WPC6 2BJZ Courier3|j >fx6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5L (Local) LPT1HPLAS5P.PRS5x  @\<"{X@2 6 ZF v3|j HP LaserJet 5L (Local) LPT1HPLAS5P.PRS5x  @\<"{X@a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` 2=pRkk-a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  2votY a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` 2  o  a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h 22   Y 2 a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2d 4Ba1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   2"o1a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 2 3oea8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:i:?^/<@O=A >header2>I ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# heading 3?F` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# footer!@!!#d\  PCP#CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileAW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  B2>BB@Cv@DvRAEvAFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded DocumentBiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#heading 4heading 4C heading 5heading 5D heading 6heading 6E 2>DFvpBGvBHl\CIvCheading 7heading 7F heading 8heading 8G Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph FontH endnote textendnote textI 2)FJrpDKvDLeXEMlEendnote referenceendnote referenceJ footnote textfootnote textK footnote referencefootnote referenceL Document 8Document 8M 2HNx[FOlFPl?GQlGDocument 4Document 4N  Document 6Document 6O Document 5Document 5P Document 2Document 2Q 2]MRlIHSHTJUlLDocument 7Document 7R Right Par 1Right Par 1S` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 2Right Par 2T` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Document 3Document 3U 2VVMWOXQYSRight Par 3Right Par 3V` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 4Right Par 4W` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 5Right Par 5X` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 6Right Par 6Y` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2^Z9V[WX\(uZ]$\Right Par 7Right Par 7Z` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 8Right Par 8[` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Document 1Document 1\` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 5Technical 5]` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2d^$^_la`laa$aTechnical 6Technical 6^` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 2Technical 2_ Technical 3Technical 3` Technical 4Technical 4a` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2kblEdc$dd$fehTechnical 1Technical 1b Technical 7Technical 7c` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 8Technical 8d` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#toc 1toc 1e` hp x (#(#`(#`` hp x (#2sfIkggmhoiqtoc 2toc 2f` hp x (#` (#`` (#`` hp x (#toc 3toc 3g` hp x (#` (#` (#` hp x (#toc 4toc 4h` hp x (# (# (#` hp x (#toc 5toc 5i` hp x (#h(#h(#` hp x (#2zjskvvlvmxtoc 6toc 6j` hp x (#(# (# ` hp x (#toc 7toc 7k toc 8toc 8l` hp x (#(# (# ` hp x (#toc 9toc 9m` hp x (#(#`(#`` hp x (#2Łnzo}p1qvOindex 1index 1n` hp x (#` (#` (#` hp x (#index 2index 2o` hp x (#` (#`` (#`` hp x (#toa headingtoa headingp` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#captioncaptionq 2rlsct/u_Equation Caption_Equation Captionr para numnumbered indented paragraphss' Y- 1.(i) 1) 1.#Xw P7[hXP# 1. 1.ҲHeadingChapter HeadingtJ d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersu>a݅@  I.   X(# 2ZvwdIxy‡SubheadingSubheadingv0\ E A.  HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldeddw+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Datex X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style offy@@    2Pz1{1|1}1LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5z 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5{f 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11|L 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14} 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   2?~ndqjՎTITLETitle of a Document~K\ * ăBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedN X HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold LargeB*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored V -q2:qE-Ւ8LETTERHEADLetterhead - date/marginsu H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math Invoice ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice:A ,p, $0$0028lXE[INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macroz 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal TypestyleSMALLSmall Typestyle2[*[[[;FINEFine TypestyleLARGELarge TypestyleEXTRA LARGEExtra Large TypestyleVERY LARGEVery Large Typestyle2ȚXKCENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   1dfStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Margins$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO 2l`Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Font4h )a [ PfQO  dddn 2|6֦vStyle 2Dutch Italic 11.5$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Point$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Point$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO 2qHOV[Style 10oInitial Codes for Advanced U )a [ PfQK  dddn  ##  [[ b, oT9 !b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  QN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8PfInitial Codes for Beginninggi )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9Initial Codes for Intermediate )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 Њ [ e )^ `> XifQ ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   3 )^ `> XifQ Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jf )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`+ >Page  jX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 UpdateInitial Codes for Update Module )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`7 CPage  jN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2}"'head1 #'d#2p}wC@ #a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf$ a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf:` ` `  23a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfE` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfP  ` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrff  2:}a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfq Paragraph[1]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B$ab Paragraph[2]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B/cd` ` ` Paragraph[3]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B:ef` ` `  2&l gParagraph[4]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BEgh` ` `  Paragraph[5]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BPij` ` ` hhh Paragraph[6]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B[kl Paragraph[7]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bfmn 2X"q@eParagraph[8]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bqop toatoa` hp x (#` hp x (#2S&C6C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )s t . 3S&C7C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct ) uv 2BeHp@4S&C8C^fDocument StyleNF2CC! -2( -Ct ) wx 5S&C9C^fDocument StyleNF2CC/ -2( -Ct )*yz   6S&C:C^fDocument StyleNF2CC= -2( -Ct ){|` ` ` 7S&C;C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK -2( -Ct )8}~@  2tH8S&C<C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersY -2( -Ct )A@` ` `  ` ` ` 9S&C=C^fDocument StyleNF2CCg -2( -Ct )0    10S&C>C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersu -2( -Ct )J` ` ` @  ` ` ` 11S&C?C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )S` ` `  @  25'd12S&C@C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )\` ` `  @hhh hhh 13S&CAC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )e` ` `  hhh@ hhh 14S&CBC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )n` ` `  hhh@  15S&CCC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )w` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 2g!+16S&CDC^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )F   ׃  17S&CEC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&  . 18S&CFC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&  . 19S&CGC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )*    2W"20S&CHC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )'   21S&CIC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&   22S&CJC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )4$     23S&CKC^fTechnical Document StyleCC+ -2( -Ct )&  . 2}24S&CLC^fTechnical Document StyleCC9 -2( -Ct )&  . 25S&CMC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CG -2( -Ct )$ 26S&CNC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CU -2( -Ct )/` ` ` 27S&COC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cc -2( -Ct ):` ` `  2v28S&CPC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cq -2( -Ct )E` ` `  29S&CQC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )P` ` ` hhh 30S&CRC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )[ 31S&CSC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )f 2\*32S&CTC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )q Default ParaC^fDefault Paragraph Font2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#_Equation CaC^f_Equation CaptionF2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#endnote refeC^fendnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>>#PP##PP#20Zd pfootnote refC^ffootnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>#PP#1, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.E1.A, B,t ?@65Uppercase Letters1 ?*1÷$t ?.E .33`O5hT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5h.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 2q&eea34`O5iT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5i.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  . 