WPC@| 2} ZBLXm2P;XP*a1TechnicalTechnical Document Style4!     a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style*    a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style'    2CKa4TechnicalTechnical Document Style&    a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style&    . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style&    . a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style&   . 2g  ? a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style&  . a1DocumentDocument Style F *  ׃  a2DocumentDocument Style *    a3DocumentDocument Style 0     2C p e enpa4DocumentDocument Style  . a5DocumentDocument Style  a6DocumentDocument Style  a7DocumentDocument Style` ` ` 2} pu } b  a8DocumentDocument Style ` ` ` a1Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)$!" a2Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)/#$` ` ` a3Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a):%&` ` `  2i M   a4Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)E'(` ` `  a5Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)P)*` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)[+, a7Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)f-. 26ea8Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)q/0 a1118Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers812@   a2118Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersA34@` `  ` ` ` a3118Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersJ56@  ` `  2Rha4118Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersS78@  a5118Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers\9:@hh# hhh a6118Right-Aligned Paragraph Numberse;<@( hh# a7118Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersn=>@- ( 2Y U!n"qa8118Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers w?@@pp2 -ppp X0Í ÍX0Í ÍBibliogrphyBibliography!AB Tech InitInitialize Technical Style"CD 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2f#$ %e&pDoc InitInitialize Document Style#EF    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentҲPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper$GH   , X  y*dddyy*dddy HP1 HP2 HP3 HP4 HP5 HP6 HP7 HP8 HP9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   ӕHeading 2Underlined Heading Flush Left%IJ Heading 1Centered Heading&KL* Ã  2 's( )*M Bullet ListIndented Bullet List'MN` ` ` para numnumbered indented paragraphs(O'P 1.#X P]7XP# 1.Ҳheading 4heading 4)QRheading 5heading 5*ST2'#+ !,!-"."heading 6heading 6+UVheading 7heading 7,WXheading 8heading 8-YZDefault ParaDefault Paragraph Font.[\2b%/Y#0#1i$2o$endnote textendnote text/]^endnote refeendnote reference0_`footnote texfootnote text1abfootnote reffootnote reference2cd2'3%4&5&6 'Document 8Document 83efDocument 4Document 44gh  Document 6Document 65ijDocument 5Document 56kl26-7'8R(92(:2+Document 2Document 27mnDocument 7Document 78opRight Par 1Right Par 19qrX` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 2Right Par 2:stX` hp x (#` hp x (#2~4;h-<2-=20>2L2Document 3Document 3;uvRight Par 3Right Par 3<wxX` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 4Right Par 4=yzX` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 5Right Par 5>{|X` hp x (#0` hp x (#2=?24@26A29B<F;Right Par 6Right Par 6?}~X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 7Right Par 7@X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 8Right Par 8AX` hp x (#` hp x (#Document 1Document 1BX` hp x (#` hp x (#2$CC8=D8?E$BFBTechnical 5Technical 5CX` hp x (# ` hp x (#Technical 6Technical 6DX` hp x (# ` hp x (#Technical 2Technical 2ETechnical 3Technical 3F2~JG8VCHEI8FJ8FHTechnical 4Technical 4GX` hp x (# ` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 1HTechnical 7Technical 7IX` hp x (# ` hp x (#Technical 8Technical 8JX` hp x (# ` hp x (#2xSK2JL2LM2ON2FQtoc 1toc 1K(#`` hp x (#toc 2toc 2L` (#`` hp x (#toc 3toc 3M` (#` hp x (#toc 4toc 4N (#` hp x (#2ZO2SP2UQXR2Xtoc 5toc 5Oh(#` hp x (#toc 6toc 6P(# ` hp x (#toc 7toc 7Qtoc 8toc 8R(# ` hp x (#2cS2ZT2.]U2`_V2atoc 9toc 9S(#`` hp x (#index 1index 1T` (#` hp x (#index 2index 2U` (#`` hp x (#toa headingtoa headingV(#` hp x (#2gWcXdY2eZ2gcaptioncaptionW_Equation Ca_Equation CaptionXfooterfooterY (# ` hp x (#heading 3heading 3Z2>j[g\wh]i^i2['#d6X@^@#HeadingChapter Heading\3  *  ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers]<@    SubheadingSubheading^.   2l_^pj`dja2kb lFOOTNOTEFootnote - Appearance_HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Bold` DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Datea X 8a` (#DDRAFTă `(#? 3 1, 4   aDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style offbD    2XqcXldc/mecnfcoHEADERHeader A - AppearancecLETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5d  '3   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5e  'A   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11f  3'   2@tgcqhnri[sjdsLEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14g  A'   TITLETitle of a Documenth* ăBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedi HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Boldj 2ykjrtltmI_wnxHIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscoredk LETTERHEADLetterhead - date/marginsl!  X  3'   * 3' II Ѓ   INVOICE FEEFee Amount for Math Invoicem X, $0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page Formatn  * M E M O R A N D U M ă y<N dddy 2o<yp<'{qc|rX]INVOICE EXPExpense Subtotals for Math Invoiceo ,p, $0INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macrop p,p, $0INVOICE HEADHeading Portion of Math InvoiceqOE   p,X 9! XX  *#HHީ!  ӧ   XX ! XX  *#HHީ!NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyler2Ss[t[Bu[v[SMALLSmall TypestylesFINEFine TypestyletLARGELarge TypestyleuEXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestylev2Uw[xyXzXVERY LARGEVery Large TypestylewENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Headerxm V, II  X  , 8'   ' `   MACNormaly3z2n{|-}( Ӆ~sStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Margins{''#<2P_P##XN\  P`XP#Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5|''#XN*f9 xaXX##XN\  PbXP#Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced II}#XN\  PcXP# dn  #  [ b, oT9 !#XN\  PdXP# ## b, oT9 !#XN*f9 xeXX#`e%%Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   #XN\  PfXP# ## b, oT9 !#XN*f9 xgXX#Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   v#XN\  PhXP# ## b, oT9 !#XN*f9 xiXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  v#XN\  PjXP# ## b, oT9 !#XN*f9 xkXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3Dutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs~#XN\  PlXP# n  ## b, oT9 !2?ΑMStyle 4Swiss 8 Point with MarginsG#<2PmP# dd  #  Style 1Dutch Roman 11.5 Font7#XN\  PnXP# dn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5'#XN*f9 xoXX#Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Point''#u\  PpP##XN\  PqXP#2%˓F qF Style 7Swiss 11.5''#m2Pr;XP*##XN\  PsXP#Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Point''#[\  PtP##XN\  PuXP#Style 10Initial Codes for Advanced  #XN\  PvXP# dn   #  [ b, oT9 !#XN\  PwXP# ## b, oT9 !#XN*f9 xxXX#`Qe%'Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #XN\  PyXP# ## b, oT9 !#XN*f9 xzXX#Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   v#XN\  P{XP# ## b, oT9 !#XN*f9 x|XX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  v#XN\  P}XP# ## b, oT9 !