the Commission to clarify that the tariff streamlining
provisions of section 204(a)(3) apply to LECs only to the extent that
they are providing exchange access service and, therefore, that section
204(a)(3) does not enable LECs to file interstate interexchange tariffs
on a streamlined basis.[^53] MCI argues that it would be anomalous if
interexchange tariffs filed by dominant LECs could be "deemed lawful"
when tariffs filed by non-dominant interexchange carriers (IXCs) are not
eligible for such treatment.[^54]

20\. We deny MCI's request for clarification for the following reasons.
First, although the *NPRM* sought comment on a broad range of issues
related to section 204(a)(3),[^55] no party commented on whether section
204(a)(3) is limited to "exchange access service" or whether it extends
to any interstate service offered by a "local exchange carrier."[^56] In
its comments in response to the *NPRM*, MCI did not suggest that LECs'
interstate interexchange services fall outside the scope of section
204(a)(3).[^57] Instead, this issue was raised for the first time in
MCI's petition for reconsideration.

21\. Moreover, the record received in response to MCI's petition
contains little more than bare assertions about the scope of section
204(a)(3),[^58] and the regulatory and market conditions have changed
since then. In 1997, the Commission found incumbent LECs nondominant
with respect to in-region, interstate interLATA services offered through
a separate subsidiary, as well as for the offerings of out-of-region
interexchange services.[^59] In 1999, in the *Access Charge Reform Fifth
Report and Order*, the Commission removed corridor and interstate
intraLATA services in the interexchange basket from price cap regulation
and allowed price cap LECs to file tariffs for these services on one
day's notice and without cost support, although it did not find the LECs
nondominant with respect to these services. [^60] In 2000, the
Commission's rules mandating detariffing of the interstate, domestic,
interexchange services of non-dominant IXCs, including the nondominant
interexchange offerings of incumbent LECs, as well as AT&T, MCI, and
WorldCom, took effect.[^61] Thus the regulatory regimes applicable to
the provision of interexchange services by local exchange carriers and
IXCs have changed dramatically since MCI filed its reconsideration
petition.[^62] Given the sparse record on this issue and the changed
regulatory circumstances, we decline to provide the clarification MCI
requests at this time. If MCI believes that further clarification is
necessary, it can seek further Commission action by requesting, *e.g.,*
that the Commission commence a rulemaking on this issue.

**III. ORDERING CLAUSES**

22\. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j),
201-205, and 405 of the Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152,
154(i), 154(j), 201-205, and 405, that the petitions for reconsideration
filed by AT&T Corp., MCI Communications Corp., and Southwestern Bell
Telephone Company ARE HEREBY DENIED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch Secretary

[^1]: S*ee Implementation of Section 402(b)(1)(A) of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996*, CC Docket No. 96-187, Report and
    Order, 12 FCC Rcd 2170 (1997) (*Streamlined Tariff Report and
    Order)*. The following parties filed comments in response to the
    petitions: Ameritech Operating Companies (Ameritech); Bell Atlantic
    and NYNEX (Bell Atlantic); BellSouth Corporation (BellSouth);
    Competitive Telecommunications Association (CompTel); GTE Service
    Corporation (GTE); Joint Response by Hyperion Telecommunications,
    Inc. and KMC Telecom, Inc. (Hyperion); McLeod USA Telecommunications
    Services, Inc. (McLeod); Sprint Corporation (Sprint);
    Telecommunications Resellers Association (TRA); and WorldCom, Inc.
    In addition, SWBT and Pacific and Nevada Bell filed a joint
    opposition and AT&T and MCI each filed oppositions to arguments
    raised in each other's petitions (hereinafter SWBT Opposition; AT&T
    Opposition; MCI Opposition, respectively). AT&T, MCI, and SWBT filed
    replies.

[^2]: Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56
    (1996 Act), *codified at* 47 U.S.C. §§ 151 *et seq.* The 1996 Act
    amended the Communications Act of 1934 (hereinafter \"the
    Communications Act\" or "the Act").

