# Amicus Curiae Brief — Florida Public Service Commission v. Federal Communications Commission > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0163%3A21 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1985 - **Citation:** 474 U.S. 809 ## Text if Supreme Court, U.S. eu 1" | FILED -- : ve Nos. 84-871, 84-889, 84-1054, app O4499g69 JOSEPH F. -SPANIOL, UR. In the Supreme Court of th October Term, 1984 Louisiana Public Service Commission, Appellant Vv. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Appellees California and Public Utilities Commission of California, et al., Petitioners Vv. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Respondents Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, et al., Petitioners Vv. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Respondents Florida Public Service Commission, Petitioner Vv. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Respondents , On Appeal And On Petitions For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit AMICI CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT AND PETITIONERS ~ BEST AVAILABLE COPY Nos. 84-871, 84-889, 84-1054, and 84-1069 In the Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 1984 Louisiana Public Service Commission, Appellant Vv. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Appellees California and Public Utilities Commission of California, et al., Petitioners Vv. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Respondents Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, et al., Petitioners Vv. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Respondents Florida Public Service Commission, Petitioner Vv. Federal Communications Commission and United, States of America, Respondents On Appeal And On Petitions For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit AMICI CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT AND PETITIONERS pee ids > > ane — aah pris hati oof bine sos Ke A Be ae WILLIAM J. GUSTE, JR. Attorney General State of Louisiana RICHARD M. TROY Assistant Attorney General 7th Floor, 234 Loyola Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 J. DAVID MCNEILL III COUNSEL OF RECORD Assistant Attorney General 7434 Perkins Road Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808 Telephone: (504) 922-0187 JOHN L. GUBBINS JEFFREY C. PAULSON John Gubbins, Ltd. 20 North Clark Street, Suite 2600 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Illinois Citizens Utility Board 108 North State Street Chicago, Illinois 60602 JOEL BLAU PHILIP S. SHAPIRO New York State Consumer Protection Board, Utility Intervention Unit 99 Washington Avenue, Suite 1020 Albany, New York 12210 BARRY ZITSER Consumer Counsel of the Connecticut Division of Consumer Counsel One Central Park Plaza, Room 105 New Britian, Connecticut 06051 Ana . ms » ' Q c | » © a ei) > ot ad oe% oT y™ a: . eo l9Ime),. »v. 02? saongeiet L196 aionif{ it P- ,ers ‘> , wo teeteme> a - — ~ = ia2 Ci esau rw pees CECE). SSE-R Ae ECL - wi « ; Be an. ioe y eal a) NPa® 5. . eae Reet os ees al Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519 CLIgS PRETTTUTITITITiTrriirs 8 Lindheimer v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 292 U.S. 151 (1934) 18, 20, 21 Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Curran, 456 U.S. 353 (1982).. 64 North Carolina Utilities Commission v. F.C.C., 537 F.2d 787 (4th Cir.) cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1027 OL) PPPPPrrrTTrTrIeTrTerrrer+espirrr?. 61 Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Comm'n, 461 U.S. 190 C6) >) Pr Prrr rire Ve 12 People v. City of Chicago, 349 Ill. 304, 182 N.E. 419 (1932)........ 14 Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co. v. Slattery, 373 Ill. 31, 25 N.E.2d 482, appeal dismissed 309 U.S. 634 ( 94 Peeceeeceseeeeeeeeeeees 18 Philbrook v. Glodgett, 421 U.S. 707 TAPP 16 6600660060060 C8006 0CbSb8 38 Philko Aviation, Inc. v. Shacket, 462 U.S. 406 TRO 0oeeceeeeeeeseeecs 38 Puerto Rico Telephone Co. v. F.C.C., 553 F.2d 694 (lst Cir. 1977).... 61 Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218 TEOST Peococececoceceseceeee 8 Smith v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 282 U.S. 133 (1930)......... 18, 50 - iv- ‘ bh: Ee ' . , os ho 7S . Jt ROatLs wA a be 4 ; pf co. ee ; ota .? a «2 -F «¥ +O) erotyete® ebik ceteris Owed el .ti2 tat) 526 ate eee | Lee 6 eee idisvelS «9 SING2 a¥ SEER 8 eS te ele O24. Fn CORE eit. wer 6 Pon ye 0D. Saodgeiat lind SlonDELT ov dgtwe ; oP ra ay i cteeweee wt Qh@ty £EF 2.0 fee Pi ae = Za . . hi ; | hal : | * bd : | i | an 2 7 | oA or Wy. > a ae ae Liege ee ie 4 at oe td * ; ; 2 ry : ~ : —~a h ‘ oss ses na ‘ ; : _- . hy ; CZ wa Pos sy - FP) - . ; A na ex — ot ho ae F = 7 ; ; sw a)! . oy mars tC Bree Piadc ed iy a - - - Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Arkansas Public Service Commission, 584 F. Supp. 1087, (E.D. Ark.), rev'd on other grounds, 738 F.2d 901 (8th Cir. 1984)........ 42 State Public Utilities Comm'n v. Springfield Gas and Electric Co., 191 Ill. 209, 125 N.E. 891 ERO NoSeeddeskod cobeesesbesdece 16 Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1 (1965).. 62 United States v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 278 U.S. 269 (1929)........ 38 United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.8. AS7 (19SS) cccccee 35 Zemel Ve Rusk, 381 U.S. Be oeeseeceses 64 ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS Accounting Rules For Telephone Companies, 203 I.C.C. 13 PR eeeseesecebeseececececoecece 47 Re Colchester Farmer's Telephone Co., 1915E P.U.R. 23 feb oGoGe Decescocs 20 Depreciation Charges Of Telephone Companies, 118 I.C.C. 295, 332 | | rrr TT Tr TrTrTre+TyTTrTrr 46, 54 Depreciation Charges of Telephone Companies, 177 I.C.C. 351 PR 96606566006086006006600 47, 54 Re Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 57 P.U.R. 4th 225 EROS Pecceeseeces 21 -V~- a wax ~} ay E i ae a ‘ ae : Tor a sete - ede =~), % . ee : a a ee ; s a ° t = j 9 2 a Pe ~ kA KAKA 7 - 2 > j J a dn sw ° a - * al > 4 bs ¥ © h s . , ’ i. ® . . e I “~ ° - * . > 4 ° a ’ - a, r\. 3 - d rn - 7 7 5 7 A = ane Sal —_ a -_ « Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3, §14 wccceee LT, 42 Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3, §§11-19 ...---- 15 Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3, §§20-29, 31 ... 15 Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3, §§32, 36 weooee 16 Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3, §§32-40, 41-43 eeeeeee 15 Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3, §§48, 49, 50 ...-.-14, 15 Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3, §§64-71 @®eeeeseeeeeeees 15 Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3, §§72-75 eeeeeeeeeeeee 15 Interstate Commerce Act 36 Stat. 539, 545 eeeeeneeeeee 43, 49 Louisiana Constitution, art. 4 §8 ... 2 Mann-Elkins Act 36 Stat. 544 (1910) @eeeeeeeseeeee7#ee#s#8e?es 43 Moore Universal Telephone Service Act, Cal. Rev.&Tax Code, §44000, et seg. .28 « New York Exec. Law. §§552, 553 .eeeee 3 Regulatory Agency Sunset Act Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 127, §§1901 et seg. ....-.-. 26 Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 127, §1904.3 .. 27 Regulatory Reform Act of 1979 Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 127, §§1951 et seg. ......-. 26 | -viii- aq @ b*4 : - F “| s7 » ‘b . a ad Me) HT ‘ - te a *. f a ~ 3 a 4q Ed dl Transportation Act of 1920 41 Stat. 456, 493 @eeeeeoeeeeeeeaeeenes 45 Miscellaneous: 78 Cong. Rec. 8823 (1934) .eeeeees 55 Hearings on S.6 before the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, 71st Cong., lst and 2d Sess. (1929-30) eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeese 55 Preliminary Report on Communications Companies, H.R. Rep, No. 1273, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. (1934) .weccceeee 44 Report of the Special Joint Committee to Investigate Public Utilities, 48th Gen. Ass., 1913 Sen. J. 830..13, 16, 20 S. Rep. No. 781, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. (1934) wecccecee 56 Universal Telephone Service Protection Law of 1985, H.B. 1814, 84th Gen. Ass. (Appendix) eeeeeveaeeoeaee ee ees 28, 29 1921 Ill. Laws 702, §10.3(a) .weoeeee 14 N.C. Gen. Stat. §§62-3, 62-110 (1984 Int. Supp.) eeeeeeeeeeees 28 Va. Code §§56-481.1, 56-482.1, ~~ 56-484.2, 56-484.2 (1985 Supp.) .. 28 ARTICLES Gabel, The Early Competitive Era ae Telephone Communication, 1893- 34 Law Contemp. Prob. 340 sesh 44 -ix=- 7 i) f - ‘ 2 > s i mis ° ‘ . ‘2 ° J 4 . 4 . ‘ ee ‘ & ° ‘ ' ‘ ” ; rs - of — Jt (4408 ats TTA map 4" > ‘oer te | aé . thm. DOV. — == ee ee Oi ee a @ =~“ eerie 7 ere ’ — a. BaD ta 4 ea Goddard, The Interest of Public Utility Ratepayers in Depreciation, 48 Harv.L.Rev. 721 (1935) ceeeees 52, 53 Roberts, Depreciation As An Element In Public Utility Valuation, I Mo. L. Rev. ids (13: nh. Aaeassececs SS Stephan, Federal Regulation of Communications, 1934 Fed.B.A.J. 87 . 55 Wheat, The Regulation of Interstate Telephone Rates, 51 Harv.L.Rev. 846 (1938)... ll, 45, 52 -xX—= STATEMENT OF INTEREST The Illinois Citizens Utility Board (CUB) is a non-profit public membership organization created to "represent and protect the interests of the residential utility consumers of the State" before the Illinois Commerce Commission, Federal Communications Commission, and other appropriate judicial and administrative bodies. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3, § 905(a) (1983). CUB's activities are intended to promote the health, welfare, and prosperity of all the citizens of Illinois, and this purpose is considered to be a statewide public interest, not a private or special concern. CUB has over 120,000 contributing members and has participated in regulatory and legislative proceedings on behalf of Illinois customers of telephone and telecommunications companies. The Attorney General of Louisiana is the Chief Legal Officer of the State of Louisiana and is empowered to represent the interests of consumers in the State of Louisiana. La. Const. art. 4 § 8. Such authority includes the power to represent citizens of the State of Louisiana with respect to the rates and services of telephone companies and other public utilities. The New York State Consumer Protection Board is a New York State Executive Department Agency authorized and empowered to represent the interests of the consumers of the State of New York. N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 552, 553. Such authority includes the power to represent consumers with respect to the f 3 a 2, ie i .- ne a Ate ar Ueleg rates and services of telephone companies and other public utilities. The Connecticut Consumer Counsel is the statutory advocate for the interests of Connecticut utility consumers. The Consumer Advocate, Director of Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, of the State of Hawaii is designated by statute to represent the interests of all consumers in the state of Hawaii. Under Utah state law, the Utah Committee of Consumer Services is to assist and represent residential, small business, and agricultural consumers of natural gas, electric, and telephone utilities before the Utah Public Service Commission and on appeals. 