#XN*f9 x~XX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8Initial Codes for Beginning  #XN\  PXP# dn  ## b, oT9  [ #XN\  PXP# ## b, oT9 #XN*f9 xXX#`-e%&Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #XN\  PXP# ## b, oT9 #XN*f9 xXX#Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #XN\  PXP# ## b, oT9 #XN*f9 xXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  #XN\  PXP# ## b, oT9 #XN*f9 xXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2D /U sȹpGStyle 9Initial Codes for Intermediate #XN\  PXP# dn  ## b, oT9 Њ [ #XN\  PXP# ## b, oT9 #XN*f9 xXX#`ge%%Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #XN\  PXP# ## b, oT9 #XN*f9 xXX#Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #XN\  PXP# ## b, oT9 #XN*f9 xXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`e%APage  #XN\  PXP# ## b, oT9 #XN*f9 xXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 UpdateInitial Codes for Update Module#XN\  PXP# dn  ##  [ b, oT9 !#XN\  PXP# ## b, oT9 !#XN*f9 xXX#`e%"Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   #XN\  PXP# ## b, oT9 !#XN*f9 xXX#Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   v#XN\  PXP# ## b, oT9 !#XN*f9 xXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  v#XN\  PXP# ## b, oT9 !#XN*f9 xXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 head1'# 2p #4Document Style` ` ` 2qeZe$5Document Style  . 6Document Style  7Document Style  8Document Style*   2pY9Document Style` ` ` 10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers8 @   11Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersA!"@` `  ` ` ` 12Document Style0# $    2MT13Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersJ%&@  ` `  14Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersS'(@  15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers\)*@hh# hhh 16Right-Aligned Paragraph Numberse+,@( hh# 2E 17Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersn-.@- ( 18Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw/0@pp2 -ppp 19Document StyleF12 D*  ׃  20Technical Document Style&34  . 2Op21Technical Document Style&56  . 22Technical Document Style*78    23Technical Document Style'9:   24Technical Document Style&;<   2{}25Technical Document Style4=$>     26Technical Document Style&?@  . 27Technical Document Style&AB  . 281. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)$CD 24O291. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)/EF` ` ` 301. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a):GH` ` `  311. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)EIJ` ` `  321. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)PKL` ` ` hhh 27|;2331. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)[MN 341. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)fOP 351. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)qQR toatoaST` hp x (#27qiee?36Document StyleU V . 37Document Style WX 38Document Style YZ 39Document Style*[\   2pik40Document Style]^` ` ` 41Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers8_`@   42Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersAab@` `  ` ` ` 43Document Style0c d    2q44Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersJef@  ` `  45Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersSgh@  46Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers\ij@hh# hhh 47Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersekl@( hh# 2^48Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersnmn@- ( 49Right-Aligned Paragraph Numberswop@pp2 -ppp 50Document StyleFqr D*  ׃  51Technical Document Style&st  . 2T52Technical Document Style&uv  . 53Technical Document Style*wx    54Technical Document Style'yz   55Technical Document Style&{|   2K}56Technical Document Style4}$~     57Technical Document Style&  . 58Technical Document Style&  . 591. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)$ 2<m601. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)/` ` ` 611. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a):` ` `  621. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)E` ` `  631. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)P` ` ` hhh 2{H641. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)[ 651. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)f 661. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)q 67Default Paragraph FontOO#XN\  PXP##XN\  PXP#2ZI68_Equation CaptionOO#XN\  PXP##XN\  PXP#69endnote referenceRR#XN\  PXP##XN\  PXP#70footnote referenceR#XN\  PXP#1, 2, 3,Numbers1.2dp9qeA, B,Uppercase Letters .71Document Style` ` ` 72Document Style  . 73Document Style  2ep74Document Style  75Document Style*   76Document Style` ` ` 77Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers8@   2^x 78Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersA@` `  ` ` ` 79Document Style0     80Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersJ@  ` `  81Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersS@  2F82Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers\@hh# hhh 83Right-Aligned Paragraph Numberse@( hh# 84Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersn@- ( 85Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw@pp2 -ppp 2086Document StyleF D*  ׃  87Technical Document Style&  . 88Technical Document Style&  . 89Technical Document Style*    2b;90Technical Document Style'   91Technical Document Style&   92Technical Document Style4$     93Technical Document Style&  . 2}w|94Technical Document Style&  . 951. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)$ 961. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)/` ` ` 971. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a):` ` `  2A<981. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)E` ` `  991. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)P` ` ` hhh 1001. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)[ 1011. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)f 2-FF=L1021. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)q 103Default Paragraph Fontww#XN\  PXP##XN\  PXP#104_Equation Captionww#XN\  PXP##XN\  PXP#105endnote referencezz#XN\  PXP##XN\  PXP#2Vpuq106footnote referencez#XN\  PXP#107footnote text108Document Style` ` ` 109Document Style  . 2UeeRp110Document Style  111Document Style  112Document Style*   113Document Style` ` ` 2   I 114Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers8@   115Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersA@` `  ` ` ` 116Document Style0     117Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersJ@  ` `  2|0p m2P;XP*.2A`ArialXA\  PP%\  `$Times NewRomanXN\  PXP%\  `$Times NewRomanXA\  PP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PP%\  `$Times NewRoman&G\  P&P%\  `$Times NewRoman&A\  