[^3]: 1996 Act, § 402(b)(1)(A)(iii); 47 U.S.C. § 204(a)(3) ("A local
    exchange carrier may file with the Commission a new or revised
    charge, classification, regulation, or practice on a streamlined
    basis. Any such charge, classification, regulation, or practice
    shall be deemed lawful and shall be effective 7 days (in the case of
    a reduction in rates) or 15 days (in the case of an increase in
    rates) after the date on which it is filed with the Commission
    unless the Commission takes action under paragraph (1) before the
    end of that 7-day or 15-day period as appropriate.").

[^4]: 1996 Act, § 402(b)(1)(A)(i); 47 U.S.C. § 204(a)(2)(A).

[^5]: 1996 Act, § 402(b)(4).

[^6]: *See Implementation of Section 402(1)(A) of the Telecommunications
    Act of 1996*, CC Docket No. 96-61, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11
    FCC Rcd 11233 (1996) (*NPRM*).

[^7]: 1996 Act, § 402(a)(b)(1)(A)(iii); 47 U.S.C. § 204(a)(3).

[^8]: *NPRM*, 11 FCC Rcd at 11236.

[^9]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 205, 208.

[^10]: *NPRM*, 11 FCC Rcd at 11236.

[^11]: *NPRM*, 11 FCC Rcd at 11239.

[^12]: *Id.*

[^13]: *Streamlined Tariff Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 2181-84.

[^14]: AT&T Petition at 2-10; MCI Petition at 3-15.

[^15]: SWBT Petition at 2.

[^16]: SWBT Petition at 2-3.

[^17]: ^?^ *ACS of Anchorage, Inc. v. FCC*, 290 F. 3d 406, 412 (D.C.
    Cir. 2002).

[^18]: *Id.*

[^19]: *Id.* The court also stated that "\[s\]ince section 204(a)(3)
    deems ACS's rates to be lawful, the inquiry \[into lawfulness\]
    ends." *Id.*

[^20]: *Id.* at 411*.*

[^21]: 47 U.S.C. § 205(a).

[^22]: *AT&T v. BTI*, EB-01-MD-001, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC
    01-185, 2001 WL 575527 (rel. May 30, 2001), *recon.* dismissed, 16
    FCC Rcd 21750 (2001).

[^23]: SWBT Petition at 2 ("SWBT's view does not preclude the Commission
    from acting under Section 205 to effectively change the law that
    applies to a particular tariff rate.").

[^24]: *Streamlined Tariff* *Report and Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at 2206-08.

[^25]: AT&T Petition at 10. AT&T argues that LECs will file tariffs with
    the Commission just before the close of business on Friday, thereby
    giving commenters one day only to obtain, review, and respond to
    such filings. AT&T Petition at 11. In the *Streamlined Tariff Report
    and Order*, the Commission considered and rejected a similar
    argument raised by the American Carrier Telecommunication
    Association. *Streamlined Tariff Report and Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at
    2207-08.

[^26]: SWBT Opposition at 11; *Streamlined Tariff Report and Order*, 12
    FCC Rcd at 2206. *See also* 47 C.F.R. 61.58(A)(2)(i)(providing the
    notice periods for tariffs filed pursuant to section 204(a)(3)).

[^27]: 47 C.F.R. § 69.3(h).

[^28]: *See generally* 47 C.F.R. § 61.49.

[^29]: 47 C.F.R. § 61.49(k).

[^30]: 47 C.F.R. § 69.3(a).

[^31]: 47 C.F.R. § 69.3(a).

[^32]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 61.58, 69.3.

[^33]: AT&T Petition at 12-13.

[^34]: AT&T Petition at 13-14.

[^35]: SWBT Petition at 5.