1 “s + “oF ne ea3e% a eet? a e ' ee ee ae Malad ~ , 7 aol Le a ty i. % ery « € .= ° [; ey i 2 = - + ' « fe So * “ F » « si kso . g 8 a ad As detailed with respect to Illinois in Section B of the Argument, CUB and the other amici are interested in this proceeding for two significant reasons. First, affirmance of the Fourth Circuit decision is likely to have a dramatic and adverse impact on consumers’ intrastate telephone rates. Second, the legitimacy of State regulatory objectives and mechanisms for telephone rates and services will be substantially jeopardized by an affirmance. a - - = - aed — : = ee _ : ; ee es . ce i ei et ee meee ar coiaieen ; ee 7 . on - = z — i = a - SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The purpose of this amicus brief is to address points not covered, Or not covered in great detail, by Petitioners and to bring to the Court's attention the consequences of its decision in this case for continued State regulation of intrastate telephone companies and their customers. Amici discuss whether the plain language and intent of the Federal Communications Act 47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seg., (Act) deprive the FCC of the authority to preempt State ratemaking jurisdiction over intrastate telephone companies and services. Amici emphasize, in particular, the lengthy history and pervasive scope of state telephone regulation, and the continuation of such regulation in the future in pursuit of ~ f > | ‘ . : o ~ . “fs c zt . t ; o . . ° - ’ bi . . - a am Tae Sd ae - - ; " : = ; - ; : . ee ° 2 7 * : 7 by 3 al i : oo - a ee oe eek oe - FO tcmmagmn, - ee ee tee or 4: a — _ ee a — Ee a = = = ee a : = - 7 — —a = = se ae = we ; important State public policy objectives and indicate further that this traditional exercise of State regulatory powers creates a strong presumption against preemption. Further, amici discuss the provisions and historical context of Section 2(b) of the Act and argue that the clear Congressional intent embodied therein is to protect state regulatory authority over intrastate telephone service against federal encroachment. ARGUMENT SECTION 2(b) OF THE ACT PRECLUDES THE -FCC FROM PREEMPTING STATE AUTHORITY TO SET RATES FOR INTRASTATE TELEPHONE SERVICE A. Preemption Of Powers Historically Exercised By States May Not Be Sustained In The Absence Of Manifest Evidence Of Congressional Intent To Authorize Preemption. Express federal preemption of state law or power has only been upheld in instances where Congress has explicitly indicated such an intent. Sufficiently strong indications may arise from the plain terms of the federal law or because the federal regulatory scheme is so pervasive as to leave no doubt, in the absence of Statutory exemptions to the contrary, that Congress intended to preclude State action in the field. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Comm'n, 461 U.S. 190; 203-4 (1983); Fidelity Federal Savings and Loan Assn. v. De la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 153 (1982). In either instance, however, if the area to be preempted is one in which states have traditionally ; ” . é o ” a ee Se Se Se 7 2 2 an 7 fe ee — a a a Ss se ee a Te am —- eae ee eee ee ial = a po ee a ee > . ———— an eS ee eee eee a pa ae — , -_ exercised their police powers, preemption will not be presumed lightly; it will be sustained only where the Congressional intent to preclude state action is "unambiguous" and "unmistakably ordained." Florida Lime and Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S» 132, 142, 146-7 (1963). In such a case, analysis must begin with the assumption that federal law was not intended to supersede the historic police powers of the State unless that was the “clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947). This assumption serves to assure that the balance between federal and state powers will not be disturbed unintentionally by Congress or unnecessarily by the courts. Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519, ~ om i i” AF, es ee % ~ «i. 525 (1977). Unless Congress has openly forsaken the critical balance of federal and state authority in favor of exclusive federal power, attempts to preempt the legitimate operation of State law must therefore be proscribed. The Fourth Circuit's opinion ignores this test for measuring the propriety of preemptive action by the federal government. In fact, the Court does not discuss in any significant fashion the intent of Congress with respect to the preemptive limitations of the Act. The Court, instead, skips immediatély to determine whether state law or policy "might" frustrate federal objectives. By so doing, the Court eliminates any burden on the federal agency to justify its infringement upon State authority, and thereby makes it ——-= ; f 4 i ; 4 easy to find any speculative impediment attributable to state law sufficient to warrant preemption, irrespective of Congressional intent. Such an analysis effectively circumvents any restrictions on the federal power to preempt; any preemptive action could be justified by "possible" frustration despite Congressional intent to the contrary, or in the face of serious doubt as to whether Congress authorized such action. This approach exalts deference to federal agencies and courts at the expense of Congress and the States, upsetting the balance of state and federal powers. Such federal overreaching is neither compelled nor justified by the Supremacy Clause or this Court's decisions. See U.S. Const. art. 6, cl. 2. The starting point for -10- analysis must instead be, as this Court has consistently held, whether Congress has evidenced an intent to explicitly authorize or proscribe the particular preemptive action at issue, for in the absence of such authority, preemption cannot be sustained regardless of potential “frustration.” B. States Have Traditionally Exercised Their Police Powers To Regulate The Intrastate Rates, Charges, Services and Operations Of Telephone Companies. Modern regulation of electric, gas and telephone utilities began at the state level in Wisconsin in 1907. By 1930, all but three states had initiated fairly extensive regulation of intrastate telephone rates and services, Wheat, The Regulation of Interstate Telephone Rates, 5l Harv. L. Rev. 846, 847 (1938), and all states currently «1 ho re | om ee + a have such regulation. Most states did not distinguish between types of public utilities in establishing the scope and nature of their regulatory objectives and legislation and, as a result, intrastate state telephone service has been accorded state regulation to the same extent as electricity and natural gas. This Court has recently recognized the critical importance of state public utility regulation in the context of electricity, recognition which should similarly be extended to state telephone regulation. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Comm'n, 461 U.S. 190, 205-6 (1983) and cases cited therein. The experience of Illinois is typical of most states, and may be used oa} 2= as an example of the nature and importance of state telephone regulation. The Illinois Public Utilities Act (PUA) was first enacted in 1913 and reenacted without significant change in 1921. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3, §§ 1 et seq. In short, the purpose of the PUA is to assure the availability of efficient utility service at reasonable and equitable rates to as many citizens as possible. Report of the Special Joint Committee to Investigate Public Utilities, 48th Gen. Ass., 1913 Sen. Jl. 830, 862. At the same time, utilities are to receive a fair return on their property, including sufficient income to ensure ongoing reinvestment in the business. Id. at 955. The means of balancing these objectives is codified in the PUA and 1 3- w/ the authority to do so is vested in the Illinois Commerce Commission (ILCC). The provisions of the PUA provide plenary power to the ILCC to regulate Illinois public utilities and their intrastate activities. People v. City of Chicago, 349 Ill. 304, 182 N.E. 419 (1932). "Public utilities” subject to the PUA has always included companies involved in the transmission of telephone messages between points within the State. 1921 Ill. Laws 702, § 10.3(a); PUA, § 10.3(b), Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3, § 10.3(b) (1983). The ILCC has comprehensive powers over such companies, including the power to generally supervise management, PUA, to order construction or alteration of any utility facilities, Id., §§ 48, 49, oi ge 49, 50; to require accounting and reporting, Id. §§ 9, 11-19, Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3, §§ 9, 11-19; to control financing and intercorporate relations, Id. §§ 8a, 20-29, 31, Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3, §§ 8a, 20-29, 31; and to examine and determine utility rates and services, Id., §§ 32-40, 41-43, Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3, §§ 32-40, 41-43. The ILCC's determinations are generally subject to notice and hearing, PUC, §§ 3, 60-67, Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3, §§ 3, 64-71, and to full judicial review, Id., §§ 68-71, Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3, §§ 72-75. Of these various powers, the most important is the ability to evaluate and establish utility rates. -15- m f ww At Report of the Special Joint Committee, supra, at 955. Rates must be just and reasonable to both the public and the utility, Id.; State Public Utilities Comm'n v. Springfield Gas and Electric Co., 191 Ill. 209, 125 N.E. 891 (1920). In this respect they must not be excessive, so that citizens are able to obtain and afford utility service, Report of the Special Joint Committee, supra, at 934, and at the same time must be sufficient to ensure reinvestment through depreciation and other means in order to provide high-quality and efficient service. Id. at 862, 933-36, 955; PUA §§ 32, 36, Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3, §§ 32, 36. In setting rates for utility services, including intrastate telephone services, the ILCC must constantly wrestle with the oi 6= ca) 9? 