PP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P!P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P"P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P#P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P$P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P%P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P&P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P'P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P(P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P)P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P*P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P+P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P,P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P-P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P.P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P/P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P0P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P1P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P2P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P3P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P4P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P5P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P6P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P7P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P8P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P9P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P:P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P;P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P<P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P=P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P>P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P?P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P@P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PAP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PBP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PCP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PDP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PEP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PFP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PGP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PHP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PIP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PJP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PKP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PLP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PMP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PNP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  POP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PPP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PQP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PRP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PSP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PTP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PUP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PVP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PWP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PXP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PYP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  PZP%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P[P%\  `$Times NewRomanA\  P\P%\  `$Times NewRomanX P]7XP* `CG TimesXd6X@^@<6X9`("Courier NewTT<2P_P*o> A`ArialTTXN\  P`XP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN*f9 xaXX! `>  `6Times New RomanItalicTTXXN\  PbXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN\  PcXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN\  PdXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN*f9 xeXX! `>  `6Times New RomanItalicTTXXN\  PfXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN*f9 xgXX! `>  `6Times New RomanItalicTTXXN\  PhXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN*f9 xiXX! `>  `6Times New RomanItalicTTXXN\  PjXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN*f9 xkXX! `>  `6Times New RomanItalicTTXXN\  PlXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTX<2PmP*o> A`ArialTTXN\  PnXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN*f9 xoXX! `>  `6Times New RomanItalicTTXu\  PpP#~>  *Times New RomanTTXN\  PqXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXm2Pr;XP*.2A`ArialXXN\  PsXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTX[\  PtP$ [  `*Times New RomanTTXN\  PuXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN\  PvXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN\  PwXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN*f9 xxXX! `>  `6Times New RomanItalicTTXXN\  PyXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN*f9 xzXX! `>  `6Times New RomanItalicTTXXN\  P{XP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN*f9 x|XX! `>  `6Times New RomanItalicTTXXN\  P}XP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN*f9 x~XX! `>  `6Times New RomanItalicTTXXN\  PXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN\  PXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN*f9 xXX! `>  `6Times New RomanItalicTTXXN\  PXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN*f9 xXX! `>  `6Times New RomanItalicTTXXN\  PXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN*f9 xXX! `>  `6Times New RomanItalicTTXXN\  PXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN*f9 xXX! `>  `6Times New RomanItalicTTXXN\  PXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN\  PXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN*f9 xXX! `>  `6Times New RomanItalicTTXXN\  PXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN*f9 xXX! `>  `6Times New RomanItalicTTXXN\  PXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN*f9 xXX! `>  `6Times New RomanItalicTTXXN\  PXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN*f9 xXX! `>  `6Times New RomanItalicTTXXN\  PXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN\  PXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN*f9 xXX! `>  `6Times New RomanItalicTTXXN\  PXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN*f9 xXX! `>  `6Times New RomanItalicTTXXN\  PXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN*f9 xXX! `>  `6Times New RomanItalicTTXXN\  PXP" [  `*Times New RomanTTXXN*f9 xXX! `>  `6Times New RomanItalicTTX 2p 22AArialBoldTT XN\  PXP `*Times New RomanTTXXN\  PXP `*Times New RomanTTXXN\  PXP `*Times New RomanTTXXN\  PXP `*Times New RomanTTXXN\  PXP `*Times New RomanTTXXN\  PXP `*Times New RomanTTXXN\  PXP `*Times New RomanTTXXN\  PXP `*Times New RomanTTXXN\  PXP `*Times New RomanTTXXN\  PXP `*Times New RomanTTXXN\  PXP `*Times New RomanTTXXN\  PXP `*Times New RomanTTXXN\  PXP `*Times New RomanTTXXN\  PXP `*Times New RomanTTX26|>|3|m   X  #A\  PP#`(#(#K  Federal Communications Commission`(#CFCC 96470 ă yx@dddy Պ#XN\  PXP# 4&Before the e FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION !Washington, D.C. 20554 ă In the Matter of) ) New England Public)CCBPol 9611 Communications Council) Petition for Preemption) Pursuant to Section253) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ă Adopted:December 6, 1996Released:December 10, 1996 By the Commission: Z" I. INTRODUCTION ă 1.On March 21, 1996, the New England Public Communications Council, Inc. (NEPCC)H#A\  PP#эThe NEPCC is a nonprofit corporation whose members are independent (i.e., non-local exchange carrier) providers of interstate and intrastate pay telephone services in Massachusetts and other New England states. NEPCC Petition at 1.H filed the abovecaptioned petition asking the Commission to preempt a State of Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC) decision that prohibits all entities, except incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) and certified LECs, from providing pay telephone service in the State of Connecticut.>#A\  PP#эDPUC Investigation into the Competitive Provision of Customer Owned Coin Operated Telephone Service in Connecticut, Decision, Docket No. 940705 (June30, 1995) (DPUC Decision). See NEPCC Petition, Exhibit A.