35`O5jT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5j.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  36`O5kT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5k.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  37`O5lT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5l.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>*   2Xp&(38`O5mT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5m.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 39`O5nT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>8@   40`O5oT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>A@` `  ` ` ` 41`O5pT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5p.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>0    2P.42`O5qT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>J` ` @  ` `  43`O5rT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>S` `  @  44`O5sT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>\` `  @hh# hhh 45`O5tT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>e` `  hh#@( hh# 2ZJ46`O5uT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>n` `  hh#(@- ( 47`O5vT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 48`O5wT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5w.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>F *  ׃  49`O5xT(G2PTechnical Document Stylex.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 2B50`O5yT(G2PTechnical Document Styley.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 51`O5zT(G2PTechnical Document Stylez.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>*    52`O5{T(G2PTechnical Document Style{.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>'   53`O5|T(G2PTechnical Document Style|.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&   2?=}54`O5}T(G2PTechnical Document Style}.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>4$     55`O5~T(G2PTechnical Document Style~.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 56`O5T(G2PTechnical Document Style.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 57`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>$ 2q*58`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>/` ` ` 59`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>:` ` `  60`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>E` ` `  61`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>P` ` ` hhh 28xB62`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>[ 63`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>f 64`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>q 65`O5T(G2PDefault Paragraph Font5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>OO#P P##P P#2j`\66`O5T(G2P_Equation Caption^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>OO#PP##PP#67`O5T(G2Pendnote reference^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>RR#PP##PP#68`O5T(G2Pfootnote reference^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>R#PP#69 _5(_>7footnote text _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tZP2p:qee70 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t` ` ` 71 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  . 72 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  73 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  2KKK@74 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t*   "i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN)>F)))))))))<)C"VV5VYO5O5O5O5^<^<^<^>^<^C^F.".C.).CaC>>^CO"O6O)O0O"VCVVCVC^<^O=O)OFVCVCVCVCVCVCxVV>O5O5O5VCO)VCC.O)V<X<<( (WTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN+HH+@<)<<<<to receive the payphone compensation provided by that proceeding. The requirements for   intrastate tariffs are: (1) that payphone service intrastate tariffs be cost-based, consistent with  X -  =Section 276, nondiscriminatory and consistent with Computer III tariffing guidelines; @ yO-#X\  P6G;qP#эOrder on Reconsideration at para. 163#X\  P6G;qP#. As stated in the Order on Reconsideration, the intrastate tariffs  yOw-are subject to the new services test. Order on Reconsideration at para. 163, n. 492.#Xj\  P6G;߈XP#ы and (2)   that the states ensure that payphone costs for unregulated equipment and subsidies be removed  X-  from the intrastate local exchange service and exchange access service rates. yO-#X\  P6G;qP#э#X\  P6G;qP# Payphone Order at para. 186. We stated in the  Xy-  Bureau Waiver Order that LEC intrastate tariffs must comply with these requirements by April   15, 1997 in order for the payphone operations of the LECs to be eligible to receive payphone  XK-  compensation. The Bureau Waiver Order also clarified the unbundled features and functions  X4-subject to the requirements of the Payphone Proceeding.4(  yO -#X\  P6G;qP#э  Bureau Waiver Order at paras. 1519.  X-  ` `  11.  