4 inherent tension between the objectives of affordable and reasonable prices, so as to promote wide availability of service to the public, and efficient utility service which can only be obtained through a sufficient level of reinvestment. The intersection of these ratemaking objectives is the determination of an appropriate level of depreciation. The ILCC is specifically empowered to “require any or all public utilities to keep such accounts as will adequately reflect depreciation, obsolescence and the progress of the arts" and to fix the proper and adequate rate of depreciation for utility property. PUA, § 14, Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3, § 14. Every public utility must conform its accounts to the o) Jo - ‘ 7 > - ; ot ~ ' “3 - a -y * \e « . - : « * = 4 ri ' . ~ * o- ~ - - - == E- 4 a. eee ~ — - . = ——— eS eS Te ne: Le “a : ne ee ae a ———— ss depreciation rates determined by the ILCcC. Id. Illinois courts have sustained the ILCC's authority to consider evidence of depreciation and obsolescence, Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co. v. Slattery, 373 Ill. 31, 25 N.E. 2d 482, appeal dismissed 309 U.S. 634 (1940), and this Court has upheld the ILCC's authority to establish an appropriate amount of depreciation expense for intrastate telephone ratemaking and the propriety of including depreciation as an expense underlying the determination of reasonable rates. Lindheimer v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 292 U.S. 151 (1934); Smith v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 282 U.S. 133 (1930). Moreover, courts have interpreted Illinois law to require the inclusion of -18- . : . . . . ‘ - _ - 5 7 > = _ _ - — - — aie = ae = lee . ~ + ~* _ a onli ws r Ses. 3 == * ge alge i emt nn Ta ee ees ale — a 2 ne ng, Tae — : - e ee ae wg a a — ae ee ea a — rage * La ed =! an i ee ee an ee TT a in OR ee Pe eS ee - ss Ag So a BS ee —- - { ; 4 ae — Se = ers a ’ ae — eee a cee ae er ee mnt Clg ee oe ify “= @ z Hwee @ 4 74 4 4 O a \ a; -*4 aye & & © ~ . mg FR Gd. - “4 be] > . »* *% Oo “ > nh 7 r - WU re, 4 ¥ > ons to = " oo = _ i) ea oe a anenees z= —— — any {es et Oe = Dre ¥ eel, 4 ee ted S's 4 oe i a 4 os i~ tam (oped sxe nO bounitned stentoot) e.g., Re Ross, 1915D P.U.R. 646 (I1.C.C.): Re Colchester Farmer's Telephone Co., 1915E P.U.R. 23 (11.C.C.). Depreciation expense has always constituted a substantial percentage of the expenses of Illinois telephone utilities. For example, even in the earlier days of regulation, (Footnote Continued) ensure that the standard of service keeps pace with the needs of the public and with the rapid improvement in methods and applications and to make certain that efficiency of service is a factor in utility capitalization. Report of the Special Joint Committee, supra, at 933, 935. The ILCC is supposed to adjust occasionally as it is forced to confront recurring, unsettled questions arising as new methods of operation and improvements in machinery are devised. Id.; See, Lindheimer v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., supra, at 167 (depreciation embraces wear and tear, decay, inadequacy, and obsolescence). -20- annual derreciation expense comprised roughly 13 to 17 percent of Illinois Bell Telephone's operating expenses. Lindheimer v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 292 U.S. 151, 174 (1934), (comparison of note 25 with text). More recently, annual depreciation expense for ratemaking purposes exceeded $350 million, approximately 27.6 percent of Illinois Bell's total expenses, exclusive of taxes, and is the largest single expense item. Re Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 57 P.U.R. 4th 225, 261 (1983). Significant increases in annual depreciation expense also necessarily result in significant increases ina telephone utility's revenue requirement and ultimately its rates for customers. 2/ Consequently, substantial 2/ Rates are established to recover a "revenue requirement” which, in (Footnote Continued On Next Page) ete aA RR a _— — increases in depreciation expense can have dramatic impacts upon the affordability of telephone service and threaten the achievement of the State objective to make telephone service as widely available as possible. (Footnote Continued) turn, equals the sum of all allowable expenses (including annual depreciation expense) and the product of the allowed rate of return and rate base. Rate base, in its simplest form, is the value of the company's property minus accrued depreciation for such property. An increase in annual depreciation expense increases total expenses dollar-for-dollar. However, the resulting increase in revenue requirement is partially offset by the increased addition to accrued depreciation which diminishes rate base. Thus, depending on the precise rate of return, among other things, a $100 increase in annua. e2preciation expense may result in only an $80 to $90 increase in rates, still a significant correlation. -22- Recent changes in depreciation policy in Illinois, caused in large part by FCC decisions, have led to increases in depreciation expense and telephone rates for intrastate service, accompanied by growing pressure on affordability. For example, Illinois Bell recently received approval to shorten the amortization period for the recovery of embedded station connections and inside wire costs from ten years to six years. The effect of Bell's proposal was to increase annual depreciation expense by approximately $65 million and the revenue requirement by about $50 million. Id., 57 PUR 4th at 237. Illinois Bell's additional proposed 1984 cuanges in depreciation policy were forecasted to increase depreciation expense by another $83 =239- “ a, 4 i. [= epee * ihn, - Lf =e : 2 4 ra ‘, } t isrobea o° shige =e 7 3 32 Sey 7. oF nae & me Pi rer cr ie > 4yafs6ne yd @ % Pe i a op , million and revenue requirements by roughly $63 million. Id., Second Interim Order at 4, (slip op. October 30, 1984). The effect of such rate increases is heightened by the additional proposal to recover such costs through increased customer service charges, thereby imposing additional inflexible barriers to affordable service. See Re Illinois Bell Telephone Co., Proposed Increase In Service Charges, I1.C.C. Dkt. 81-0115, (slip op., January 24, 1982). Thus, recent changes in depreciation policy have already placed a great deal of strain upon Illinois regulators as they continue to try to balance the conflicting state goals of affordability and efficiency in the provision of intrastate telephone service. -24- . > ro + * : = C “ ; ; 7 » P . ‘ ; . @ , . -* : : : : - : t ‘ q 4 . - ~ . > ¢ . ’ 4 > t Lae - is t : ‘ . . ; . _ —— ete eee LES LEP EOE See rs . : — > a ie re a A ‘ semen ieee psn ae Sa a aes = aa " eae ances r ee 2 oe > —— ~~ ms ——_ i we, 2 ey 5 = ST et — The dramatic transformation of the telecommunications industry, therefore, has enhanced, not diminished, the importance of intrastate telephone regulation to the States and their citizens. Certainly, this transformation was largely occasioned by factors outside of State control: improvements in technology opening certain markets to competition, changes in FCC policy in pursuit of deregulation, and the restructuring of American Telephone and Telegraph Co. (AT&T). State legislators and regulators, in acknowledging these changes ent their effects, have chosen to revamp but not eliminate their regulation of intrastate telephone service, in order to ensure the continued attainment of important state -25- ~~ eS eee en ton aac ag gre, San policy objectives. Far from being irrelevant, State telephone regulation is more critical than ever to the achievement of efficient and universally available service, since the balance between such conflicting goals has been made more precarious by the introduction of competition. Again, the Illinois response serves as an instructive example of State reaffirmation of traditional regulatory objectives in the context of adapting to a transformed environment. Pursuant to provisions in Illinois's "Sunset" laws3/ a special bipartisan ¢ 3/ Regulatory Agency Sunset Act, §§ l, et reas Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 127, $s et seq; Regulatory Reform Act of 1979, §§ 1 et seg., Il). Rev. Stat. ch. 127, §§ 1951 et seq. The first of these Acts provided for automatic repeal of the Illinois PUA on December 31, 1985, unless the General Assembly (Footnote Continued On Next Page) -26- committee of legislators and public members conducted a comprehensive two year evaluation of public utility regulation in Illinois, with a special emphasis on the nature of future state telecommunications regulation. The culmination of the effort, involving input from companies, government, large consumers, regulators and the public, was House Bill 1814 which was passed by the General Assembly in June, 1985. A-l. Many other states have undertaken, Or will be undertaking, similar efforts and a large number have enacted legislation with roughly the same purposes as HB 1814. See e.g., Moore (Footnote Continued) reenacted it or adopted a new regulatory scheme. Sunset Act, § 4.3, Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 127, § 1904.3 (1983). =2J- c .af~ ' ae &7A9CE ’ ; . - ; | ‘ a2 ow . & : -,@ &{6{ 4 es Beecg ice aT ? a ae ipiped . Liew) ane Poko) ~~ a Universal Telephone Service Act, Cal. Rev. & Tax Code § 44000 et seq. (West Supp. 1985); N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 62-3, 62-110 (1984 Int. Supp.):; Va. Code §§ 56-481.1, 56-482.1, 56-484.2 (1985 Supp.). HB 1814, The Universal Telephone Service Protection Law of 1985 (Universal Service Law), has several major objectives. The bill recognizes the importance of universal telephone service, the need to revise regulatory practice to respond to changes in the industry, the potential for competition as a means of providing service and the need to continue regulation of intrastate telephone service to protect and promote the well-being of all Illinois citizens. Universal Service Law, § 1 para. 13-101, A-l. #HB 1814 =29f! eli. ‘iL eeree So “tie . a jog «abswied the District of Columbia, through any . Place outside thereof, if such communication is regulated by a State ; commission." Act, § 3(e), 47 U.S.C. 153(e). “State Commission" means any commission or organization which has regulatory jurisdiction with respect to | the intrastate operations of carriers. Id., § 3(t), 47 U.S.C. § 153(t). These provisions, taken together, manifest the intention of Congress to restrict the scope of the FCC's expansive powers to interstate communications and to proscribe the exercise of such powers 8? eh. te wnat nln + otal tll its Met tn tein Seal nat OS ph oe over intrastate telephone service regulated by States. Bie i hin Aetie Sie Been As if its intent were not sufficiently apparent Congress also included Section 2(b) which more explicitly reserves to the States their =36- lat” ow & > « ~ ability to regulate intrastate telephone services. Act, § 2(b), 47 U.SésC. § 152(b). Section 2(b) provides, in pertinent part, that: [NJothing in this chapter shall be construed to apply or to give the Commission jurisdiction with respect to (1) charges, Classifications, practices, services, facilities, or regulations for or in connection with intrastate communications service by wire or radio of any Carrier ... 