> NEPCC's petition asserts that the DPUC's prohibition violates section 253 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act or the Act).5#A\  PP#эSee 47 U.S.C. 253. Section253 was added to the Communications Act by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.104104, 110Stat. 56, codified at 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq. (1996 Act).5 2.The Commission placed NEPCC's petition on public notice on March26, 1996.)#A\  PP#эPleading Cycle Established for Comments on New England Public Communications Council's Petition for Preemption Pursuant to Section 253, Public Notice, CCBPol 9611, DA 96436 (released March 26, 1996).) The DPUC, through the Office of the Connecticut Attorney General (Connecticut Attorney General), filed an opposition to NEPCC's petition on March29, 1996. Frontier Communications International Inc. (Frontier) filed comments supporting NEPCC's petition on April24, 1996. The NEPCC responded to the DPUC's opposition by filing comments on April25, 1996. For the reasons set forth below, we grant NEPCC's petition. v# II. BACKGROUND ă A. The DPUC Decision 3.The DPUC originally prohibited the competitive provision of payphone services in Connecticut in 1989.#A\  PP#эDPUC Decision at25. See DPUC Investigation into Authorization of Competition for Intrastate Interexchange Telecommunications Services, Docket No. 870824 (March15, 1989). In a separate proceeding that concluded in 1993, the DPUC continued its prohibition.)#A\  PP#эDPUC Decision at26. See DPUC Review of Telecommunications Policies: Infrastructure Modernization, Competition, Pricing Principles and Methods of Regulation, Docket No.911006 (July7, 1993).) As a result, only incumbent LECs (i.e., Southern New England Telephone (SNET), the New York Telephone Company (NYTel), and the Woodbury Telephone Company (Woodbury)) were authorized to provide public and semipublic coin telephone service in Connecticut.#A\  P P#эDPUC Decision at26. As a general matter, payphone service providers do not own the premises where a particular pay telephone is located. Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No.96128, 11 FCC Rcd 6716, 6720, 6 (1996) (Pay Telephone NPRM), Report and Order, FCC 96388 (released Sept. 20, 1996) (Pay Telephone Order), recon., Order on Reconsideration, FCC 96439 (released Nov. 8, 1996) (Pay Telephone Reconsideration Order). Public payphones are located on public premises, such as street corners. Semiprivate payphones are located on premises such as restaurants and hotels, and are payphones that a LEC typically provides in exchange for both the coin revenue generated by the payphone and a monthly fee, paid by the location provider, discounted from the rate for a business line. Semipublic payphones tend to be located, at the request of the location provider, where public access is limited and an insignificant amount of calls are made. Pay Telephone Order at n. 142. 4.In 1994, the Connecticut General Assembly enacted new telecommunications legislation.X0ÍX0Í#A\  P P# ÍConn. Gen. Stat. 16247a et seq., as amended by, 1994 Conn. Legis. Serv. P.A.9483 (West). See also DPUC Decision at24. According to the DPUC, "the central premise of the legislation [was] that broader participation in the Connecticut telecommunications market will be more beneficial to the public than will broader regulation."r #A\  P P# ÍDPUC Decision at1.r As part of its implementation of this legislation, the DPUC initiated a third investigation into the competitive provision of payphone services. On June 30, 1995, the DPUC adopted the DPUC Decision, which held that the competitive provision of customerowned, coinoperated telephone (COCOT) services in Connecticut is not consistent with the articulated goals of Connecticut's new telecommunications legislation. #A\  P P# ÍId. at37. COCOTs are often owned by the owners of the premises in which payphones are located, such as hotels, airports, restaurants, and universities. Id. at25. As described in the DPUC Decision, COCOTs may also be provided by equipment vendors or operator service providers. Such vendors and providers establish agreements with LECs, alternative operator service (AOS) providers, and/or intrastate and interstate toll service providers. Id. Because COCOTs may or may not be owned by the premises owner, we use the terms "COCOT," "payphone," and "pay telephone" synonymously in this order. Accordingly, the DPUC upheld its longstanding prohibition on the provision of payphone services by nonLECs.r #A\  P P# ÍId. at3738.r 5.Consistent with the two previous payphone decisions, the DPUC Decision limits the provision of payphone services in Connecticut to incumbent LECs and certified LECs. #A\  PP# ÍId. at38. The DPUC will also consider exempting state agencies, such as the Department of Corrections and the Department of Mental Health, from the prohibition where those agencies demonstrate to the DPUC a compelling public safety or public health need for the provision of payphone service from a provider other than SNET, NYTel, or Woodbury. Id. The DPUC Decision permits these carriers to provide payphone services throughout Connecticut, both inside and outside the areas in which they provide local exchange services.o #A\  PP# ÍId. at35.o The DPUC justified its limitation of payphone services to incumbent LECs and certified LECs by finding that they, unlike independent payphone providers, must operate according to specific requirements, including, for example, public service obligations and service standards.h#A\  PP# ÍId.h The DPUC found, on the other hand, that COCOT providers that enter into contractual arrangements with operator service providers or COCOT operators utilizing the services of full telecommunications service providers are not subject to similar obligations or standards.h#&G\  P&P# ÍId.h 6.The DPUC also found that, based on experience in other jurisdictions, independent payphone providers have a poor record of compliance with state and federal regulations and have had little success regulating themselves.v#A\  PP# ÍId. at2934, 36.v The DPUC found that "the COCOT industry cannot be satisfactorily relied upon to police itself."#A\  PP# ÍId. at34; DPUC Opposition at6. The DPUC placed significant weight on the Connecticut Attorney General's argument that enforcement of payphone regulation will depend heavily on consumer complaints.r#A\  PP# ÍId. at3334.r Accordingly, the DPUC, stating that its "ability to actively police the industry and enforce such rules is questionable," declined to adopt certification requirements and service standards for the provision of payphone services by independent payphone providers.o#A\  PP# ÍId. at34.o 7.Finally, the DPUC declined to establish price ceilings to govern the rates charged by independent payphone providers.o#A\  PP# ÍId. at28.o The DPUC found that such ceilings would likely "discourage product innovation, distinction, and superiority."h#A\  PP# ÍId.h Further, the DPUC held that price ceilings would be an unreliable method of protecting consumers because such ceilings could be legally challenged as confiscatory.o#A\  PP# ÍId. at29.o 8.After the 1996 Act became law on February8, 1996, the NEPCC filed a petition requesting the DPUC to reopen the record and reconsider the DPUC Decision.