We noted in the Bureau Waiver Order that the guidelines for state review  X-  of intrastate tariffs are essentially the same as those included in the Payphone Order for federal  X-  tariffs.n  yOA#-#X\  P6G;qP#эId. at para. 32.n On reconsideration, the Commission stated that although it had the authority under  X-  Section 276 to require federal tariffs for payphone services, it delegated some of the tariffing  X-  Krequirements to the state jurisdiction. The Order on Reconsideration required that state tariffs for  X-  Mpayphone services meet the requirements outlined above.qH  yO'-#X\  P6G;qP#эSee para. 6, above.q The Order on Reconsideration"0*(("   provides that states that are unable to review these tariffs may require the LECs to file the tariffs  X-with the Commission. yOb-#X\  P6G;qP#э#X\  P6G;qP#Order on Reconsideration at para. 163.#x6X@`7QSX@#  X- 5 ` `  12.  The Bureau Waiver Order also clarified that, for purposes of meeting all   Kof the requirements necessary to receive payphone compensation, the question of whether a LEC   has effective intrastate tariffs is to be considered on a statebystate basis. Under this approach,  Xv-  zassuming the LEC has complied with all of the other compliance list requirements,vX yO -#X\  P6G;qP#э#X\  P6G;qP#See id. at paras. 131132.#x6X@`7QSX@# if a LEC   jhas effective intrastate tariffs in State X and has filed tariffs in State Y that are not yet in effect,   then the LEC PSP will be able to receive payphone compensation for its payphones in State X   but not in State Y. The intrastate tariffs for payphone services, including unbundled features, and   [the state tariffs removing payphone equipment costs and subsidies must be in effect for a LEC to receive compensation in a particular state.  X -B. ` ` Request for Waiver and Comments  X - ` `  13. On April 10, 1997, the RBOC Coalition, joined by Ameritech, requested   that the Commission grant a limited waiver to extend for 45 days the requirement that a LEC's   intrastate tariffs for payphone services comply with the federal guidelines set forth in paragraph  Xb-  j163 of the Order on Reconsideration, specifically that those tariffs satisfy the "new services"80b yO-#X\  P6G;qP#эThe Order on Reconsideration states that "[t]he new services test required in the Report and Order is described at 47 C.F.R. Section 61.49(g)(2). See also Amendments of Part 69 of the Commission's Rules Relating to the Creation of Access Charge Subelements for Open Network Architecture, CC Docket No. 8979, 6  OS<FCC Rcd 4524, 4531(1991) at paras. 3844." Order on Reconsideration at para. 163, n. 492.#Xx6X@DQQSX@# 8  XK-  ?test. K yO-#X\  P6G;qP#эEx Parte Letter of Michael Kellogg, Counsel, RBOC Coalition to Mary Beth Richards, Deputy Chief,  yO-Common Carrier Bureau, FCC (April 10, 1997) ("RBOC Request"); Ex Parte Letter of Michael Kellogg, Counsel, RBOC Coalition to Mary Beth Richards, Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, FCC (April 11, 1997)  yO4-("RBOC Clarification Letter"). It requests that this 45day period correspond to the same period of time that the  X4-  \Commission granted in its April 4, 1997 Bureau Waiver Order for limited waiver of the LECs'  X-  federal tariffs.p   yO -#X\  P6G;qP#эRBOC Request at 1.p The RBOC Coalition states that it is not seeking a waiver of the requirement   that all of the BOCs have effective intrastate tariffs by April 15, 1997 for basic payphone lines  X-and unbundled features and functions.}!X  yO#-#X\  P6G;qP#эRBOC Clarification Letter at 1.}  X- p` `  14. In support of its request, the RBOC Coalition argues that none of the BOCs  X-  "understood the payphone orders to require existing, previouslytariffed intrastate payphone"!0*(("  X-  zservices, such as the COCOT line, to meet the Commission's new services test."g" yOy-#X\  P6G;qP#эId. at 1.g It further   argues that, in some states, there may be a discrepancy between the existing state tariff rates and   \state tariffs that comply with the new services test, which would require the LEC to file new  X-  tariff rates.a#X yO-#X\  P6G;qP#эId.a In most states, however, the RBOC Coalition states, "ensuring that previously  X-  tariffed payphone services meet the new services test . . . should not be too problematic."a$ yO= -#X\  P6G;qP#эId.a The  X-  RBOC Coalition argues that this 45day period would allow the LECs to file new intrastate tariffs  Xv-  =in the states where it is necessary without delaying its eligibility to receive compensation.g%vx yO -#X\  P6G;qP#эId. at 2.g It   also states that special circumstances exist for a waiver in that the federal new services test had   <not previously been applied to existing state services, and that the LECs did not understand until  X1-  the release of the Bureau Waiver Order that the Commission meant to require application of this  X -  jtest to those services.g&  yO-#X\  P6G;qP#эId. at 3.g The RBOC Coalition also states that "[e]ach LEC will undertake to file  X -  with the Commission a written ex parte document, by April 15, 1997, attempting to identify those  X -  tariff rates that may have to be revised."a'  yO5-#X\  P6G;qP#эId.a In addition, the RBOCs state that they voluntarily   commit "to reimburse or provide credit to those purchasing the services back to April 15, 1997".  