47 U.S.C. § 152(b). On its face, then, the Act is unambiguous as to the intent of Congress to deprive the FCC of jurisdiction over intrastate matters traditionally regulated by the States, including the determination of “charges” for intrastate services, of which depreciation expense is a part. This Court has repeatedly held that where, as here, the language of a statute is clear and the construction @37o- ene t ond -t mae = 7 Hs a a thereof does not lead to absurd consequences, the statutory terms are to be considered to mean what they say. United States v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 278 U.S. 269, 278 (1929). Although the Court has recently taken exception to this rule even where statutory language has appeared plain, the circumstances justifying such exceptional investigations are not present in this case. See Philbrook v. Glodgett, 421 U.S. 707, 714 (1975). And the Court has indicated that it will not cast aside common sense in statutory interpretation to reach a convoluted result at cross-purposes with Congressional intent. See Philko Aviation, Inc. v. Shacket, 462 U.S. 406 (1983). In this case, the FCC's interpretation of the Act defies common -38- ++ sense and is openly inconsistent with Congress's evident intent to preserve State ratemaking authority. The application of the "plain meaning” of Section 2(b) is unambiguous and the consequences are sensible and consistent with the entirety of the Act. Section 20(b) of the Act, 47 U.S:C. § 220(b), relied upon by Respondents, does not detract from amici's interpretation. That section grants the FCC the power to prescribe the accounts and records which must be maintained “by carriers subject to this chapter" and requires, in particular, that the FCC prescribe for "such carriers" appropriate depreciation expenses. In addition, such carriers are prohibited from including in any form a depreciation schedule or expense -39- ‘2 * - « P= . si * - , } v , dé . E , oF) ‘ © » 4 ‘A. d P ‘ é ‘= } z Te iA er-oe 74 18G 3208 ‘cola *& dowe (eeetog 129 NGQPBA WH zi ois 1eqes~hi-YosIecnrs* ‘We onidvess 16% a' DOF eff Ytiseot at preemption in this case. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Arkansas Public Service Commission, 584 F. Supp. 1087, 1089 (E.D. Ark.), rev'd on other grounds, 738 F.2d 901 (8th Cir. 1984): Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 12 Ohio St. 3d 280, 283-4 (1984).4/ While the statute on its face, therefore, provides sufficient evidence to conclude that Congress never intended to preempt state regulatory authority 4/ As noted above, the Illinois PUA includes similar language with respect to the ILCC's authority to establish accounts for depreciation and prohibits inconsistent reporting by Illinois public utilities. The provisions have never been interpreted as precluding different accounting or reporting treatment for tax or regulatory purposes outside the scope of the PUA. PUA, § 14, Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111-2/3, § 14. af Qe 2] ed “ Zz =. od a . rn@e _ , & c a 7, Gf ¢h yj - "a 4 ~\ &. ° « “* ~~ ie -—. a ” _. . « ~- © ~ —— , ‘ “ -~ LB ew « a? * , 4 A _ a ‘ , é ’ - . . a, ‘ ~ “ 7 es A - * a - a over intrastate telephone companies, the legislative history corroborates the fact that Congress intended, in fact, to Clarify, preserve and expand then existing state jurisdiction. As outlined in detail, supra, states had been very active in regulating intrastate telephone companies from the inception of modern public utility regulation. The federal government first initiated its regulatory efforts over interstate telephone service with the passage of the Mann-Elkins Act, amending the Interstate Commerce Act. Mann-Elkins Act, ch. 309, § 7, 36 Stat. 544 (1910). There is little legislative history behind the amendment, but the effect was to subject telephone companies to the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and -43- ; a . , ; - Foe ’ + a ' cS 7% . ¢ a '¥ 1 ‘ vi é 4 a % | - 4 - vy ; s mn terms of the Interstate Commerce Act with respect to their interstate operations. Gabel, The Early Competitive Era in Telephone Communication, 1893-1920, 34 Law & Contemp. Prob. 340, 357 (1969). Between 1910 and 1934 the ICC made little or no effort to regulate even interstate telephone services, let alone intrastate activities. The ICC only handled four rate cases, each of little significance, each initiated by complaint. Id. Further, the ICC felt initially that it lacked jurisdiction over the filing of interstate telephone rates. Unrepeated Message Case, 44 I.C.C. 670, 673-4 (1917), modified 61 I.C.C. 541 (1921). See Preliminary Report on Communication Companies, H.Rs Rep. No. 1272, 73d Cong. 2d Sess. (1934) -44- Sit mS a : Tee | of a leg - ' 7 ; 4 ra = * & eel néqaod- rod. ota —— at xvi. Necessarily, the ICC initially felt incapable of establishing depreciation expenses even for interstate ratemaking purposes as well, and the responsibility for intrastate ratemaking, including the establishment of appropriate depreciation expenses, remained with the States. The ICC did, however, consider its jurisdiction sufficient to establish accounting and reporting requirements. See Wheat, The Regulation of Interstate Telephone Rates, 51 Harv. L. Rev. 846, 847 n.5 (1938). In particular, the Transportation Act of 1920 amended the Interstate Commerce Act and provided the ICC with the authority and duty to prescribe appropriate depreciation charges “for carriers subject to this Act."2/ 41 Stat. 456, 493 (1920). 5/ Section 20(5) of the Interstate Commerce Act was the immediate (Footnote Contirved On Next Page) 7. _—_— ~ Le «45 ~ orn Jat: wel we ro i Sa oe Awe : Sale boundaries between state and federal jurisdiction, and found that the ILCC had no authority to rule on the propriety of interstate telephone rates, since such power had been placed in the Icc. Id. at 148-9. The Court, therefore, recognized the ICC's exclusive authority over interstate telephone services and implied that, if the ICC took the requisite steps, its jurisdiction over intrastate depreciation policies and rates might also be upheld. The point of this historical discussion is to place in context the subsequent actions and statements of Congress in its deliberations on, and drafting of, the Communications Act. By 1934, the ICC had emphatically stated that it already had jurisdiction over -5l- a : a b f | $A" a » ide = bss ah a? .i¢- —_—. A-2 (a) universally available and widely affordable telecom- munications services are essential to the health, welfare and prosperity of all Illinois citizens; (b) recent federal regulatory and judicial rulings have caused a restructuring of the telecommunications industry and have opened some aspects of the industry to competitive entry, thereby necessitating revision of State telecommunications regulatory policies and practices; (c) the competitive offering of telecommunications ser- vices may create the potential for increased innovation and efficiency in the provision of telecommunications services and reduced prices for consumer; and (d) protection of the public interest requires continued regulation of telecommunications carriers and services for the foreseeable future. (Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 13-103) Sec. 18-108. Consistent with its findings, the General As- sembly declares that it is the policy of the State of lUinois that (a) telecommunications services should be available to all Illinois citizens at just, reasonable and affordable rates and that such services should be provided as widely and econom- ically as possible in sufficient variety, quality, quantity and reliability to satisfy the public interest; (b) when consistent with the protection of consumers of telecommunications services and the furtherance of other pub- lic interest goals, competition should be permitted to function as a substitute for certain aspects of regulation in determining the variety, quality and price of telecommunications services and that the economic burdens of regulation should be reduced to the extent possible consistent with protection of the public interest ; A-3 (c) all necessary and appropriate modifications to State regulation of telecommunications carriers and services should be implemented without unnecessary disruption to the tele- communications system or to consumers of telecommunica- tions services and that it is necessary and appropriate to es- tablish a reasonable period of time to permit preparation for orderly transitions in the provision of telecommunications services; (d) the consumers of telecommunications services and facilities provided by persons or companies subject to regula- tion pursuant to this Act and Article should be required to pay only reasonable and non-discriminatory rates or charges and that in no case should rates or charges for non-competi- tive telecommunications services include any portion of the cost of providing competitive telecommunications services, as herein defined; (e) the regulatory policies and procedures provided in this Article are established in recognition of the changing nature of the telecommunications industry and therefore should be subject to systematic legislative review to ensure that the public benefits intended to result from such policies and pro- cedures are fully realized. (Ch. 111 2/8, new par. 18-201) Sec. 18-201. Unless otherwise specified, the terms set forth in Section 13-202 through 18-211 of this Article are used in this Act and Article as herein defined. (Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 18-202) Sec. 18-202. “Telecommunications carrier” means and in- cludes every corporation, company, association, joint stock company or association, firm, partnership or individual, their lessees, trustees or receivers appointed by any court whatso- ever that owns, controls, operates or manages, within this A4 State, directly or indirectly, for public use, eny plant, equip- ment or property used or to be used for or in connection with, or owns or controle any franchise, license, permit or right to engage in the provision of, telecommunications services be- tween points within the State which are specified by the user. Telecommunications carrier does not include, however: (a) telecommunications carriers that are owned and op- erated by any political subdivision, public or private institu- tion of higher education or municipal corporation of this State, for their own use, or telecommunications carriers that are owned by such political subdivision, public or private in- stitution of higher education, or municipal corporation and operated by any of its lessees or operating agents, for their own use; (bd) telecommunications carriers which ere purely mutual concerns, having no rates or charges for services, but paying the operating expenses by assessment upon the members of such a company and no other person but does include telephone or telecommunications cooperatives as defined in Section 13-212; (ce) «@ company or person which provides telecommunica- tions services solely to itself and its affiliates or members or between points in the same building, or between elosely located buildings, affiliated through substantial common own- ership, control or development. (Ch. 111 2/8, new par. 13-203) Sec. °18-208. “Telecommunications service” means the pro- vision or offering for rent, sale or lease, or in exchange for other value received, of the transmittal of information, by means of electromagnetic, including light, transmission with or without benefit of any closed transmission medium, includ- ing all instrumentalities, facilities, appceratus, end services A-5 (including the collection, storage, forwarding, switching, and delivery of such information) used to provide such trans- mission. “Telecommunications service” does not include, however: (a) the rent, sale, or