#A\  PP# ÍPetition to Reopen the Record and Reconsider Decision, DPUC DocketNo.940705, filed by NEPCC on February13, 1996. See NEPCC Petition, Exhibit B. On February 23, 1996, the DPUC denied the NEPCC's request.H#A\  PP# ÍLetter from RobertJ. Murphy, Executive Secretary, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Utility Control, to PaulC. Besozzi, Counsel for NEPCC, dated February23, 1996 (February23 Letter). See NEPCC Petition, Exhibit C.H The DPUC claimed that "the competitive provision of pay telephone service in Connecticut is permitted" and that the DPUC Decision complies with the 1996 Act.y#A\  PP# ÍFebruary23 Letter at12.y B. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 9.Through the 1996 Act, Congress soughtPROCOMPET1 to establish "a procompetitive, deregulatory national policy framework" for the United States telecommunications industry.#A\  PP# ÍPROCOMPT2S. Conf. Rep. No. 104230, 104th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1996) (Conference Report). See also Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report and Order, CC Docket No.9698, FCC 96325, 3, 21 (released August8, 1996) (Local Competition Order), sua sponte recon., 11 FCC Rcd 13042 (1996), further recon. pending, pet. for review pending, Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC et al., No. 963321 and consolidated cases (8th Cir. filed September6, 1996); Pay Telephone Order at  2. It also sought "to accelerate deployment of advanced telecommunications services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition."v#A\  PP# ÍConference Report at1.v The 1996 Act accomplishes these complementary goals in a number of different ways. For example, the 1996 Act amended the Communications Act, in part, by adding new section253. This section focuses on removing barriers to entry in all telecommunications markets. Specifically, section253(d) requires that the Commission preempt, to the extent necessary, the enforcement of any state or local statute, regulation, or legal requirement that violates sections253(a) or (b).o#A\  PP# Í47 U.S.C. 253(d).o Section253(a) states:  No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.o#A\  PP# Í47 U.S.C. 253(a).o Section253(b) states that nothing in section253 shall affect the ability of a State to impose, on a competitively neutral basis and consistent with section 254, requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers.o#A\  P P# Í47 U.S.C. 253(b).o 10.276PREEMPTThe 1996 Act also specifically addressed pay telephone services by adding new section276 to the Communications Act.#A\  P!P# ÍSee 47 U.S.C.276. See generally Pay Telephone NPRM. The purpose of section276 is "to promote competition among payphone service providers and promote the widespread deployment of payphone services to the benefit of the general public." #A\  P"P# Í47 U.S.C.  276(b)(1); Pay Telephone Order at2. Section276(b) requires the Commission to implement several statutory requirements, including one intended to ensure that all payphone owners are compensated for calls originating on their payphones.u!#A\  P#P# Í47 U.S.C. 276(b)(1)(A).u Section276(c) states: ` ` ` To the extent that any State requirements are inconsistent with the Commission's regulations, the Commission's regulations on such matters shall preempt such State requirements.o"#A\  P$P# Í47 U.S.C. 276(c).o On September20, 1996, we adopted new regulations implementing the provisions of section276.##A\  P%P# ÍSee generally Pay Telephone Order.  III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES ă 11.In its petition for preemption, the NEPCC contends that the DPUC Decision violates section 253 of the Communications Act, and that pursuant to section253(d), the Commission must preempt the DPUC's ban on the provision of pay telephone service by independent payphone providers.$#A\  P&P# ÍNEPCC Petition at 45; NEPCC Comments at4. Supporting the NEPCC's position, Frontier argues that section 253(a) "flatly bars" such a prohibition on entry.p%#A\  P'P# ÍFrontier Comments at 1.p 12. The NEPCC maintains that, by allowing only LECs to provide pay telephone service, the DPUC Decision "prohibit[s] or [has] the effect of prohibiting" the ability of entities, other than LECs, to provide intrastate telecommunications services in violation of section 253(a).&#A\  P(P# ÍNEPCC Petition at 5 (citing 47 U.S.C.  253(a)). The NEPCC asserts that "the DPUC has been adamant in its desire to preserve local exchange carrier monopoly in the Connecticut payphone market."b'#A\  P)P# ÍId.b To support its assertion, the NEPCC claims that the DPUC's prohibition is inconsistent with the new Connecticut telecommunications legislation, which presumes competition to be in the public interest.b(#A\  P*P# ÍId.b NEPCC notes that, in DPUC Docket No.940705, both SNET and the State's Consumer Counsel supported competition by independent payphone companies.b)#A\  P+P# ÍId.b The NEPCC also notes that Connecticut is now only "one of two remaining states that retained an intrastate payphone monopoly."x*#A\  P,P# ÍId. at5, n.2, ExhibitD.x 13.In addition, the NEPCC contends that the DPUC's ban is a violation of section253(b) of the Communications Act.j+#A\  P-P# ÍId. at 23.j The NEPCC asserts that the DPUC may impose certain regulations under section 253(b), but that such regulations cannot condition entry into the payphone market on the provision of local exchange services or certification as a LEC.,#A\  P.P# ÍId. at 45; NEPCC Comments at23. According to NEPCC, even if one accepts the DPUC's holding that the ban protects the public safety and welfare and the rights of consumers, the DPUC's exclusion of independent payphone providers from providing payphone services is not competitively neutral.o-#A\  P/P# ÍNEPCC Comments at45.o 14.Finally, the NEPCC asserts that the DPUC Decision should be preempted because it is inconsistent with the Commission's Pay Telephone Order and Pay Telephone Reconsideration Order.-.#A\  P0P# ÍLetter from PaulC. Besozzi, Counsel for NEPCC, to Matt Harthun, FCC, dated October2, 1996 (October2 Letter); Letter from PaulC. Besozzi, Counsel for NEPCC, to Matt Harthun, FCC, dated November12, 1996.- The NEPCC states that "[t]he continued prohibition by the [DPUC] flies directly in the face of the policy adopted by the Commission in the Payphone Reclassification Order" and section64.1330 of the Commission's rules.u/#A\  P1P# ÍOctober2 Letter at1.u 15.The DPUC argues that this Commission should deny NEPCC's petition for preemption.q0#A\  P2P# ÍDPUC Opposition at 2, 7.q It defends the DPUC Decision by arguing that it is consistent with the authority reserved to the States under section 253(b).1#A\  P3P# ÍId. at45; February 23 Letter at2. The DPUC claims that the purpose of the DPUC Decision is to protect consumers from the abusive practices of independent payphone providers.p2#A\  P4P# ÍDPUC Opposition at 12.p According to the DPUC, the evidence of abusive and deceptive practices by independent payphone providers, combined with the evidence from other states that regulatory supervision of independent payphone providers is largely ineffective, led it to conclude that the provision of payphone service must be limited to LECs.13#A\  P5P# ÍId. at 6. In the DPUC Decision, the DPUC states that "LECs are required to operate in a specific manner that enhances public policies..." whereas, "...the same cannot be said for payphone provides who have entered into contractual arrangements with pure [alternative operator service] providers or payphone operators utilizing the services of full telecommunications service providers." Id. at 6 and Exhibit B (quoting DPUC Decision at 35).1 