[^36]: Subsequent to the release of the *Streamlined Tariff Report and
    Order* and the filing of petitions for reconsideration and
    associated pleadings, the Commission released an order in which it
    reviewed its policies regarding requests for confidentiality and
    adopted a new protective order applicable to all confidentiality
    requests received by the Commission. *See Examination of Current
    Policy Concerning the Treatment of Confidential Information
    Submitted to the Commission*, GC Docket No. 96-55, Report and Order,
    13 FCC Rcd 24816 (1998)(*Confidentiality Report and Order*), *recon.
    denied*, 14 FCC Rcd 20128 (1999).

[^37]: SWBT Petition at 3.

[^38]: *Streamlined Tariff* *Report and Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at 2216
    (declining to adopt the suggestion to bar the copying of
    confidential information).

[^39]: SWBT Petition at 3.

[^40]: *See* AT&T Opposition at 6 (citing *FCC v. Schreiber,* 381 U.S.
    279, 298 (1965) (finding private agreements between parties not to
    disclose facts without the client\'s consent do not affect the
    Commission\'s discharge of its duties)).

[^41]: *See*, *e.g.*, *Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, SWBT
    Transmittal Nos. 2646, 2647, 2649, and 2656*, *FCC Tariff No. 73*,
    Order on Review, 13 FCC Rcd 3602, 3603 (1997) (finding that the fact
    that Southwestern Bell had negotiated confidentiality agreements
    with its vendors was not a sufficient basis to prevent making cost
    support data available to third parties subject to a protective
    order); *see also Local Exchange Carriers\' Rates, Terms, and
    Conditions for Expanded Interconnection Through Virtual Collocation
    for Special Access and Switched Transport*, CC Docket No. 94-97,
    Order, FCC 13 FCC Rcd 13354, 13360, 13369-13378 (Appendix A) (1998)
    (*Virtual Collocation Order)* (prohibiting the review of SWBT\'s
    vendor prices by persons engaged in the purchase of equipment
    identical, or similar, to the equipment for which prices were
    contained in the cost support data). *See also* Bell Atlantic
    Comments at 8-9 and BellSouth Opposition at 7 (noting that
    historically the Commission has granted confidential treatment to
    certain LEC information that met Freedom of Information Act
    requirements, such as trade secrets and confidential financial
    information).

[^42]: MCI Petition at 15-16 (arguing that LECs will be permitted to
    withhold cost support data as long as they meet the limited
    requirements of sections 0.459(b) and (c) of the Commission's
    rules).

[^43]: *Confidentiality Report and* Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 24826-27,
    24842-44 (a carrier seeking confidential treatment for its cost
    support information must either state that it will make its cost
    support information available to those signing a nondisclosure
    agreement, or must file a request that the cost support information
    be kept entirely confidential).

[^44]: SWBT Petition at 4.

[^45]: *Streamlined Tariff Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 2211-16.

[^46]: *Streamlined Tariff Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 2214. We
    note, however, that the Commission has adopted a number of measures
    minimizing cost support requirements. *See, e.g., Petition for
    Forbearance of the Independent Telephone and Telecommunications
    Alliance*, AAD File No. 98-43, Sixth Memorandum Opinion and Order,
    14 FCC Rcd 10,840 (1999) (allowing mid-size LECs to introduce new
    services on a streamlined basis); *Access Charge Reform*, CC Docket
    No. 96-262, Fifth Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 14221, 14239 (1999)
    (*Access Charge Reform Fifth Report and Order*) (granting pricing
    flexibility to incumbent LECs, including the ability to introduce
    new services on a streamlined basis), *aff'd*, *WorldCom, Inc. v.
    FCC*, 238 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

[^47]: MCI Petition at 17-18; TRA Comments at 12. Section 271 allows the
    BOCs to offer in-region, interLATA services upon demonstrating
    compliance with certain market-opening requirements set forth in
    that section. 47 U.S.C. § 271.

[^48]: 5 U.S.C. § 552(b); 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.457, 0.459.