lease, or exchange for other value received, of customer premises equipment; (6) telephone or telecommunications answering services, paging services, and physical pickup and delivery incidental to the provision of information transmitted through electro- magnetic, including light, transmission; (ce) community antenna television service which is oper- ated to perform for hire the service of receiving and distribut- ing video and audio program signals by wire, cable or other means to members of the public who subscribe to such service, to the extent that such service is utilized solely for the one- way distribution of such entertainment services with no more than incidental subscriber interaction required for the selec- tion of such entertainment service. The Commission may, by rulemaking, exclude (1) private line service which is not directly or indirectly used for the origination or termination of switched telecommunications service, (2) cellular radio service, (3) high-speed point-to- point data transmission at or above 9.6 kilobits, or (4) the provision of telecommunications service by a company or person otherwise subject to Section 18-202 (c) to a telecom- munications carrier, which is incidental to the provision of service subject to Section 18-202 (c), from active regulatory oversight to the extent it finds, after notice, hearing and comment that such exclusion is consistent with the public interest and the purposes and policies of this Article. (Ch. 111 2/8, new par. 18-204) Sec. 13-204. “Local Exchange Telecommunications Ser- vice” means telecommunications service between points with- A-6 in an exchange, as defined in Section 18-206, or the provision of telecommunications service for the origination or termina- tion of switched telecommunications services. (Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 13-205) Sec. 13-205. “Interexchange Telecommunications Service” means telecommunications service between points in two or more exchanges. (Ch. 111 2/38, new par. 13-206) Sec. 13-206. “Exchange” means a geographical area for the administration of telecommunications services, established and described by the tariff of a telecommunications carrier providing local exchange telecommunications service, and con- sisting of one or more contiguous central offices, together with associated facilities used in providing such local exchange telecommunications service. To the extent practicable, a mu- nicipality, city or village shall not be located in more than one exchange. (Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 13-207) Sec. 18-207. “Local Access and Transport Area (LATA)” means a geographical area designated by the Modification of Final Judgment in U.S. v. Western Electric Co., Inc., 552 F. Supp. 181 (D.D.C. 1982), as modified from time to time. (Ch. 111 2/8, new par. 13-208) Sec. 18-208. “Market Service Area (MSA)” means a geo- graphical area consisting of one or more exchanges, defined by the Commission for the administration of tariffs, services and other regulatory obligations. The term Market Service Area includes those areas previously designated by the Com- mission. (Ch. 111 2/8, new par. 13-209) Sec. 13-209. “Competitive Telecommunications Service” means a telecommunications service, its functional equivalent A-7 or a substitute service, which, for some identifiable class or group of customers in an exchange, group of exchanges, or some other clearly defined geographical area, is ~easonably available from more than one provider, whether or not such provider is a telecommunications carrier subject to regulation under this Act. A telecommunications service may be competi- tive for the entire state, some geographical area therein, in- cluding an exchange or set of exchanges, or for a specific customer or class or group of customers, but only to the ez- tent consistent with this definition. (Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 13-210) Sec. 18-210. “Noncompetitive Telecommunications Ser- vice” means a telecommunications service other than a com- petitive service as defined in Section 12-209. (Ch. 111 2/8, new par. 18-211) Sec. 18-211. “Resale of Telecommunications Service” means the offering or provision of telecommunications service primarily through the use of services or facilities owned or provided by a separate telecommunications carrier. (Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 13-212) Sec. 13-212. “Telephone or Telecommunications Coopera- tive” means any Illinois corporation organized on a coopera- tive basis for the furnishing of telephone or telecommunica- tions service. (Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 18-301) Sec. 13-301. Consistent with the findings and policy estab- lished in paragraph (a) of Section 13-102 and paragraph (a) of Section 13-103, and in order to ensure the attainment of such policies, the Commission shall (a) participate in all federal programs intended to pre- serve or extend universal telecommunications service, unless such programs would place cost burdens on Illinois customers A-8 of telecommunications services in excess of the benefits they would receive through participation; and shall report on such programs together with an assessment of their adequacy and the advisability of participating therein in its annual report to the General Assembly, or more often as necessary; (b) establish a program to monitor the level of telecom- munications subscriber connection within each exchange in IUinois, and shall report the results of such monitoring and any actions it has taken or recommends be taken to maintain and increase such levels in its annual report to the General Assembly, or more often if necessary; (c) order all telecommunications carriers offering or pro- viding local exchange telecommunications service to propose low-cost or budget service tariffs and any other rate design or pricing mechanisms designed to facilitate customer access to such telecommunications service, and shall after notice and hearing, implement any such proposals which it finds likely to achieve such purpose; (d) investigate the necessity and feasibility of establish- ing a fund from which telecommunications carriers offering or providing local exchange telecommunications service, whose costs of providing such service exceed the average cost of providing such service in [Uinois, could receive revenues in- tended to mitigate the price impact on customers resulting from the high or rising cost of such service; and shall include the results and findings of such investigation together with any recommendations for legislative action in its first annual report to the General Assembly in 1986; (e) Any telecommunications carrier providing local ex- change telecommunications service which offers to ite local exchange customers a choice of two or more local exchange telecommunications service offerings shall provide, to any A-9 such customer requesting it, once a year without charge, a report describing which local exchange telecommunications service offering would rer ‘It in the lowest bill for such cus- tomer’s local exchange service, based on such customer’s call- ing pattern and usage for the previous 6 months. At least once a year, each such carrier shall provide a notice to each of its local exchange telecommunications service customers describing the availability of this report and the specific pro- cedures by which customers may receive it. Such report shall only be available to current and future customers who have received at least 6 months of continuous local exchange service from such carrier. (Ch. 111 2/8, new par. 18-401) Sec. 18-401. (a) No telecommunications carrier not pos- sessing a certificate of public convenience and necessity or certificate of authority from the Commission at the time this Article goes into effect shall transact any business in this State until it shall have obtained a certificate of service au- thority from the Commission pursuant to the provisions of this Article. No telecommunications carrier offering or providing, or seeking to offer or provide, any interexchange telecommuni- cations service shall do so until it has applied for and received a Certificate of Interexchange Service Authority pursuant to the provisions of Section 13-408. No telecommunications carrier offering or providing, or seeking to offer or provide, any local exchange telecommunications service shall do 80 un- til it has applied for and received a Certificate of Exchange Service Authority pursuant to the provisions of Section 13- 405. No Certificate of Service Authority issued by the Commis- sion shall be construed as granting a monopoly or exclusive A-10 privilege, immunity or franchise. The issuance of a Certificate of Service Authority to any telecommunications carrier shall not preclude the Commission from issuing additional Certifi- cates of Service Authority to other telecommunications car- riers providing the same or equivalent service or serving the same geographical area or customers as any previously cer- tified carrier, except to the extent otherwise provided by Sec- tions 18-403 and 13-405. Any certificate of public convenience and necessity granted by the Commission to a telecommunications carrier prior to the effective date of this Article shall remain in full force and effect, and such carriers need not apply for a Certificate of Service Authority in order to continue offering or providing service to the extent authorized in such certificate of public convenience and necessity. Any such carrier, however, prior to substantially altering the nature or scope of services pro- vided under a certificate of public convenience and necessity, or adding or expanding services beyond the authority con- tained in such certificate, must apply for a Certificate of Service Authority for such alterations or additions pursuant to the provisions of this Article. The Commission shall review and modify the terms of any certificate of public convenience and necessity issued to a telecommunications carrier prior to the effective date of this Article in order to ensure its conformity with the require- ments and policies of this Article. Any Certificate of Service Authority may be altered or modified by the Commission, after notice and hearing, upon its own motion or upon appli- cation of the person or company affected. Unless exercised within a period of two years from the issuance thereof, au- thority conferred by a Certificate of Service Authority shall be null and void. A-11 (¢) The Commission may issue a temporary Certificate which shall remain in force not to exceed one year in cases of emergency, to assure maintenance of adequate service or to serve particular customers, without notice and hearing, pending the determination of an application for a Certificate, and may by regulation exempt from the requirements of this Section temporary acts or operations for which the issuance of a certificate is not necessary in the public interest and which will not be required therefor. (Ch. 111 2/8, new par. 13-402) Sec. 13-402. The Commission is authorized, in connection with the issuance or modification of