The DPUC concludes that preemption of the DPUC Decision will result in "serious and harmful abusive and deceptive practices," and will frustrate the DPUC's protection of consumers.n4#A\  P6P# ÍDPUC Opposition at7.n # IV. DISCUSSION ă 16.We find that the DPUC Decision violates section253(a) of the Communications Act and does not fall within the protected class of state regulation described in section253(b). Accordingly, we preempt the enforcement of the DPUC Decision pursuant to section253(d) for the reasons set forth below. We also find that the DPUC Decision is inconsistent with section 276 and our implementing rules, and therefore is preempted. A. Section 253 Analysis 17.Section253(a). As discussed above, section253(a) of the Communications Act bars state governments from imposing requirements that "prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service."5#A\  P7P# Í47 U.S.C. 253(a) (emphasis added). See also Classic Telephone, Inc. Petition for Preemption, Declaratory Ruling and Injunctive Relief, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 13082, 13094, 23 (1996) (Classic Order), petition for review docketed sub nom. City of Bogue, Kansas and City of Hill City, Kansas v. FCC, No. 961432 (D.C. Cir. filed Nov. 22, 1996). The Communications Act defines "telecommunications service" as "the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used."6#A\  P8P# Í47 U.S.C.153(46). The Communications Act further defines the term "telecommunications" as "the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received." 47 U.S.C. 153(43). Payphone service is a "telecommunications service" because it is an offering of telecommunications for a fee to the public. Payphones are openly available to the general public in the most public and semipublic locations of our society, such as airports, hotels, street corners, and restaurants. Moreover, new section276 of the Communications Act and the Pay Telephone Order implementing section276 require that payphone providers be compensated fairly for all telephone calls placed using their telephones and services.7#A\  P9P# ÍSee 47 U.S.C. 276(b)(1)(A); Pay Telephone Order at9, 4775. Traditionally, payphone providers were compensated for most calls placed using their telephones either directly through the coins deposited by the user or indirectly through calling cards. Prior to the 1996 Act, payphone providers did not receive compensation for subscriber 800 calls and other toll-free number calls, but in implementing section 276 of the Act, the Commission required compensation for such calls. Id. at21, 52. See also Pay Telephone NPRM, 11 FCC Rcd at 6723, 6726, 11, 17. Section276 maintains exemptions from the compensation requirement for emergency calls and telecommunications relay services for hearing disabled individuals. 47U.S.C. 276((b)(1)(A); Pay Telephone Order atn.171. Thus, payphone service is a telecommunications service, and state and local regulations regarding the payphone market are subject to scrutiny under section253 on the basis of a claim that they "prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting" the ability of potential competitors to provide payphone services.|8#A\  P:P# ÍPay Telephone Order atn.209.| 18.We conclude from the evidence presented in this proceeding that the DPUC Decision contravenes section253(a) of the Communications Act. On its face, the DPUC Decision "prohibit[s]" a certain class of telecommunications service providers, i.e., independent payphone providers, from "provid[ing] [an] interstate or intrastate telecommunications service."o9#A\  P;P# Í47 U.S.C.253(a).o Indeed, the DPUC characterized its policy as an "intrastate prohibition on COCOTs, with the exception of the incumbent [local exchange carrier providers and certified LECs]."s:#A\  P<P# ÍDPUC Decision at38.s This statement unequivocally demonstrates the DPUC's intention to preclude independent payphone providers from offering interstate and intrastate payphone services in Connecticut. This prohibition on competitive entry against a particular class of potential competitors is inconsistent with the procompetitive policies of the 1996 Act and violates section253(a). 19.Section253(b). We also reject the DPUC's argument that its action is permissible under section253(b). The DPUC's prohibition on independent payphone providers is not "competitively neutral," and the DPUC has failed to demonstrate that its prohibition is "necessary" to protect the public safety and welfare or safeguard the rights of consumers, as required by section253(b). 20.We conclude that the DPUC's prohibition is not competitively neutral. First, the DPUC's prohibition is not neutral on its face it singles out independent (i.e., nonLEC) payphone providers and bars them from the payphone market unless they become certified LECs. The prohibition allows incumbent LECs and certified LECs to offer payphone services, but bars another class of providers (independent payphone providers).;#A\  P=P# ÍSee Classic Order, 11 FCC Rcd at1310102, 37. Moreover, the prohibition significantly affects, if not completely eliminates, the ability of independent payphone providers to compete for customers in the Connecticut payphone market. We find that requiring payphone providers to provide local exchange services in order to be eligible to offer payphone services significantly hinders such providers relative to incumbent LECs and certified LECs. Such a requirement substantially raises the costs and other burdens of providing payphone services, thus deterring the entry of potential competitors. For example, if an independent payphone provider were required to offer resold local exchange services in order to offer payphone services, it would be forced to incur the costs of marketing, customer support, billing and collection, and other supporting services. Yet, many of these services are not needed to offer only payphone services.X<#A\  P>P# ÍPay Telephone Order at11 (stating that the minimum technical requirements for entry into the payphone market are: the ability to purchase a payphone, secure a location contract, obtain a payphone line from the LEC, and maintain the payphone).X For example, payphone providers typically do not advertise their payphone services, because generally the location of a payphone is substantially more important to its commercial success than any marketing associated with a payphone service. 21.As an independent basis for our decision that the DPUC Decision fails to satisfy section253(b), we conclude that the DPUC has not demonstrated that its prohibition is "necessary" to "safeguard the rights of consumers" or to "protect the public safety or welfare."t=#A\  P?P# ÍSee 47 U.S.C. 253(b).t As an initial matter, we reject the DPUC's claim that its prohibition is defensible because it is a "reasonable exercise of its explicitly reserved authority."n>#A\  P@P# ÍDPUC Opposition at5.n An interpretation of section253(b) that a state's action merely be reasonable ignores the specific language of the statute requiring such state action to be "necessary." Moreover, accepting the DPUC's claim would, in effect, require us to employ a relaxed interpretation of the term "necessary" that is inconsistent with Congress's purpose of removing regulatory barriers to entry in the provision of telecommunications services.?#A\  PAP# ÍConference Report at126. See also Local Competition Order at3. 