X -. . "to the extent that the new tariff rates are lower than the existing ones."a( (  yO-#X\  P6G;qP#эId.a  X- ` ` 15. In ex parte documents filed in response to the submission of the RBOC   Coalition, AT&T and MCI each argue that there is no basis for the BOCs' claim that they did   not understand that basic intrastate payphone tariffs had to comply with the Commission's "new  XK-  services" test.)XK  yO-#X\  P6G;qP#эEx Parte Letter of E.E. Estey, Government Affairs Vice President, AT&T to William Caton, Acting  yO|-Secretary, FCC (April 11, 1997) ("AT&T Letter"); Ex Parte Letter of Mary Sisak, Senior Counsel, MCI to Mary  yOD -Beth Richards, Deputy Chief Common Carrier Bureau, FCC (April 11, 1997) ("MCI Letter"). In addition, Sprint filed an ex parte document stating that "[w]hether or not the  X4-  RBOCs exercised good faith in ignoring the plain language of paragraph 163 of the   =Reconsideration Order . . . is beside the point[,]" because the RBOCs should not be entitled to   [receive compensation unless they are in compliance with all of the requirements of Section 276  X-  and the Commission's rules.* yOx%-#X\  P6G;qP#эEx Parte Letter of Richard Juhnke, General Attorney, Sprint to Mary Beth Richards, Deputy Chief,  yO@&-Common Carrier Bureau, FCC (April 11, 1997) ("Sprint Letter"). Both MCI and Sprint oppose the RBOC Coalition's request for"0*0*(('"  X-  a waiver.|+ yOy-#X\  P6G;qP#эMCI Letter at 1; Sprint Letter at 1.| AT&T states, however, that it takes no position on the merits of   the RBOC Coalition's request for a waiver, "provided that all necessary costbased tariffs are in  X-place within the waiver period established by the Bureau's April 4, 1997 Order."o,X yO-#X\  P6G;qP#эAT&T Letter at 1.o  X-  ` ` 16. More specifically, AT&T contends that the Commission should reiterate   that a LEC is not eligible for payphone compensation "until it has provided proof of state action   verifying the LEC's compliance with Section 276[,]" particularly with regard to the elimination  X_-  of intrastate payphone subsidies.0- _ yO -#X\  P6G;qP#эId. at 3. AT&T further contends that "[s]pecifically, the Commission should make it clear that no LEC is entitled to receive payphone compensation in any state until (1) it provides evidence that its state commission  yO -has actually considered these matters and (2) the state has affirmatively determined that all payphone subsidies  yOP-have been eliminated from intrastate rates." Id. (emphasis in the original).0 AT&T states that the available evidence, namely the "wide   and unexplained gap between the reasonably expected rate impacts of the removal of LEC   payphone equipment from their regulated accounts and recent actual intrastate rate reductions,"  X -  suggest that LECs have not removed intrastate payphone subsidies.a.  yO-#X\  P6G;qP#эId.a MCI argues that while there   will be no harm to the BOCs if they are required to have effective intrastate tariffs before they   xreceive compensation, the IXCs that are required to pay the compensation will be harmed because  X -  the BOCs will be receiving the compensation provided by the Payphone Reclassification  X -  Proceeding while they are still recovering payphone costs through tariffed services.i/ `  yO-#X\  P6G;qP#э MCI Letter at 1.i MCI also   argues that the request of the RBOC Coalition would be properly treated as an untimely petition  X-  [for reconsideration of the Commission's payphone orders.g0  yO1-#X\  P6G;qP#эId. at 2.g Sprint contends that the practical   zeffect of granting the relief requested by the RBOC Coalition would be to allow the BOCs to   /receive compensation before they have in effect costbased rates at the state level for their  XK-  payphone services.k1K  yO|-#X\  P6G;qP#эSprint Letter at 2.k Sprint contends further that it is inconceivable that this "premature   imposition of [the compensation] burden on IXCs and their customers could be squared with the  X-  public interest . . .".a2 yO"-#X\  P6G;qP#эId.a On the other hand, Sprint states that it would not object to allowing the   LECs to defer the effective date of the reductions in their interstate common carrier line  X-reductions in those states where they have yet to fulfill all of the requirements for compensation.g3 yO@&-#X\  P6G;qP#эId. at 3.g "030*((&"Ԍ X-  7` ` 17. The American Public Communications Council ("APCC"), a trade  X-  .association of independent PSPs, contends in an ex parte filing that there was no ambiguity in  X-  ithe Payphone Reclassification Proceeding that existing payphone service tariffs are subject to the  X-  L"new services" test. 4 yO4-#X\  P6G;qP#эEx Parte Letter of Albert Kramer, Counsel, APCC to Mary Beth Richards, Deputy Chief, Common  yO-Carrier Bureau, FCC (April 11, 1997) ("APCC Letter").  