[^49]: *Id.*

[^50]: MCI Petition at 19. MCI proposes that the reviewing party would
    not be required to enter into separate protective agreements, but
    instead the submitting party would automatically provide a copy of
    any confidential information associated with each transmittal to the
    reviewing party\'s authorized representative, coincident with the
    filing of this information with the Commission. All other terms of
    the standing protective order would be the same as the Commission\'s
    model protective agreement. MCI Petition at 18-19.

[^51]: *See Confidentiality Report and Order,* 13 FCC Rcd at 24828; *see
    also* *FCC v. Sterner*, 381 U.S. 279, 291-92 (1965) (the Commission
    will engage in a balancing of the interests favoring disclosure and
    non-disclosure).

[^52]: *See* *Confidentiality Report and Order*, Attachment C, for a
    copy of the current protective order, as amended by the
    Commission-wide confidentiality proceeding. *Confidentiality Report
    and Order*, Attachment C, 13 FCC Rcd at 24867-73.

[^53]: MCI Petition at 19-20. WorldCom supports MCI's petition. S*ee*
    WorldCom Comments at 8**.**

[^54]: MCI Petition at 19-20.

[^55]: *See, e.g.,* *NPRM,* 11 FCC Rcd at 11241-42 ("We tentatively
    conclude that all LEC tariff filings that involve changes to the
    rates, terms, and conditions of existing service offerings are
    eligible for streamlined treatment. We believe that this would be
    most consistent with the purposes of section 204(a) (3), and would
    simplify the administration of the LEC tariffing process as a whole.
    We solicit comment on this tentative conclusion.").

[^56]: MCI's comments addressed whether only those tariffs involving
    rate increases or decreases were eligible for streamlined filing or
    whether streamlined treatment extended to all LEC filings involving
    changes in the rates, terms, and conditions of existing service
    offerings. MCI Comments on *NPRM* at 13-15. WorldCom did not submit
    comments in response to the *NPRM*.

[^57]: At the time it adopted the *Streamlined Tariff Report and Order*,
    the Commission regulated in the interexchange basket the rates that
    price cap LECs charge for particular interstate interexchange
    services. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 61.42(d)(4)(creating price cap LEC
    basket for interstate interexchange services that are not classified
    as access services for the purpose of Part 69 of the Commission\'s
    rules). *See also* *Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Dominant
    Carriers*, CC Docket No. 87-313, Second Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd
    6786 (1990) (*LEC Price Cap Order*). Among the services in this
    basket are certain interstate interLATA services, called
    \"corridor\" services, and interstate intraLATA toll services. *See
    LEC Price Cap Order*, 5 FCC Rcd at 6811, 6812.

[^58]: *See, e.g.,* CompTel Comments at 7 (section 204(a)(3) should be
    read to apply only to tariffs filed by a LEC in its capacity as a
    LEC); WorldCom Comments at 8 (agreeing with MCI that section
    204(a)(3) applies to LECS only to the extent they are providing
    exchange access service); BellSouth Opposition at 7-8 (the statute
    does not contain such a limitation).

[^59]: *Regulatory Treatment of LEC Provision of Interexchange Services
    Originating in the LEC's Local Exchange Area*, CC Docket No. 96-149,
    Second Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-149 and Third Report and
    Order in CC Docket No. 96-61,12 FCC Rcd 15756 (1997).

[^60]: *Access Charge Reform Fifth Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    14243-47 (granting this relief upon implementation of intra- and
    interLATA toll dialing parity).

[^61]: *See Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange
    Marketplace, Implementation of Section 254(g) of the Communications
    Act of 1934*, CC Docket No. 96-61, Second Report and Order, 11 FCC
    Rcd 20730 (1996); Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 15014 (1997);
    Second Order on Reconsideration and Erratum, 14 FCC Rcd 6004 (1999);
    *Domestic, Interexchange Carrier Detariffing Order Takes Effect*, CC
    Docket No. 96-61, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 3688 (2000); *MCI
    WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC*, 209 F.3d 760 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

[^62]: In addition, the Bell Operating Companies have received authority
    pursuant to section 271 of the Act to offer in-region interLATA
    services in a number of states. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 271.