22.The DPUC has chosen the most restrictive means available in its efforts to protect payphone customers a flat prohibition against nonLECs providing payphone services within the state. The record, however, does not support a finding that such an extreme approach is "necessary" to protect payphone customers. The DPUC has not demonstrated that other methods short of a flat prohibition are insufficient to protect payphone customers.1@#A\  PBP# ÍWe note that, with the exception of Connecticut and Alaska, the record indicates that every state permits the competitive entry of payphone providers under less restrictive regulatory schemes. Petition at ExhibitD.1 A prohibition on entry by an entire class of potential competitors is fundamentally at odds with Congress's directive to the Commission to "promote competition among payphone service providers and promote the widespread deployment of payphone services to the benefit of the general public."A#A\  PCP# Í47 U.S.C.276(b)(1); Pay Telephone Order at2. In fact, section276 expressly contemplates that independent payphone providers compete with LECs, especially BOCs.xB#A\  PDP# ÍSee section276(b)(1)(D).x As a general matter, Congress has decided that competitive markets will best serve the public interest and the interests of consumers. In these circumstances, we conclude that the DPUC's prohibition on entry is not "necessary" within the meaning of section253(b). 23.The DPUC contends that limiting the class permitted to provide payphone services to incumbent LECs and certified LECs will protect the public welfare and consumers' rights because LECs are subject to certification requirements and service standards.sC#A\  PEP# ÍDPUC Decision at35.s It fails, however, to explain how the application of certification requirements and service standards to LECs, but not to independent payphone providers, achieves this goal. We note that the DPUC expressly declined to establish independent certification requirements and service standards for COCOT providers.rD#A\  PFP# ÍId. at2934.r In addition, the DPUC fails to address how requiring a carrier to be a LEC in one part of Connecticut will ensure its provision of quality payphone services in another part of the state. While the DPUC faults the economic structure of the COCOT industry for the abusive practices of independent payphone providers,oE#A\  PGP# ÍId. at29.o it fails to demonstrate how this structure is any different for LECs that provide payphone services outside their local exchanges. 24.We distinguish the use of the term "necessary" in section253(b) from the duty imposed on incumbent LECs by section251(c)(6) to provide for physical collocation of equipment that is "necessary" for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements at the incumbent LEC's premises.;F#A\  PHP# ÍSection251(c)(6) states, ` ` ` In addition to the duties contained in subsection (b), each incumbent local exchange carrier has the following duties: v%* * * * * ` ` ` (6) The duty to provide, on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory, for physical collocation of equipment necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements at the premises of the local exchange carrier, except that the carrier may provide for virtual collocation if the local exchange carrier demonstrates to the State commission that physical collocation is not practical for technical reasons or because of space limitations. 47 U.S.C. 251(c)(6).; In the Local Competition Order, we interpreted "necessary" as it appears in section251(c)(6) to mean "used" or "useful."G#A\  PIP# ÍLocal Competition Order at579. The Commission stated, ` ` ` Although the term "necessary," read most strictly, could be interpreted to mean "indispensable," we conclude that for the purposes of section251(c)(6) "necessary does not mean "indispensable" but rather "used" or "useful." Id. We determined that "this interpretation is most likely to promote fair competition consistent with the purposes of the [1996] Act and that a strict reading of the term 'necessary' in these circumstances could allow LECs to avoid collocating the equipment of the interconnectors' choosing, thus undermining the procompetitive purposes of the 1996 Act."(H#A\  PJP# ÍId. As a matter of statutory construction, it is generally accepted that the same language used repeatedly in a statute is presumed to bear the same meaning throughout the statute. This presumption, however, is disregarded where it is necessary to assign different meanings to the same word to make the statute consistent. Atlantic Cleaners and Dyers, Inc. v. United States, 286 U.S. 427, 433 (1932) (holding that the same word may be variously construed even "when used more than once in the same statute or even in the same section" and that the presumption of same word same meaning is not rigidly applied "[w]here the subject matter to which words refer is not the same in the several places where they are used, or the conditions are different. . . . the meaning well may vary to meet the purposes of the law, to be arrived at by a consideration of the language in which those purposes are expressed, and of the circumstances under which the language was employed.") Accord In re Aircrash Disaster Near Roselawn, Indiana on October 31, 1994, 909 F. Supp. 1083, 1112 (N. D. Ill. 1995); Calderon v. Witvoet, 999 F.2d 1101, 1104 (7th Cir. 1993); Chugach Natives v. Doyon, Ltd., 588 F.2d 723, 72526 (9th Cir. 1978); United States v. Thompson, 452 F.2d 1333, 1345 (1971); see also Karl Llewellyn, Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision and the Rules or Canons about How Statutes Are To Be Construed, 3 Vand. L. Rev. 395, 40106 (1950).( Similarly, we distinguish the use of the term "necessary" in section253(b) from the standard for determining whether access to proprietary network elements is necessary under section251(d)(2)(A).uI#A\  PKP# Í47 U.S.C. 251(d)(2)(A).u In the Local Competition Order, we declined to adopt a general rule prohibiting access to proprietary network elements, or making access available only upon a carrier demonstrating a heavy burden of need.J#A\  PLP# ÍLocal Competition Order at282 (stating that "it will be 'necessary' for new entrants to obtain access to proprietary elements (e.g., elements with proprietary protocols or elements containing proprietary information), because without such elements, their ability to compete would be significantly impaired or thwarted.") In declining to adopt such a strict standard, we interpreted "necessary" as it appears in section251(d)(2)(A) to mean "that [a network] element is a prerequisite for competition."bK#A\  PMP# ÍId.b 25.Employing either of these interpretations of "necessary" in the context of 253(b), however, could thwart the clear intent of Congress by allowing States and local governments overly broad discretion to adopt policies or regulations that "prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity" to provide competitive telecommunications services based upon only a minimal showing of need regarding the specified purposes described in section253(b).pL#A\  PNP# Í47 U.S.C. 253(a).p We do not believe that Congress intended that the term "necessary" be interpreted here in a manner that could enable the exception contained in subsection253(b) to swallow the general rule prohibiting barriers to entry in subsection253(a). Our goal in interpreting