APCC further contends that allowing the LECs to collect compensation   before "complying with a key condition for any competitive telecommunications market cost  based interconnection with bottleneck facilities would be contrary to the basic purposes of the  Xv-  Act and the [Payphone Reclassification Proceeding]."g5v  yOG -#X\  P6G;qP#эId. at 2.g APCC proposes, instead, that the LECs   should be allowed "to defer the effective date of . . . detariffing requirements for a 90day period  XH-  to allow them to bring their state payphone services tariffs into compliance with the [Payphone  X1-  =Reclassification Proceeding], provided that the LEC refiles all its statetariffed services offered   to PSPs, so as to ensure state commissions an opportunity to review all payphone interconnection  X -  services under the required uniform pricing standard."6  yOd-#X\  P6G;qP#эId. at 3 (emphasis in the original). APCC argues that the Commission "must  X -simply order all tariffs to be refiled."}7 @ yO-#X\  P6G;qP#эId. (emphasis in the original).}  X -C. ` ` Waiver  X- ` ` 18. Upon reviewing the contentions of the RBOC Coalition and the language  Xy-  it cites from the two orders in the Payphone Reclassification Proceeding, we conclude that while   the individual BOCs may not be in full compliance with the intrastate tariffing requirements of  XK-  -the Payphone Reclassification Proceeding, they have made a good faith effort to comply with the  X4-  irequirements. The RBOC Coalition concedes that the Commission's payphone orders, as clarified  X-  by the Bureau Waiver Order, mandate that the payphone services a LEC tariffs at the state level   <are subject to the new services test and that the requisite costsupport data must be submitted to  X-  the individual states.8 yOp-#X\  P6G;qP#э#X\  P6G;qP#RBOC Request at 13. In addition, the RBOC Coalition states that it will take whatever action   is necessary to comply with the Commission's orders in order to be eligible to receive payphone  X-  =compensation at the earliest possible date.9`  yO!-#X\  P6G;qP#э#X\  P6G;qP##X\  P6G;qP#Id.#x6X@`7QSX@# Therefore, we adopt this Order, which contains a   klimited waiver of the federal guidelines for intrastate tariffs, specifically the requirement that  X-  LECs have filed intrastate payphone service tariffs as required by the Order on Reconsideration  X|-  zand the Bureau Waiver Order that satisfy the new services test, and that effective intrastate   payphone service tariffs comply with the "new services" test of the federal guidelines for the   purpose of allowing a LEC to be eligible to receive payphone compensation, as discussed below.  X7-   The existing intrastate tariffs for payphone services will continue in effect until the intrastate"7 90*(("  X-  Ltariffs filed pursuant to the Order on Reconsideration, the Bureau Waiver Order and this Order   become effective. Because other LECs may also have failed to file the intrastate tariffs for   payphone services that comply with the "new services" test of the federal guidelines, we apply this limited waiver to all LECs, with the limitations set forth herein.  X-  X- ` ` 19. Consistent with our conclusions above and in the interests of bringing LECs  Xv-  .into compliance with the requirements of the Payphone Reclassification Proceeding, we waive  X_-  [for 45 days from the April 4, 1997 release date of the Bureau Waiver Order the requirement that  XH-  =LEC intrastate tariffs for payphone services comply with the "new services" test of the federal  X1-  guidelines, as set forth in paragraph 163 of the Order on Reconsideration and clarified in the  X -  0Bureau Waiver Order. Pursuant to the instant Order, LECs must file intrastate tariffs for  X -  payphone services, as required by the Payphone Reclassification Proceeding consistent with all  X -  the requirements set forth in the Order on Reconsideration, within 45 days of the April 4, 1997  X -  release date of the Bureau Waiver Order. Any LEC that files these intrastate tariffs for payphone  X -  services within 45 days of the release date of the Bureau Waiver Order will be eligible to receive  X -  the payphone compensation provided by the Payphone Reclassification Proceeding as of April   !15, 1997, as long as that LEC has complied with all of the other requirements set forth in  Xy-  paragraph 131 (and paragraph 132 for the BOCs) of the Order on Reconsideration, subject to the  Xb-  clarifications and limited waiver in the Bureau Waiver Order. H:Xb yO-#X\  P6G;qP#эBecause the industry has elected to bill for and pay out compensation on a quarterly basis, the actual payment for compensation that begins to accrue on April 15, 1997 will not be made until after the requisite intrastate tariffs are filed.H Under the terms of this limited   waiver, a LEC must have in place intrastate tariffs for payphone services that are effective by   .April 15, 1997. This waiver permits the LEC to file intrastate tariffs that are consistent with the  X-  i"new services" test of the federal guidelines set forth in the Order on Reconsideration, as clarified  X-  jby the Bureau Waiver Order.; yO-#X\  P6G;qP#эBureau Waiver Order at paras. 2933. The existing intrastate payphone service tariffs will continue in  X-effect until the intrastate tariffs filed pursuant to this Order become effective. < x yO-#X\  P6G;qP#эThe states must act on the tariffs filed pursuant to this Order within a reasonable period of time. The Commission retains jurisdiction under Section 276 to ensure that all requirements of that statutory provision and  yO-the Payphone Reclassification Proceeding, including the intrastate tariffing of payphone services, have been met. 47 U.S.C.  276.  X-  X- ` ` 20.  The RBOC Coalition and Ameritech have committed, once the new   intrastate tariffs are effective, to reimburse or provide credit to its customers for these payphone   services from April 15, 1997, if newly tariffed rates, when effective, are lower than the existing   rates. This action will help to mitigate any delay in having in effect intrastate tariffs that comply  Xe-  =with the guidelines required by the Order on Reconsideration, including the concern raised by  XN-  MCI that the subsidies from payphone services will not have been removed before the LECs  X7-  receive payphone compensation.=7`  yOH'-#X\  P6G;qP#эOrder on Reconsideration at para. 163. A LEC who seeks to rely on the waiver granted in the instant"7 =0*(("   Order must also reimburse their customers or provide credit, from April 15, 1997, in situations   where the newly tariffed rates are lower than the existing tariffed rates. We note, in response to   jthe arguments raised by the IXCs, that because this Order does not waive the requirement that   subsidies be removed from local exchange service and exchange access services, the "harm" to   the IXCs resulting from the delayed removal of subsidies from some intrastate payphone service tariffs will be limited.  X_- ` ` 21. We conclude that the waiver we grant here, which is for a limited duration   to address a specific compliance issue, is consistent with, and does not undermine, the rules  X1-  yadopted by the Commission in the Payphone Reclassification Proceeding. Therefore, we reject   the various alternatives to granting a waiver that were suggested by APCC and the IXCs. More   specifically, we conclude that APCC's proposal to require the refiling of all intrastate payphone   Nservice tariffs would unduly delay, and possibly undermine, the Commission's efforts to   iimplement Section 276 and the congressional goals of "promot[ing] competition among payphone   service providers and promot[ing] the widespread deployment of payphone services to the benefit  X -  jof the general public. . .".>  O <#d6X@`7 x@## X\  P6G;qP#э #X\  P6G;qP#47 U.S.C.  276(b)(1)#x6X@`7QSX@#. In response to Sprint's proposal that we delay the effective date of   the LECs' interstate carrier common line reductions, we conclude that the better approach would   be to evaluate requests for such treatment by individual LECs on a casebycase basis. In   addition, we decline to treat the request of the RBOC Coalition as an untimely petition for   reconsideration of the Commission's rules, because the RBOC Coalition does not seek  X4-  =reconsideration of the rules adopted in the Payphone Reclassification Proceeding, but instead seeks additional time, in a specific, limited circumstance, to comply with those rules.  X- ` ` 22. In response to AT&T's arguments that a LEC must show proof that its   intrastate tariffs have removed payphone subsidies consistent with Section 276, we note the  X-  LCommission concluded that "[t]o receive compensation a LEC must be able to certify"?h yO-#X\  P6G;qP#эOrder on Reconsideration at para. 131 (emphasis added). that it   has satisfied each of the individual prerequisites to receiving the compensation mandated by the  X-  <Payphone Reclassification Proceeding.q@ yO<-#X\  P6G;qP#эSee para. 6, above.q The Commission did not require that the LECs file such   !a certification with it. Nothing in the Commission's orders, however, prohibits the IXCs  Xe-  obligated to pay compensation from requiring that their LEC payees provide such a certification   for each prerequisite. Such an approach is consistent with the Commission's statement that "we   leave the details associated with the administration of this compensation mechanism to the parties  X -to determine for themselves through mutual agreement."A  yOY$-#X\  P6G;qP#эOrder on Reconsideration at para. 115.  X- b` ` 23. Waiver of Commission rules is appropriate only if special circumstances" A0*((Z"  X-  warrant a deviation from the general ruleB yOy-#X\  P6G;qP#э#X\  P6G;qP#Northeast Cellular Telephone Company v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990).#x6X@`7QSX@# and such deviation serves the public interest.CX yO -#X\  P6G;qP#э#X\  P6G;qP#WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969).#x6X@`7QSX@#   jBecause the LECs are required to file, and the states are required to review, intrastate tariffs for   payphone services consistent with federal guidelines, which, in some cases, may not have been  X-  ypreviously filed in this manner at the intrastate level, we find that special circumstances exist in   this case to grant a limited waiver of brief duration to address this responsibility. In addition,   lfor the reasons stated above, our grant of a waiver in this limited circumstance, does not  Xv-  undermine, and is consistent with, the Commission's overall policies in CC Docket No. 96128   jto reclassify LEC payphone assets and ensure fair PSP compensation for all calls originated by   Mpayphones. Moreover, the states' review of the intrastate tariffs that are the subject of this   ylimited waiver will enable them to determine whether these tariffs have been filed in accordance   with the Commission's rules, including the "new services" test. Accordingly, we grant a limited  X -  Owaiver for 45 days from the April 4, 1997 release date of the Bureau Waiver Order the  X -  <requirement that LEC intrastate tariffs for payphone services comply with the "new services" test  X -  of the federal guidelines, as set forth in paragraph 163 of the Order on Reconsideration, subject   to the terms discussed herein. This Order does not waive any of the other requirements set forth  X -in paragraphs 131132 of the Order on Reconsideration.D  yO@-#X\  P6G;qP#э#X\  P6G;qP#Id.  Xy-}/  " I " V. CONCLUSION ă  Xb-   XK- E ` ` 24.  In this Order, the Bureau grants a limited waiver of the Commission's   jrequirement that effective intrastate tariffs for payphone services be in compliance with federal   guidelines, specifically that the tariffs comply with the "new services" test, as set forth in the  X-  Payphone Reclassification Proceeding. LECs must comply with this requirement, among others,   before they are eligible to receive the compensation from IXCs that is mandated in that proceeding.  X- q ` ` 25. Because some LEC intrastate tariffs for payphone services are not in full   compliance with the Commission's guidelines, we grant all LECs a limited waiver until May 19,   1997 to file intrastate tariffs for payphone services consistent with the guidelines established in  Xe-  the Order on Reconsideration, subject to the terms discussed herein. This waiver enables LECs   to file intrastate tariffs consistent with the "new services" test of the federal guidelines required  X7-  by the Order on Reconsideration and the Bureau Waiver Order, including cost support data,  X -  .within 45 days of the April 4, 1997 release date of the Bureau Waiver Order and remain eligible   =to receive payphone compensation as of April 15, 1997, as long as they are in compliance with  X-  [all of the other requirements set forth in the Order on Reconsideration. Under the terms of this   limited waiver, a LEC must have in place intrastate tariffs for payphone services that are effective   by April 15, 1997. The existing intrastate tariffs for payphone services will continue in effect  X!-  until the intrastate tariffs filed pursuant to the Order on Reconsideration and this Order become"! xD0*(( "   effective. A LEC who seeks to rely on the waiver granted in the instant Order must reimburse   its customers or provide credit from April 15, 1997 in situations where the newly tariffed rates,  X-  Lwhen effective, are lower than the existing tariffed rates. This Order does not waive any of the other requirements with which the LECs must comply before receiving compensation.  X-6 V. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  X_-   ` ` 26. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i,), 5(c), 201205, 276   of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 155(c), 201205, 276, and   Sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91 and 0.291, that limited   waiver of the Commission's requirements to be eligible to receive the compensation provided by  X -  the Payphone Reclassification Proceeding, CC Docket No. 96128, IS GRANTED to the extent stated herein.  X -  ` ` 27.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release. ` `  hh,VFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh,VRegina M. Keeney ` `  hh,VChief, Common Carrier Bureau