a Certificate of Inter- exchange Service Authority or the modification of a certifi- cate of public convenience and necessity for interexchange telecommunications service, to waive or modify the applica- tion of its rules, general orders, procedures or notice require- ments when such action will reduce the economic burdens of regulation and such waiver or modification is not inconsistent with the law or the purposes and policies of this Article. Any such waiver or modification granted to any interez- change telecommunications carrier which has, or any group of such carriers any one of which has annual revenues exceeding $10,000,000 shail be automatically applied fully and equally to all such carriers with annual revenues exceeding $10,000,000 unless the Commission specifically finds, after notice to all such carriers and a hearing, that restricting the application of such waiver or modification to only one such carrier or some group of such carriers is consistent with and would pro- mote the purposes and policies of this Article and the protec- tion of telecommunications customers. (Ch. 111 2/8, new par. 13-403) Sec. 18-403. The Commission shall approve ar ~pplication for a Certificate of Interexchange Service Ar rity only A-12 upon a showing by the applicant, and a finding by the Com- mission, after notice and hearing, that the applicant possesses sufficient technical, financial and managerial resources and abilities to provide interexchange telecommunications service. The Commission shell not issue a Certificate of Interexchange Service Authority to more than one facilities-based, interex- change telecommunications carrier for the offer or provision of any intra-Market Service Area interexchange telecommu- nications service prior to January 1, 1987. The Commission shall not permit any telecommunications carrier providing interexchange telecommunications service to use intra-Market Service Area dialing arrangements in place July 1, 1985 which do not require the use of telecom- munications carrier-specific access codes unless such carrier is also properly certified to offer or provide facilities-based local exchange telecommunications service, prior to a legis- lative determination to the contrary. The Commission shall conduct a study, and, after notice and hearing, issue a report with findings and recommendations concerning the advisa- bility of permitting a change in the use of such dialing ar- rangements. Such report shall be submitted to the General Assembly on October 1, 1988. The Commission shall have authority to alter the boundaries of Market Service Areas when such alteration is consistent with the public interest and the purposes and policies of this Article, provided however, that no significant alteration in such boundaries shall take place prior to January 1, 1987 and no such alteration shall affect the dialing arrangements specified in the immediately preceding paragraph of this Section. A determination by the Commission with respect to Market Service Area boundaries shall not modify or affect the rights or obligations of any telecommunications carrier A-13 with respect to any consent decree or agreement with the United States Department of Justice, including, but not limited to, the Modification of Final Judgment in United States v. Western Electric Co., 552 F. Supp. 181 (D.C.C. 1982), as modified from time to time. (Ch. 111 2/8, new par. 18-404) Sec. 18-404. Any telecommunications carrier offering or providing the resale of either locai «xchange or interexchange telecommunications service must first obtain a Certificate of Service Authority. The Commission shall approve an applica- tion for a Certificate for the resale of local exchange or inter- exchange telecommunications service upon a showing by the applicant, and a finding by the Commission, after notice and hearing, that the applicant possesses sufficient technical, fi- nancial and managerial resources and abilities to provide the resale of telecommunications service. (Ch. 111 2/8, new par. 18-405) Sec. 18-405. The Commission shall approve an application for a Certificate of Exchange Service Authority only upon a showing by the applicant, and a finding by the Commission, after notice and hearing, that (a) the applicant possesses sufficient technical, financial and managerial- resources and abilities to provide local ex- change telecommunications service; (b) that the exercise of the Certificate’s authority by the applicant would not adversely affect prices, network design, or the financial viability of the principal provider of local exchange telecommunications service. The Commission shall not approve + issue a Certificate of Exchange Service Authority to more than one telecommunica- tions carrier for any exchange prior to January 1, 1989; pro- vided, however, that a Certificate of Exchange Service Au- A-14 thority may be issued before such time, subject to appropriate Commission approval, pursuant to this Section, to any tele- communications carrier providing predominantly direct non- switched access service between a customer or user and any telecommunications carrier providing inter-MSA, inter-LATA or inter-state telecommunications service, or between such telecommunications carriers, for the purpose of providing such direct access service. (Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 13-406) Sec. 18-406. No telecommunications carrier offering or providing noncompetitive telecommunications service pursu- ant to a valid Certificate of Service Authority or certificate of public convenience and necessity shall discontinue or aban- don such service once initiated until and unless it shall demon- strate, and the Commission finds, after notice and hearing, that such discontinuance or abandonment will not deprive customers of any necessary or essential telecommunications service or access thereto and is not otherwise contrary to the public interest. No telecommunications carrier offering or providing competitive telecommunications service shall dis- continue or abandon such service once initiated except upon 30 days notice to the Commission and affected customers. The Commission may, upon its own motion er upon complaint, investigate the proposed discontinuance or abandonment of a competitive telecommunications service and may, after notice and hearing, prohibit such proposed discontinuance or aban- donment if the Commission finds that it would be contrary to the public interest. (Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 13-407) Sec. 13-407. The Commission shall monitor and analyze patterns of entry and exit, and applications for entry and exit, for each relevant market for telecommunications services A-15 and shall include its findings together with appropriate recom- mendations for legislative action in its annual report to the General Assembly. (Ch. 111 2/8, new par. 18-501) Sec. 18-501. No telecommunications carrier shall offer or provide telecommunications service unless and until a tariff is filed with the Commission which describes the nature of the service, applicable rates and other charges, terms and conditions of service, and the exchange, exchanges or other geographical area or areas in which the service shall be of- fered or provided. The Commission may prescribe the form of such tariff and any additional data or information which shall be included therein. (Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 13-502) Sec. 13-502. (a) All telecommunications services offered or provided under tariff by telecommunications carriers shall be classified as either competitive or noncompetitive. A tele- communications carrier may offer or provide either competi- tive or noncompetitive telecommunications services, or both, subject to proper certification and other applicable provisions of this Article. Any tariff filed with the Commission as re- quired by Section 18-501 shall indicate whether the service to be offered or provided is competitive or noncompetitive. (b) A service shall be classified as competitive only if, and only to the extent that, for some identifiable class or group of customers in an exchange, group of exchanges, or some other clearly defined geographical area, such service, or its functional equivalent, or a substitute service, is reasonably available from more than one provider, whether or not any such provider is a telecommunications carrier subject to reg- ulation under this Act. All telecommunications services not properly classified as competitive shall be classified as non- A-16 competitive. The Commission shall have the power to investi- gate the classification of telecommunication service, on its own motion or upon complaint, and to modify such classifica- tion or reclassify any service, in whole or in part, after notice and hearing. If, upon such motion or complaint, the Commis- sion enters into a hearing or investigation upon the propriety of any service classification pursuant to this Section, the Commission shall make its determination and issue its finc! order no later than 120 days from the date such hearing or investigation is initiated. (c) No tariff classifying a new telecommunications service as competitive or reclassifying a previously noncompetitive telecommunications service as competitive, which is filed by a telecommunications carrier which also offers or provides noncompetitive telecommunications service, shall be effective unless and until such telecommunications carrier offering or providing, or seeking to offer or provide, such proposed com- petitive service prepares and files a study of the long-run marginal cost underlying such service. Such study shall be given proprietary treatment by the Commission at the request of such carrier if any other provider of the competitive ser- vice, its functional equivalent, or a substitute service in the geographical area described by the proposed tariff has not filed, or has not been required to file, such a study. (d) Inthe event any telecommunications service has been classified and filed as competitive by the telecommunications carrier, and has been offered or provided on such basis, and the Commission subsequently determines after investigation that such classification improperly included services which were in fact noncompetitive, the Commission shall have the power to determine and order refunds to customers for any overcharges which may have resulted from the improper A-17 classification, or to order such other remedies provided to it under this Act, or to seek an appropriate remedy or relief in a court of competent jurisdiction. (e) Any telecommunications carrier which seeks to file a tariff classifying a new telecommunications service as com- petitive or reclassifying a previously noncompetitive telecom- munications service as competitive may, instead of filing such new tariff and offering and providing such service as com- petitive subject to refund, apply to the Commission, prior to offering or providing such service as competitive, for an order finding that the proposed tariff is proper and consistent with law. Provided, however, that prior to August 1, 1987 any telecommunications carrier which seeks to file a tariff classifying a new interexchange telecommunications service as competitive or reclassifying a previously noncompetitive interexchange telecommunications service as competitive shall apply for prior Commission approval of such tariff pursuant to the procedures of this paragraph (e). Any telecommunica- tions carrier applying for Commission approval pursuant to this paragraph (e) shail provide timely and effective notice of its application and proposed tariff to potentially affected providers and customers in a manner to be determined by the Commission. ~~ Upon such application and notice, the Commission may make its findings without hearing within 21 days of the filing of the application and may allow such tariff to take immediate effect thereafter if there is no request for hearing by poten- tially affected providers or customers. The Commission shall, however, enter into hearings to determine the propriety and legality of the proposed tariffs upon such request or if the Commission, in its discretion, believes such hearings are necessary. A-18 If the Commission enters into hearings upon the applica- tion, it shall issue a final order within 120 days of such appli- cation, and, if the Commission fails to issue an order within such period, the application shall be deemed granted, unless, however, the Commission, the applicant and all parties to the hearing agree to extend such time period. The Commission shall have the power to issue an interim order allowing the proposed tariff to take effect during the 120 day period sub- ject to refund and such other conditions as the Commission may provide. , (Ch. 111 2/8, new par. 13-503) Sec. 13-508. With respect to rates or other charges made, demanded or received for any telecommunications service of- fered, provided or to be provided, whether such service is competitive or noncompetitive, telecommunications carriers shall comply with the publication and filing provisions of Sec- tions 9-101, 9-102, and 9-103. (Ch. 111 2/8, new par. 13-504) Sec. 18-504. Except where the context clearly renders such provisions inapplicable, the ratemaking provisions of Article 1X of this Act relating to public utilities are fully and equally applicable to the rates, charges, tariffs and classifications for the offer or provision of noncompetitive telecommunications services. Provided, however, that such ratemaking provisions do not apply to any proposed change in rates or charges, or proposed change in any classification or tariff resulting in a change in rates or charges, for a noncompetitive local ez- change telecommunications service offered or provided by a local exchange telecommunications carrier with no more than 15,000 subscriber access lines, where such carrier is also not a subsidiary of a holding company incorporated outside Illi- nois. Proposed changes in rates, charges, classifications, or A-19 tariffs meeting these criteria shall be permitted upon the filing of the proposed tariff and 30 days notice to the Com- mission and all potentially affected customers; such proposed changes shall not be subject to suspension, but the Commis- sion may, upon its own motion or upon complaint, investigate whether such proposed change is just and reasonable and if it finds, after notice and hearing, that such changes are un- just or unreasonable, in whole or in part, the Commission shall have the power and duty to establish the rates, charges, classifications, or tariffs it finds to be just and reasonable. The Commission shall investigate whether any such proposed change is just and reasonable if 5 percent or more of the potentially affected access line subscribers of the telecom- munications carrier file a petition or complaint requesting such investigation. (Ch. 111 2/8, new par. 13-505) Sec. 18-505. Proposed changes in rates or charges, or any classification or tariff provision affecting rates or charges, for any competitive telecommunications service, shall be treated pursuant to this Section as follows; (a) any proposed decrease in rates or charges, or pro- posed change in any classification or tariff resulting in a decrease in rates or charges, for competitive local exchange or interexchange telecommunications service shall be per- mitted upon the filing of the proposed rate, charge, classifica- tion or tariff; (b) any proposed increase in rates or charges, or proposed change in any classification or tariff resulting in an increase in rates or charges, for a competitive interexchange tele- communications service shall be permitted only upon the filing of the proposed rate, charge, classification or tariff and upon notice to all potentially affected customers through a notice A-20 in each such customer’s bill prior to the date for implementa- tion of such increase or change, or, where such customers are not billed, by an equivalent means of prior notice; (c) any proposed increase in rates or charges, or pro- posed change in any classification or tariff resulting in an increase in rates or charges, for a competitive local exchange telecommunications service shall be treated as though such service were noncompetitive, pursuant to the applicable pro- visions of Section 13-504. (Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 13-506) Sec. 18-506. (a) Telecommunications carriers may file proposed tariffs for any competitive local exchange telecom- munications service, which includes and specifically describes a range, band, formula, or standard within or by which a change in rates or charges for such telecommunications service could be made without prior notice or prior Commission ap- proval. The Commission shall approve such a proposed tariff only if the telecommunications carrier demonstrates, and the Commission finds, that any and wu! rates or charges within the band or range, or determinable by the operation of the formula or standard, are consistent with the public interest and the purposes and policies of this Article and Act, and are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. To the extent any proposed band or range encompasses rates or charges which are not consistent with the public interest and the pur- poses and policies of this Article and Act or otherwise fully proper, or any proposed formula or standard determines rates or charges which are not consistent with the purposes and policies of this Article and Act or fully proper, the Commis- sion shall have the power to modify the level, scope or limits of such band or range, and to modify or limit the operation of such formula or standard, as necessary, to ensure that A-21 rates or charges resulting therefrom are consistent with the purposes and policies of this Article and Act and fully proper, and likely to remain so in the foreseeable future. (b) The Commission may require a telecommunications carrier to file a variable tariff as described in paragraph (a) for any or all competitive local exchange telecommunications service which is offered or provided by such carrier, if the Commission finds, after notice and hearing, that the deter- mination of rates or charges for such service by such a tariff would improve the Commission’s ability to effectively regulate such rates or charges and that such improvement is required by the public interest. Any such tariff required by the Com- mission shall be approved only if it is also consistent with the provisions of paragraph (a) of this Section. (c) When the Commission approves a variable tariff pur- suant to this Section, as proposed or modified, the telecom- munications carrier shall place such tariff in effect thereafter and shall determine rates or charges according to the provi- sions thereof. (Ch. 111 2/8, new par. 18-507) Sec. 13-507. In permitting, approving, investigating or establishing rates, charges, classifications or tariffs for non- competitive services offered or provided by a telecommunica- tions carrier which also offers or provides competitive ser- vices, the Commission shall not allow or establish rates, charges, classifications or tariffs which in any way, directly or indirectly, include or reflect: (a) the value of investment in facilities used, jointly or separately, to provide competitive service, to the extent such facilities are used to provide competitive service; (6) expenses incurred for the provision of competitive service, including, but not limited to, the salaries or wages, A-22 or portion thereof, of employees whose employment activities are directed, in whole or in part, to the provision of competi- tive service, to the extent such expenses are incurred to provide competitive service; (c) any incremental risk or increased cost of capital which is associated with or attributable to the competitive portion of such carrier’s business. In the event that facilities are utilized or expenses are in- curred for the provision ~f both competitive and noncompeti- tive services, the Commission shall allow or establish rates or charges for the noncompetitive services which reflect only that portion of such facilities or expenses properly and reasonably allocable to the noncompetitive services. Every telecommuni- cations carrier shall, to the fullest extent practicable, identify such common facilities and expenses in its books and accounts and shall clearly describe any means used to allocate such common facilities or expenses between noncompetitive and competitive services and related rates or charges. If the Com- mission determines that such accountiny and reporting re- quirements alone are insufficient to permit the Commission to meet the ratemaking and tariff supervision obligations of this Section, it shall have the power to take or require such additional action as necessary to ensure that rates or charges for noncompetitive services reflect only the value of facilities, or portion thereof, used and useful, and the expenses or por- tion thereof reasonably and prudently incurred, for the pro- vision of such noncompetitive services. The Commission shall, in such event, also establish, by rule, any additional accounting or reporting procedures, rules, regulations or mechanisms necessary to identify and properly allocate the value or amount of such facilities or expenses. For the purposes of this Section, the Commission shall not allocate to any competitive service all or part of the value of A-23 investment in facilities utilized, or expenses incurred, in con- nection with providing noncompetitive service. The Commission may establish, by rule, appropriate meth- ods for calculating the long-run marginal costs of providing any telecommunications service, and for determining whether the rates or charges for telecommunications service are at a level equal to or greater than such long-run marginal cost. The Commission may order any telecommunications carrier to conduct a long-run marginal cost study and to provide the results thereof tc the Commission. Any cost study provided to the Commission pursuant to the provisions of this Section may, in the Commission's discretion, be accorded proprietary treatment. (Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 13-508) Sec. 13-508. The Commission is authorized, after notice and hearing, to order a telecommunications carrier which offers or provides both competitive and noncompetitive tele- communications service to establish a fully separated subsid- iary to provide all or part of such competitive service where: (a) no less costly means is available and effective in fully and properly identifying and allocating costs between such carrier’s competitive and noncompetitive telecommunications services; and (b) the incremental cost of establishing and maintaining such subsidiary would not require increases in rates or charges to levels which would effectively preclude the offer or provi- sion of the affected competitive telecommunications service. (Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 13-509) Sec. 18-509. A telecommunications carrier offering or pro- viding competitive telecommunications service may negotiate with customers or prospective customers for the provision by it of such service, and in so doing, may offer or agree to pro- A-24 vide such service on such terms and for such rates or charges as it deems reasonable, without regard to any tariffs it may have filed with the Commission with respect to such services. Within 10 days after concluding any such agreement, the tele- communications carrier shall file any contract or memoran- dum of understanding for the provision of telecommunications service, which shall include the rates or other charges, prac- tices, rules or regulations applicable to the agreed provision of such service. Upon filing its contract or memorandum the telecommunications carrier shall thereafter provide service according to the terms thereof, unless the Commission finds, after notice and hearing, that the continued provision of ser- vice pursuant to such contract or memorandum would substan- tially and adversely affect the financial integrity of the tele- communications carrier or would cause the cross-subsidization of any competitive service by any noncompetitive service. Any contract or memorandum entered into and filed pur- suant to the provisions of this Section may, in the Commis- sion’s discretion, be accorded proprietary treatment. (Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 13-601) Sec. 13-601. The provisions of Article VII of this Act are fully applicable only to telecommunications carriers offering or providing noncompetitive telecommunications service, and the Commission’s regulation thereof, except that the approval of contracts and arrangements with affiliated interests re- quired by paragraph (3) of Section 7-101 shall not apply to such contracts or arrangements by such telecommunications carriers where the total obligation thereunder does not exceed the lesser of 1 million dollars or 5 percent of such carrier's prior annual revenue from noncompetitive services. (Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 13-701) Sec. 18-701. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act to the contrary, the Commission has no power to super- A-25 vise or control any telephone cooperative as respects assess- ment schedules or local service rates made or charged by such a cooperative on a nondiscriminatory basis. In addition, the Commission has no power to inquire into, or require the submission of, the terms, conditions or agreements by or under which telephone cooperatives are financed. A telephone cooperative shall file with the Commission either a copy of the annual financial report required by the Rural Electrifica- tion Administration, or the annual financial report required of other public utilities. (Ch. 111 2/8, new par. 13-702) Sec. 18-702. Every telecommunications carrier operating in this State shall receive, transmit and deliver, without dis- crimination or delay, the conversations, messages or other transmissions of every other telecommunications carrier with which a joint rate has been established or with whose line a physical connection may have been made. (Ch. 111 2/38, new par. 13-703) Sec. 18-708. (a) The Commission shall design and imple- ment a program whereby each telecommunications carrier providing local exchange service shall provide a telecommu- nications device capable of servicing the needs of the deaf or severely hearing-impaired together with a single party line, at no charge additional to the basic exchange rate, to any subscriber who is certified as deaf or severely hearing- impaired by a licensed physician, audiologist or a qualified State agency and to any subscriber which is an organization representing the deaf or severely hearing-impaired as de- termined and specified by the Commission pursuant to sub- section (d). (b) The Commission shall design and implement a pro- gram, whereby each telecommunications carrier providing A-26 local exchange service shall provide a dual party system, using third party intervention to connect deaf or severely hearing- impaired persons and offices of organizations representing the deaf or severely hearing-impaired as determined and spec- ified by the Commission pursuant to subsection (d) with per- sons of normal hearing by way of intercommunications devices for the deaf or severely hearing-impaired and the telephone system, making available reasonable access to all phases of public telephone service to deaf or severely hearing-impaired telephone subscribers. In order to design 2 dual party relay system which will meet the requirements of deaf and severely hearing-impaired persons available at a reasonable cost the Commission shall initiate an investigation and conduct public hearings to determine the most cost-effective method of pro- viding dual party relay service to the deaf or severely hearing- impaired when using telecommunications devices and therein solicit the advice, counsel, and physical assistance of State- wide nonprofit consumer organizations of the deaf in such hearings and during the development and implementation of the system. The Commission shall phase in this program, on a geographical basis, over a 3-year period ending January 1,1989. (c) The commission shall establish a rate recovery mech- anism, which shall not exceed 3¢ per month for each line of a subscriber to allow telecommunications carriers providing local exchange service to recover costs as they are incurred under this Section. (d) The Commission shall determine and specify those Statewide organizations representing the deaf or severely hearing-impaired which shall receive a telecommunications device pursuant to subsection (a) or a dual party relay system pursuant to subsection (b), or both, and in which offices the A-27 equipment shall be installed in the case of an organization having more than one office. The Commission shall direct the telecommunications carriers subject to its jurisdiction and this Section to comply with its determinations and specifications in this regard. (Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 18-704) Sec. 13-704. Each page of a billing statement which sets forth charges assessed against a customer by a telecommunica- tions carrier for telecommunications service shall reflect the telephone number or customer account number to which the charges are being billed. (Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 13-801) Sec. 13-801. The Commission shall prepare and issue an annual report on the status of the telecommunications industry and IUinois regulation thereof on January $1 of each year beginning in 1986. Such report shall include: (a) A review of regulatory decisions and actions from the preceding year and a description of pending cases involv- ing significant telecommunications carriers or issues; (6b) a description of the telecommunications industry and changes or trends therein, including the number, type and size of firms offering telecommunications services, whether or not such firms are subject to State regulation, telecom- munications technologies in place and under development, variations in the geographic availability of services and in prices for services, and penetration levels of subscriber access to local exchange service in each exchange and trends related thereto; (ce) the status of compliance by carriers and the Commis- sion with the requirements of this Article; (d) the effects, and likely effects of IUinois regulatory pclicies and practices, including those described in this Article, on telecommunications carriers, services and customers; A-28 (e) any recommendations for legislative change which are adopted by the Commission and which the Commission be- lieves are in the interest of Illinois telecommunications cus- tomers; (f) any other information or analysis which the Commis- sion is required to provide by this Article or deems necessary to provide. The Commission's report shall be filed with the Joint Com- mittee on Legislative Support Services, the Governor, and the Public Counsel and shall be publicly available. The Joint Com- mittee on Legislative Support Services shall conduct public hearings on the report and any recommendations therein. (Ch. 111 2/3, new par. 13-802). Sec. 13-802. The Commission shall study the effects on telecommunications carriers, providers and customers and on telecommunications services and prices likely to result from the issuance of multiple Certificates of Service Authority for Intra-Market Service Area and local exchange service. The Commission shall also study the need to retain manda- tory prior Commission approval of tariffs classifying a new interexchange telecommunication service as competitive or reclassifying a previously noncompetitive intererchange tele- communications service as competitive as provided in Section 13-502(a), and the effects of eliminating such mandatory prior approval. Such studies shall include notice and an opportunity for participation and comment by all interested and poter.tially affected parties. Such studies shall be completed by January, 1987 and a summary thereof, together with any legislative recommendations, shall be included in the Commission’s An- nual Report due on January $1, 1987. A-29 (Ch. 111 2/8, new par. 13-803) Sec. 18-808. The provisions of this Article, Sections 13-101 through 18-808 of this Act, are repealed effective December 31,1991. Section 2. Section 4.8 of the “Regulatory Agency Sunset Act”, approved September 22, 1979, as amended, is amended to read as follows: (Ch. 127, par. 1904.3) Sec. 4.8. The following Acts are repealed December $1, 1985: (Ch. 111, rep. pars. 1601 through 1670) (1) The “Illinois Barber Law”, approved July 18, 1947, as amended. (Ch. 111, rep. pars. 1801 through 1839) (2) “The Illinois Beauty Culture Act”, approved June 30, 1925, as amended. ((CH. 111 2/8, REP. PARS. 1 THROUGH 95)) ((3) “AN ACT CONCERNING PUBLIC UTILITIES”, APPROVED JUNE 29, 1924, AS AMENDED.) (Ch. 111, rep. pars. 2001 through 2040) (3) ((4)) The “Collection Agency Act”, approved Sep- tember 8, 1974, as amended. Section 8. This Act takes effect January 1, 1986, except Section 2 and this Section takes effect upon this Act becoming a law. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0163%3A21. Public record. Not legal advice.