the term "necessary" in this specific context is to foster the overall procompetitive, de-regulatory framework that Congress sought to establish through the 1996 Act and the directive in section253 to remove barriers to entry.M#A\  POP# ÍSee PROCOMPET19, n.PROCOMPT226 supra. B. Section 276 Analysis 26.As explained by the Supreme Court, ` ` ` [t]he Supremacy Clause of Art.VI of the Constitution provides Congress with the power to preempt state law. Preemption occurs when Congress, in enacting a federal statute, expresses a clear intent to preempt state law, when there is outright or actual conflict between federal and state law . . . or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full objectives of Congress. . . . [A] federal agency acting within the scope of its congressionally delegated authority may preempt state regulation.iN#A\  PPP# ÍLouisiana Public Service Comm'n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 36869 (1986) (citations omitted). See also Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 153 (1982) (federal regulations have no less preemptive effect than federal statutes).i As noted above, section276 of the Communications Act directs the Commission to prescribe regulations to implement several statutory provisions regarding payphone services.O#A\  PQP# ÍSee 276PREEMPT10 supra. Significantly, section276(c) states: ` ` ` To the extent that any State requirements are inconsistent with the Commission's regulations, the Commission's regulations on such matters shall preempt such State requirements.oP#A\  PRP# Í47 U.S.C. 276(c).o Thus, in section276 Congress clearly expressed its intent that the Commission's rules regarding payphone services preempt inconsistent state regulations.yQ#A\  PSP# ÍSee 47 U.S.C. 276(c).y 27.We conclude that the DPUC Decision, on its face, is inconsistent with the terms, tenor and purpose of section 276 and our implementing rules, and therefore is preempted. Section 276(b)(1) addresses "competition among payphone service providers" and seeks to promote "the widespread deployment of payphone services to the general public."R#A\  PTP# Í47 U.S.C.  276(b)(1) (emphasis added). That subsection also acknowledges that BOC payphone service providers "have the same right that independent payphone providers have" regarding interLATA presubscription.S#A\  PUP# Í47 U.S.C.  276(b)(1)(D) (emphasis added). Connecticut bars entities other than incumbent or certified LECs from providing payphone services. This state regulatory prohibition conflicts with a federal statutory regime that contemplates and promotes competition and the provision of payphone services by independent providers. Accordingly, we find that section 276 preempts the DPUC Decision. 28.We also find that the DPUC Decision is inconsistent with our rules implementing section 276. In implementing section276(b)(1)(A), we concluded that the most appropriate way to ensure that payphone service providers receive fair compensation for each telephone call made using their services is to let the market set the price for individual calls originating on payphones.T#A\  PVP# ÍPay Telephone Order at 49, 60; Pay Telephone Reconsideration Order at 4, 61, 139. For the market to efficiently set payphone rates, however, it must be free of entry and exit barriers. As a result, we concluded that each state should examine and modify its regulations applicable to payphones and payphone service providers, particularly those rules that impose market entry and exit requirements.ZU#A\  PWP# ÍPay Telephone Order at2, 13, 49, 60; Pay Telephone Reconsideration Order at 134, 13940 (holding that "a state . . . cannot draw distinctions that allow some class of competitors to enter the payphone market and not others.").Z Accordingly, we adopted section64.1330(a) of the Commission's rules, requiring "[e]ach state to review and remove any of its regulations applicable to payphones and payphone service providers that impose market entry or exit requirements."LV#A\  PXP# ÍPay Telephone Order at AppendixD (new section 64.1330(a) of the Commission's rules to be codified at 47 C.F.R. 64.1330(a)). Section64.1330 becomes effective on December16, 1996. See 61 Fed. Reg. 52307 (1996).L 29.The DPUC Decision is flatly at odds with the regulatory scheme we established in the Pay Telephone Order pursuant to section276. In that order, we noted that some states prohibit the provision of payphone services by entities other than incumbent LECs.~W#A\  PYP# ÍPay Telephone Order at13.~ We concluded that "[r]emoving these types of entry and exit restrictions is a necessary step toward allowing competitive forces to guide both the deployment of payphones and the setting of prices for payphone services."bX#A\  PZP# ÍId.b By prohibiting independent payphone providers from offering services in Connecticut, the DPUC Decision is inconsistent with the terms, tenor, and purpose of the Commission's Pay Telephone Order.Y#A\  P[P# ÍSee also Pay Telephone Reconsideration Order at139 (holding that "burdensome state entry and exit requirements would be inconsistent with the rules we have adopted to implement the congressional mandate embedded generally in Section276 of the Act, and, more specifically, in the requirements of Section276(b)(1)(A) to ensure fair compensation for each and every call using a payphone."). The DPUC Decision will impair significantly the ability of the market to set payphone rates and, thus, thwart the objectives we set forth in the Pay Telephone Order and that of Congress as set forth in section276.Z#A\  P\P# ÍSee 276PREEMPT10 supra. Therefore, consistent with the intent of Congress expressed in section276(c), we conclude that the DPUC Decision is preempted by our Pay Telephone Order. 30.The inconsistency between our Pay Telephone Order and the DPUC Decision is further demonstrated by the fact that, on its effective date (December16, 1996), section64.1330(a) of the Commission's rules will require the DPUC to review and remove regulations that impose market entry and exit requirements. Failure to remove the requirements of the DPUC Decision at issue here in the course of such review would plainly conflict with the affirmative obligation imposed by the Commission's rule. C. Conclusion 31.Because the DPUC Decision violates section253(a) and because it does not fall within the type of state regulation permitted by section253(b), we preempt enforcement of the DPUC Decision pursuant to section253(d). On independent grounds, we also conclude that the DPUC Decision is inconsistent with section 276 of the Communications Act and the implementing rules we established in our Pay Telephone Order. Thus, the DPUC Decision is preempted pursuant to section276. Any future action by the DPUC regarding the provision of payphone services in Connecticut must be consistent with section253, section276 and our implementing regulations, this order, and other relevant requirements of the Communications Act. L V. ORDERING CLAUSES ă 32.Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 253 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  253 and 276, the Petition for Preemption filed by the New England Public Communications Council, Inc. IS GRANTED. 33.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order and the obligations set forth herein ARE EFFECTIVE upon release of this order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary