WPC_ 2B;J Z Courier X-#Xj\  P6G;XP#HP LaserJet 4M ROOM 228 LPT1HPLA4MP0.PRSx  @\ifX@2Q6-Fv3|jCourierTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldG; XP#CourierTimes New RomanLPT1XPPSPS.WRSSx  @!fX@a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` 2npkk^a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  2vt $a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` 2   L  a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h 2c    c a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(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 Technical2! esa1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   2Sba3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 2<3ea8TechnicalTechnical 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:a݅@  I.   X(# 2!&o'^ (dc ) SubheadingSubheading&0\ E A.  FOOTNOTEFootnote - Appearance'PHIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd(+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date) X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟ2`%*"+X",1"-1/$DRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style off*@@    HEADERHeader A - Appearance+LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5, 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5-f 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   2(.1%/1&0n'1Xb(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   TITLETitle of a Document0K\ * ăFOOTERFooter A - Appearanced12*2(3im)4d)5j:*BLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indented2N X HEADING 33rd Heading Level3| XHIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold Large4B*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored5 V -q206*7E,8-:.98g/LETTERHEADLetterhead - date/margins6u 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 Invoice7 ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page Format8D.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice9:A ,p, $0$002]4:80; 2<X3=[4INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macro:z 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice;+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle<SMALLSmall Typestyle=25>[4?[4@[E5A[5FINEFine Typestyle>LARGELarge Typestyle?EXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle@VERY LARGEVery Large TypestyleA29B-6CX7DX8E`8ENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with HeaderB+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   MACNormalC,.1DdfStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without MarginsE$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO 2@F29G9Hl>I@Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5F$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIGJ )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/TabsH )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsIDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  23CJ@K|wALAMBStyle 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 FontJ4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5K$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 PointL$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5M$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO 2SNeCODP IQNStyle 6Dutch Roman 14 PointN$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for AdvancedO 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 BeginninggPi )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 IntermediateQ )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 2ZRJSS`XTYU}YUpdateInitial Codes for Update ModuleR )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`7 CPage  jN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph FontS11#XXz PQXP##Iz PQP#head1 #T'd#2p}wC@ #a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfU$ 2\VHZWZXc[Y\a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfV/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfW:` ` `  a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfXE` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfYP  ` ` ` hhh 2_Z\[]\O^]p_a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfZ[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf[f  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf\q Document[8]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CC -2( -Ct )B]` ` ` 2a^q__e,``e`a`Document[4]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CCW -2( -Ct )B^  . Document[6]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CCe -2( -Ct )B_  Document[5]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CCs -2( -Ct )B`  Document[2]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CC -2( -Ct )Ba*    2cbpac+bdbeXcDocument[7]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CC -2( -Ct )Bb  ` ` ` Right Par[1]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )Bc8@  Right Par[2]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )BdA@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CC -2( -Ct )Be0     2ffdgdhpei&fRight Par[3]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )BfJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )BgS` ` `  @  Right Par[5]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )Bh\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )Bie` ` `  hhh@ hhh 2ijgkglhmjiRight Par[7]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers  -2( -Ct )Bjn` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )Bkw ` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CCE -2( -Ct )BlF34   ׃  Technical[5]C^iTechnical Document StyleCCS -2( -Ct )Bm&56  . 2kln!jojpBkqkTechnical[6]C^iTechnical Document StyleCCa -2( -Ct )Bn&78  . Technical[2]C^iTechnical Document StyleCCo -2( -Ct )Bo*9:    Technical[3]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC} -2( -Ct )Bp';<   Technical[4]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )Bq&=>   2nrlsMmtmu}WnTechnical[1]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )Br4?$@     Technical[7]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )Bs&AB  . Technical[8]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )Bt&CD  . Paragraph[1]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bu$ab 2hqvowox!pypParagraph[2]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bv/cd` ` ` Paragraph[3]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bw:ef` ` `  Paragraph[4]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BxEgh` ` `  Paragraph[5]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )ByPij` ` ` hhh 2uzq{Nr| s}sParagraph[6]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bz[kl Paragraph[7]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B{fmn Paragraph[8]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B|qop toc 1toc 1}` hp x (#44` hp x (#2~~'vExcz|toc 2toc 2~` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#toc 3toc 3` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4` hp x (#4 <4 <` hp x (#toc 5toc 5` hp x (#4<4<` hp x (#2~vetoc 6toc 6` hp x (#44` hp x (#toc 7toc 7 toc 8toc 8` hp x (#44` hp x (#toc 9toc 9` hp x (#44` hp x (#2Ӆ-index 1index 1` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#index 2index 2` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#toatoa` hp x (#` hp x (#captioncaption;1#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#2#ݍq)_Equation Caption_Equation Caption11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#endnote referenceendnote reference44#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#footnote referencefootnote reference4#XP\  P6QXP#2S&C6C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )s t . 2ȅe1p)3S&C7C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct ) uv 4S&C8C^fDocument StyleNF2CC! -2( -Ct ) wx 5S&C9C^fDocument StyleNF2CC/ -2( -Ct )*yz   6S&C:C^fDocument StyleNF2CC= -2( -Ct ){|` ` ` 21ˑ]7S&C;C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK -2( -Ct )8}~@  8S&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` ` ` @  ` ` ` 2Mcƕ11S&C?C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )S` ` `  @  12S&C@C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )\` ` `  @hhh hhh 13S&CAC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )e` ` `  hhh@ hhh 14S&CBC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )n` ` `  hhh@  2P 15S&CCC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )w` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 16S&CDC^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )F   ׃  17S&CEC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&  . 18S&CFC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&  . 2Fw 19S&CGC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )*    20S&CHC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )'   21S&CIC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&   22S&CJC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )4$     2r}t23S&CKC^fTechnical Document StyleCC+ -2( -Ct )&  . 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 )/` ` ` 2._27S&COC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cc -2( -Ct ):` ` `  28S&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 )[ 2wE31S&CSC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )f 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#2Evv%endnote refeC^fendnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>>#PP##PP#footnote refC^ffootnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>#PP#heading 4heading 4 heading 5heading 5 2vͧvCvv/heading 6heading 6 heading 7heading 7 heading 8heading 8 endnote textendnote text 2)vשMZkdŬfootnote textfootnote text toa headingtoa heading` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#1, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.E1.A, B,t ?@65Uppercase Letters1 ?*1÷$t ?.E .2S[p q}efootnote tex6footnote text̺=(?. 0&ܺ*?.ںd 0E2(33`O5hT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5h.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 34`O5iT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5i.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  . 35`O5jT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5j.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  2ep}36`O5kT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5k.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  37`O5lT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5l.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>*   38`O5mT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5m.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 39`O5nT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>8@   22L40`O5oT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>A@` `  ` ` ` 41`O5pT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5p.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>0    42`O5qT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>J` ` @  ` `  43`O5rT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>S` `  @  2rdٵ44`O5sT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>\` `  @hh# hhh 45`O5tT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>e` `  hh#@( hh# 46`O5uT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>n` `  hh#(@- ( 47`O5vT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2^h48`O5wT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5w.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>F *  ׃  49`O5xT(G2PTechnical Document Stylex.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 50`O5yT(G2PTechnical Document Styley.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 51`O5zT(G2PTechnical Document Stylez.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>*    26˺_52`O5{T(G2PTechnical Document Style{.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>'   53`O5|T(G2PTechnical Document Style|.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&   54`O5}T(G2PTechnical Document Style}.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>4$     55`O5~T(G2PTechnical Document Style~.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 2Ƽ}KȽP56`O5T(G2PTechnical Document Style.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 57`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>$ 58`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>/` ` ` 59`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>:` ` `  2\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 62`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>[ 63`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>f 264`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>q 65`O5T(G2PDefault Paragraph Font5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>OO#P P##P P#66`O5T(G2P_Equation Caption^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>OO#PP##PP#67`O5T(G2Pendnote reference^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>RR#PP##PP#2rpq68`O5T(G2Pfootnote reference^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>R#PP#69 _5(_>7footnote text _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tZP70 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t` ` ` 71 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  . 2qee np72 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  73 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  74 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t*   75 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t` ` ` 2 5e76 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+t8@   77 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tA@` `  ` ` ` 78 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t0     79 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tJ` ` @  ` `  2%;]80 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tS` `  @  81 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+t\  ` `  @hh# hhh 82 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+te  ` `  hh#@( hh# 83 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tn ` `  hh#(@- ( 2W(g84 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 85 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tF *  ׃  86 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&  . 87 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&  . 2O88 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t*    89 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t'   90 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&   91 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t4$     2J}L92 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&   . 93 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&!"  . 94 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+t$#$ 95 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+t/%&` ` ` 2796 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+t:'(` ` `  97 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+tE)*` ` `  98 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+tP+,` ` ` hhh 99 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+t[-. 2oDKX/100_5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+tf/0 CourierTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicRomanTimes New Roman (Italic) (TT)"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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`lCdYddCoCCCYYFdCNC2Cdddd(dC7dqCdPn<dYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd<?xxx,?x6X@`7X@7jC:,Xj\  P6G;XP7nC:,kXn4  pG;Xy.X80,H;X\  P6G;PCCddCdCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd"i~'^09]SS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99]]]Sxnxxng?Snxgx]nxxxxn9/9aS9S]I]I9S]/9]/]S]]I?9]SxSSIC%CW9+Wa999+999999S9]/xSxSxSxSxSxxInInInInI>/>/>/>/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>400000000009>9+@04242079$4+<744440-909020!!!4002-2--42O4020(($4+90-+!!9-002240000000>00-$000000+0000000222224744444049999224000000G-----0400000+04444-22KKKoB"i~'^:DTddDDDd4D48ddddddddddDDd||||DXp||dp||ppL8LTdDddXdX8dd88X8ddddLL8dXXXLP8PlD4lTDDD4DDDDDDdDd8|d|d|d|d|dX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8dddddddddpX|ddddpXd|d|d|d|dXXlXx|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDddllXp8pHpDp@p8dtdddd|L|L|LdLdLdLllpHp8pTddddddplpLpLpLdpDddLpDpdx4ddC,CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxHhdLdddddd8@d<@d<DDppdDDxddzHxxHkddDpd<"dxtldxxd 3 3C?LO ,,3R R F?????????? LRL9V?FCFC?IL#0F9OIFFFF?8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d"""j^ Z1 #X\  P6G;H;P#Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  yOaWashington, D.C. 20554 #Xj\  P6G;XP#у  XK-#Xj\  P6G;XP#In the Matter of hh@h) x` `  hh@h)  X-C.F. COMMUNICATIONS CORP., et al.@h)  X-xComplainant hh@h) x` `  hh@h)  X-x` ` v. hh@h) x` `  hh@h)  X - MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE CO., et al.,h)ppFile No. E9297, et al. x` `  hh@h)  X| -xDefendant. hh@h)  Xe -x` `  hh@h)pp  XN-Section 208 Complaints Alleging Unlawfulh)  X7-Application of End User Common Line @h)  X -Charges to Independent Payphone Providers h)  yO -#X\  P6G;H;P#  X-#Xj\  P6G;XP# MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ă Adopted: January 23, 1997; Released: February 4, 1997 By the Commission:  X-x` `   I.hhINTRODUCTION  X- ` x1.` ` In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, where we are consolidating 52 Section  X- x208 proceedings, "Gi {OC-  #X\  P6G;H;P#эxFor a list of the individual complaints, see Appendix A attached hereto. Due to the similarity of the issues  xiand arguments raised by the various parties, we are consolidating these proceedings for disposition. In this order,  x.the complaints and answers will be discussed individually only where necessary to address unique or individual arguments made by a particular party.  we find that the complainant independent payphone providers ("IPPs") have  x/not met their burden of establishing that the defendant local exchange carriers ("defendant  X- xLECs")@Gi yO"-  ԍxThe defendant LECs are (in no particular order): Central Telephone Company of Illinois, Inc., Continental  xhTelephone of Indiana, Inc., GTE North of Michigan, Inc., GTE Indiana Operations, Inc., GTE Service Corporation,  xIllinois Bell Telephone Co., Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Ameritech Operating Companies, Inc., Michigan Bell  x;Telephone Company, New York Telephone Company, Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, New Jersey Bell  xTelephone Company, C&P Telephone Company of Maryland, C&P Telephone Company of Virginia, Southern Bell  x<Telephone and Telegraph Company, GTE Florida, Inc., GTE North, Inc., GTE South, Inc., Carolina Telephone  xYCompany, United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, United Telephone Company of Florida, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, New England Telephone and Telegraph Company, Pacific Bell, and GTE California, Inc. have violated Sections 201(a), 201(b), 202(a), and 203(c) of the Communications Act" ,))JJ" of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act" or the "Act"),g yOy-ԍx47 U.S.C. 201(a), 201(b), 202(a), and 203(c).g Part 69 of the Commission's  X- xrules,CX yO-ԍx47 C.F.R. Part 69.C or the defendant LECs' tariffs, by assessing end user common line ("EUCL") chargesv yO-ԍxThe EUCL is also referred to as the "subscriber line charge" ("SLC").v on the complainants.  X-x` `   II.hhBACKGROUND  X-  Xx- ` x2.` ` The issues presented in these consolidated complaint proceedings are virtually  Xa- x>identical to those presented by the complainant in C.F. Communications. Corp. ("CFC") v.  XL- x?Century Tel. of Wisconsin, et al.Lx yOu-  ?ԍx8 FCC Rcd 7334 (Com. Car. Bur. 1993) (CFC Order), affirmed on recon., 10 FCC Rcd 9775 (1995) (CFC  yO=- xReconsideration Order) (together, the CFC Orders), appeal sub. nom. in abeyance C.F. Communications Corp. v. FCC,  xNos. 951563 and 951566 (D.C. Cir. filed Nov. 3 and 6, 1995). This complaint was originally filed in the U.S. District  x<Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Case No. 89C0168C, filed Feb. 16, 1989), and was referred to the  xCommission under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction on April 27, 1989. On May 10, 1989, CFC filed a formal complaint with the Commission. In the CFC Reconsideration Order, @L  yO-  ԍxCFC and the American Public Communications Council ("APCC") (an intervening party) each filed with the  yO- xCommission an application for review of the CFC Order. Essentially, they claimed that the Commission has  xspecifically exempted payphones from the EUCL charge, with certain exceptions not applicable to the complainants'  yOE- x telephones. The Commission denied both applications for review of the CFC Order. In November 1995, CFC and APCC  yO - xeach filed a Petition for Review of the CFC Reconsideration Order with the United States Court of Appeals for the  xDistrict of Columbia Circuit. At the petitioners' request, and with the Commission's consent, the Court of Appeals  xhas held the cases in abeyance pending the outcome of the relevant Commission proceedings implementing the 1996 Telecommunications Act.  we held that the  xcomplainant was a "reseller" whose resale transmissions originated entirely on its "premises," and  X - x-was therefore an "end user" under Section 69.2(m)H  yO-ԍx47 C.F.R. 69.2(m).H of the Commission's regulations. In addition,  x.we found that the payphone service provided by the complainant, unlike that provided by the  X - xdefendant LECs, was not a "public" telephone service as that term is defined in Section 69.2(ee)   yO+ -  ԍxThis provision states that a "[p]ublic telephone is a telephone provided by a telephone company through  xwhich an end user may originate interstate or foreign telecommunications for which he pays with coins or by credit  yO!- xcard, collect or third number billing procedures." 47 C.F.R. 69.2(ee); see also id. at 69.2(hh) ("telephone  xjcompany" is defined as a "carrier that provides telephone exchange service as defined in Section 3(r) of the  xYCommunications Act of 1934.") Because the telephones were not provided by a "telephone company," we held that the exemption from EUCL charges for "public" telephones did not apply.  xof our regulations. Accordingly, we found that the complainant was required to pay the EUCL, even though the defendant LECs did not pay that charge on their "public" payphones. "  ,=(=(JJ "Ԍ X- ` Sԙx3.` ` These issues are also currently the subject of another proceeding at the  X- xCommission. In February 1996, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was enacted.k  yOb-ԍxPub. L. No. 104104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996) (the "1996 Act").k The 1996  xAct directed the Commission to promulgate new rules governing the payphone industry, including  X- xrules to ensure that "all payphone service providers are fairly compensated."P X yO-ԍx47 U.S.C.  276(b)(1).P Accordingly, we  X- x>issued the Payphone Order which concludes that the EUCL should apply to both LEC and  X- xLcompetitive payphones. X yO( -  `ԍxImplementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the  yO - xTelecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-128, Report and Order, FCC 96-388, 180187 (rel. Sept. 20,  yO -1996) (Payphone Order); Order on Reconsideration, FCC 96439, 197208 (rel. Nov. 8, 1996). Thus, our conclusion in the Payphone Order is consistent with our  Xz-finding in the CFC Orders that IPPs should pay EUCL charges.  XN- ` x4.` ` In this proceeding, the relevant facts presented by the parties are largely  x[undisputed. The complainants are independent payphone providers in the business of selling,  xkleasing, installing and maintaining payphones in the States of New York, California, Florida,  xGeorgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New  xJersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia,  X - xjand Wisconsin ,\ X  yO-  ԍxWe note that the complainant in File No. E9297 states that it provides payphones in various states  xthroughout the Midwest, but only specifically mentions Michigan. Thus, the list of states we provide in paragraph  yO$-four may not be complete. \ thereby providing IPP service to their customers. (  yO-  ԍx The complainants' payphones are installed at a variety of locations throughout the abovementioned states. They purchase exchange  x[access service from the defendant LECs, who in turn, submit monthly bills to the complainants  X -for each line ordered.X  yO-  ԍx Since the time that the defendants began providing telephone lines to the complainants, the defendants  x;have been charging a monthly EUCL access charge, in the form of a flat dollar amount, for each line, to which the  xcomplainants argue they are not subject. Some of the complainants have asked the Commission to order the  yO6- xdefendants to cease and desist from assessing any EUCL charges in the future. See, e.g., Total Comms. Service  yO- x("Total") v. Ill. Bell, et al., E9191, et al.; Total v. GTE North of Mich., et al. ("GTE"), E9188, et al.; Total v.  yO-Continental Tel. of Ind. ("Cont."), E9187.X  X-x` `  III.CONTENTIONS AND DISCUSSION  XQ- ` Bx5.` ` The complainants raise a number of arguments to support their claims that the  xdefendants' assessment of EUCL charges is unlawful, all of which were addressed and resolved":,=(=(JJ*"  X- xin the CFC Orders.CX yOy-  ԍxThe defendants filed answers denying the allegations. The majority of defendants filed motions to dismiss,  xsome filed motions for summary judgment, and others aver that certain of the claims are barred by the relevant statute of limitations.C Consistent with our findings and conclusions in the CFC Orders, we find  xthat the complainants have failed to make a persuasive showing that the defendant LECs, by  xassessing EUCL charges on the complainants' payphone lines, have violated either the Commission's rules or orders, the Communications Act, or their tariffs.  X- A.xPart 69 of the Commission's Rules  Xa-x 1.` ` Contentions of the Parties  X3- ` x6.` ` The complainants' primary argument is that because they are not "end users" (and  X - xjbecause the two exceptionsO  yO-ԍxSee infra note 18.O under which carriers are treated as "end users" for access charge  xZpurposes do not apply to them), they may not be assessed EUCL charges. The complainants rely  X - xin large part on the definition of "end user" x yO-  #X\  P6G;pP#эxAn "end user" is defined as a "customer of an interstate or foreign telecommunications service that is not  xxa carrier except that a carrier other than a telephone company shall be deemed to be an 'end user' when such  x>carrier uses a telecommunications service for administrative purposes and a person or entity that offers  xhtelecommunications services exclusively as a reseller shall be deemed to be an 'end user' if all resale transmissions  yO7- xoffered by such reseller originate on the premises of such reseller." 47 C.F.R. 69.2(m); see also 47 C.F.R. 69.1(b) and 69.5(a). contained in our rules, which imposes EUCL  X - x|charges on "end users." In averring that they are carriers rather than end users,X  yOx-  ԍxSee, e.g., Ascom Comms. ("Ascom") v. United Tel. Co. of Fl., E9345, Complaint at 5, Opposition to Motion  yO@- xto Dismiss at 12; Best Pay Phones, Inc. v. NYTC, E9373, Complaint at 5; Total v. Ill. Bell, et al., E9193,  yO-Complaint at 6.ą the  xcomplainants claim that the defendant LECs' costs should be assigned to the carrier common line  X - xcharge ("CCL"), and not the EUCL.jX  yOj-  ԍxSee, e.g., Ascom v. Southern Bell Tel. Co., E9339, Complaint 6, Reply 78; Millicom Services Co.  yO2- x("Millicom") v. New Jersey Bell et al., E9346, et al., Complaint at 6; Top Phone v. NYTC, E9382, Complaint at 6, Reply at 8.j In support of this claim, they contend that the Commission  xhas already determined that nontraffic sensitive ("NTS") costs attributable to LEC public  X{- xypayphones ("LECPPs") are assignable to the CCL,X{0 yO\"-  LԍxMTS and WATS Market Structure, 93 FCC 2d 241 (1983), recon. 97 FCC 2d 682, 703704 (1983)("Access Charge  yO$#- xReconsideration Order"), further recon. 97 FCC 2d 834 (1984), aff'd in part and remanded in part NARUC v. FCC, 737  yO#-F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied 105 S. Ct. 1224 (1985). and that their payphones are accessible to  xthe public in the same way as LECPPs. Finally, the complainants argue that they do not meet  XM- x0the Commission's definition of "resellers"NMP yON'-ԍx47 C.F.R. 69.2(m).N because they: (1) are "carriers" who do not"M,=(=(JJg"  xexclusively resell telecommunications services to the public; and (2) do not originate all of the  X- xcalls that they resell from their "premises."X yOb-  ԍxSee, e.g., Payline, Inc. v. NYTC, E9351, Complaint at 5, Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at 3; Millicom v.  yO*- xNew Jersey Bell et al., E9346, et al., Reply at 45; Ascom v. Carolina Tel. Co., et al., E9343, et al, Complaint at 5 (corrected copy), Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at 34. Thus, the complainants assert that they are not subject to the EUCL.  X- ` x7.` ` The defendant LECs assert that the complainants are "end users" subject to the  xzEUCL charges, and that they did not violate any of the Commission's rules or orders, or any  Xv- x[provisions of the Communications Act, by assessing the EUCL upon the complainants.Tv yO -  ԍxSee, e.g., Ascom v. GTE Fl., et al., E9340 through E 9342, Answer at 10; Ascom v. United Tel. Co. of  yO - xPenn., E9344, Answer at 23; American Pay Phone v. NYTC, E9357, Answer and Motion to Dismiss at 23. In  xwaddition, they argue that since the complainants are not "carriers," it would be inappropriate to recover costs from  yOg - xYthem via the CCL. See, e.g., Total v. GTE, E9188, et al., Motion to Dismiss of GTE North Incorporated at 3; North  yO/- x,American InTeleCom, et al. Inc. v. Southwestern Bell, E9384, Answer and Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative to Stay Proceedings, of Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. at 35.T The  xdefendant LECs contend that they may assess EUCL charges (on a flatrate, NTS basis) on each  xline between the end users' premises and the local telephone company switching office, on all  xend users that subscribe to their local exchange telephone service. Moreover, the defendant LECs  X - xmaintain that, in the MTS and WATS Market Structure Order,O `  yO+-ԍxSee supra note 21.O the Commission did not decide  X -whether competitive pay telephone providers should be exempt from the EUCL charge.  yO-ԍxSee, e.g., Ascom v. Carolina Tel. Co., E9343, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  X -x 2.` ` Discussion  X - ` &x8.` ` We have carefully examined the record before us and conclude that the  x complainants have cited no facts and have made no arguments that would warrant a ruling  Xy- xcontrary to the CFC Orders. In the CFC Reconsideration Order, we rejected an identical claim  Xd- xxmade by the complainant that IPPs are not "end users" subject to Part 69.ad  yO-ԍxSee 47 C.F.R. 69.104(a),69.2(m).a We held that because  xthe complainant's customers necessarily had to come to the places where its payphones were  xlocated in order to use the complainant's service, the complainant's payphones were its "premises"  X- x=for purposes of Section 69.2(m) of our regulations.X yO"-  LԍxCFC Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 1318. Further, we found that the transient callers who made  yO#- xxcalls from payphones were "cost causers," id. at 1617, and that IPPs were also cost causers in the sense that  yOp$-they have ordered the local lines for use in their business. Id. at 17. We further held that the complainant did  X- xnot provide local exchange service, and therefore, was not a "telephone company."R0 yO&-ԍxId., 10 FCC Rcd at 977980.R In this",=(=(JJ "  xproceeding, the record is clear that telephone calls using the resold telecommunications services  X- xoriginate exclusively at the payphones (i.e. premises) of the complainants and that the  xcomplainants do not provide local exchange service. Accordingly, we conclude that complainants  xare "end users" and are not "telephone companies" who offer "public" payphone service as those  xjterms are defined in our rules. Our rules permit EUCL charges to be assessed on end users like  xcomplainants, who subscribe to local exchange telephone service (and then resell it exclusively  Xx- xfrom their "premises"), for each line between the local telephone company's switching office and  Xa-the end user.a yO-  ԍxThe fact that complainants are "aggregators" as defined by TOSCIA does not prevent them from also being "end users" as defined in Part 69 of the Commission's rules. The complainants are therefore subject to the EUCL charge.  X3- B.xSection 201 of the Communications Act  X -x 1.` ` Contentions of the Parties  X - ` x9.` ` The complainants argue that since IPPs are not encompassed by Part 69, the  xdefendant LECs' assessment of EUCL charge on them violates Section 201 of the  X - xCommunications Act.X  yOz-  ԍxSee, e.g., Ascom v. Bell Tel. Co. of Penn., et al., E9335, Complaint at 5, Reply at 23; Kayson Comms. v.  yOB- xNYTC, E9358, Complaint at 5; Millicom v. Southwestern Bell, E9349, Complaint at 5, Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative to Stay Proceedings at 10. Complainants do not specify, however, whether they are alleging  xviolations of Section 201(a) or 201(b) of the Act. The defendant LECs deny that imposing  X{-EUCL charges on complainants violates Section 201 of the Act.6 {@ yOl-  ԍxSee, e.g., Telebeam Tel. Systems v. NYTC, E9381, Answer and Motion to Dismiss at 23; Jamco Phones v.  yO4-NYTC, E9376, Answer and Motion to Dismiss at 23; Total v. GTE, E9188, et al., Answer at 3.6  XM-x 2.` ` Discussion  X- ` }x 10.` ` Consistent with our conclusions in the CFC Reconsideration Order, we find that  xthe complainants in this proceeding are "end users" subject to the EUCL under Part 69 of our  xrules. Accordingly, all of the complainants' Section 201 arguments based on Part 69 must fail.  xFurther, by failing to specify which subsection of Section 201 they allege defendant LECs have  xviolated, the complainants have failed to plead their Section 201 claims with the clarity and  X- xspecificity required by our rules.! yO!-  \ԍxSee, e.g., 47 C.F.R.  1.720(a) ("Pleadings must be clear, concise, and explicit. All matters concerning a claim . . . should be pleaded fully and with specificity."). In any event, the complainants have failed to prove a violation of either Section 201(a) or Section 201(b).  Xi- ` x 11.` ` Section 201(a) of the Act places a duty on common carriers to provide"i !,=(=(JJ"  X- xxcommunications service upon reasonable request.?" yOy-  /#X\  P6G;pP#эxSpecifically, it is the "duty of every common carrier engaged in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio to furnish such communication service upon reasonable request therefor, . . ." 47 U.S.C. 201(a).? Since the complainants have not alleged that  xythe defendant LECs failed to provide communications service upon a reasonable request, there  xis no need for us to conduct a Section 201(a) analysis. We note, however, that it seems apparent  xfrom the record that the complainants have requested, and obtained, exchange access service for  xtheir payphones from the defendant LECs. Thus, the complainants have failed to prove that the defendant LECs have violated Section 201(a) of the Act.  X_- ` ox 12.` ` Pursuant to Section 201(b) of the Act, "charges, practices, classifications, and  xregulations for . . . communication service[s] shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge,  X1- xpractice, classification or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is deemed to be unlawful."n#1  yO -#X\  P6G;pP#эx47 U.S.C. 201(b).n  xWe have found that the complainants are "end users" that may be assessed EUCL charges. Thus,  x the defendant LECs' assessment of the EUCL charge on complainants is neither unjust nor  xunreasonable, and therefore, not unlawful under Section 201(b). Therefore, we cannot find that the defendant LECs violated Section 201(b) of the Communications Act.  X - C.xSection 202(a) of the Communications Act  Xy- x1.` ` Contentions of the Parties  XK- ` x 13.` ` The complainants argue that, since they are not "end users," the imposition of  xzEUCL charges on them is an act of unjust and unreasonable discrimination amounting to an  xjunreasonable preference and advantage in favor of the defendant LECs, in violation of Section  X- x<202(a) of the Act.$ yOg-ԍxSee, e.g., Millicom v. New Jersey Bell Tel. Co., et al., E9346, et al.đ They claim that, although the defendants are direct competitors in furnishing  X- x>payphone service,\%X@ yO-  ԍxThe complainants add that "public" telephones, whether LECPPs or IPPs, suffer from a variety of problems,  xincluding an abundance of transient callers who cannot be assessed the EUCL, which results in the charge falling disproportionately on a limited number of users.\ no EUCL charge or equivalent charge for the recovery of NTS costs is  xxattributed to any end user for the defendants' LECPPs (who recover the cost of their lines through  X- x=the CCL).&`  yO!-  ԍxThe CCL is imposed on interexchange carriers ("IXCs"). The complainants, however, do not claim that they are IXCs subject to the CCL. They assert that, by not assessing a EUCL charge on LECPPs, the defendants are  X- x=engaging in unlawful discrimination.b'X  yO%-  ԍxSee, e.g., Ascom v. GTE Fl. et al., E9340, et al., Amended Complaint at 6, Reply at 7; Best Payphones, Inc.  yO%- xv. NYTC, E93073, Complaint at 56; NYPAY v. NYTC, E9334, Complaint at 6, Reply and Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at 810.b Moreover, the complainants assert that any regulatory"',=(=(JJp"  xdifferences that might exist between IPPs and LECPPs do not justify the application of EUCL charges on complainants' payphones.  X- ` x 14.` ` The defendant LECs argue that their assessment of EUCL charges on the  X- xlcomplainants does not constitute unjust and unreasonable discrimination(X yO-  ԍxSee, e.g., Total v. Central Tel. Co. of Ill., E9186, Answer at 56; DialAProfit v. NYTC, E9375,  yO- xMemorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss at 45; Telecorp Public Comms. v. NYTC, E9353, Answer and Motion to Dismiss at 3, Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss at 4. because the  X- x<complainants are operating "business" telephones.+)  yO& -  Lԍx In the alternative, the defendants contend that the complainants are operating "semipublic" telephones  xi(for which the subscriber pays a monthly perline charge), that may be assessed EUCL charges. "Semipublic"  xtelephone service is a payphone service that is provided when there is a combination of general public and a  yO~ -specific customer's need for the service. Access Charge Reconsideration Order, 97 FCC 2d at 704 n.40.+ They stress that, since they assess a EUCL  xcharge on all "business" telephones that use their local telephone service, they are not  X_- xdiscriminating against the complainants.* _ yO-  ԍxSee, e.g., Top Phone v. NYTC, E9382, Answer and Motion to Dismiss, Memorandum in Support of Motion  yO- xto Dismiss at 4; Best Payphones v. NYTC, E9373, Answer and Motion to Dismiss at 3, Memorandum in Support of  yOp- xMotion to Dismiss at 45; Kayson Communications v. NYTC, E9358, Answer and Motion to Dismiss, Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss at 45. They explain that they do not assess EUCL charges  xon LECPPs because LECPPs are not identical to IPPs, who are subject to far fewer regulatory  X1-constraints.+1  yO-  kԍxAdditional burdens on the LECPPs include not being able to share in profits from interexchange service, and having to comply with rate of return and rate regulations.  X -x 2.` ` Discussion  X - ` $x15.` ` Under Section 202(a) of the Communications Act, carriers may not unjustly or  xunreasonably discriminate in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services  X - xKin connection with like communication services.n,  yOh-#X\  P6G;pP#эx47 U.S.C. 202(a).n Applicable judicial decisions establish a three X- xzprong test for determining whether a Section 202(a) violation has occurred.- yO-ԍxAd Hoc Telecommunications Users Group v. FCC, 680 F.2d 790, 795 (D.C.Cir. 1990). First, we must  x<determine whether the services at issue are like one another. Second, we must determine whether  xthere is disparate pricing or treatment between the like services. Third, if disparate pricing or  x[treatment is found to exist, we must decide whether the disparity is justified and, therefore, not  X4- xunreasonable.*.40 yO%-  #X\  P6G;pP#эxSee Competition in the Interstate Interexchange Marketplace, 6 FCC Rcd 5880, 5903 (1991); MCI  yO%-Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, 917 F.2d 30, 39 (D.C. Cir. 1990).* In a Section 208 complaint proceeding, the complainant has the evidentiary  xburden of establishing that the services are like and that discrimination exists between them. ".,=(=(JJG"  xOnce like services and discrimination are established, the burden shifts to the defendant carrier  X-to show that the discrimination is not unreasonable.g/ yOb-#X\  P6G;pP#эxId.g  X- ` _x16.` ` The complainants purchase exchange access service in the form of business lines  x=to their payphones. As such, we have determined them to be "end users" and not "telephone  xcompanies." Thus, they are not similarly situated to the defendant LECs who are "telephone  xcompanies." Moreover, the defendant LECs claim, and the complainants do not dispute, that the  xdefendant LECs assess EUCL charges on all business telephones. Thus, it appears that the  xkdefendants correctly distinguish the complainants' payphones from the LECPPs and do not  xunlawfully discriminate against the complainants when they assess EUCL charges on the former  X - xtype of payphones and not the latter.0 X yO# -  ԍxWe note that, in the Payphone Order, we required the EUCL to be assessed upon LECPPs. Payphone OrderĄ  yO - xat 180187. That does not change the outcome of this proceeding, however, because the Payphone Order was  xhadopted to implement Section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act  xof 1996, which required, among other things, the deregulation of LEC payphone equipment. Section 276 was not in effect at the time the complaints in this proceeding were filed. Accordingly, because the complainants failed to show the  xexistence of like services and disparate pricing or treatment, there is no need to proceed with the  xithird step of the discrimination analysis. Moreover, consistent with our findings and conclusions  X - xin the CFC Orders,L1X  yO-  ^ԍxWe note that, at the time when these complaints were filed, Sections 69.2(m) and 69.2(ee) of the  yOV- x;Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  69.2(m) and 69.2(ee),which were relied upon in denying relief in the CFC Orders, were in effect.L we thus conclude that the defendants have not violated Section 202(a) of the Communications Act.  X- D.x Defendants' Tariffs and Section 203(c) of the Communications Act  Xd-x 1.` ` Contentions of the Parties  X6- ` Px17.` ` In arguing that they are not end users, the majority of complainants claim that the  xdefendant LECs' assessment of a EUCL charge on complainants violates the defendant LECs'  X- xtariffs.2(  yO-  ԍxSee, e.g., AllGlobal Telcom v. NYTC, E9352, Complaint at 5; Jamco Phones v. NYTC, E9376, Complaint  yO -at 2, 6; Crescent Comms. v. NYTC, E9374, Complaint at 2, 6. These complainants note that the defendant LECs' definition of an "end user" is  X- xyidentical to the Commission's definition, which, according to the complainants, excludes IPPs.3  yO"#-  ԍxSome complainants assert that the defendants' tariffs do not authorize the imposition a EUCL charge upon  yO#- xthe owner of a public pay telephone located off the premises of the owner. See, e.g., Total v. Cont., E9187,  yO$- xComplaint at 6; see also Alcazar Ltd v. NYTC, E9356, Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at 67 (discussion of the  yOz%- x,relationship between tariffs and "premises"); Ultra Tech Payphone Systems v. NYTC, E9383, Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at 67.  xThe majority of complainants also argue that, because the imposition of the EUCL charge on" 03,=(=(JJ"  x=them violates the defendant LECs' tariffs, the defendant LECs are accordingly also in violation  X-of Section 203(c) of the Act.4 yOb-  ԍxSee, e.g., Total v. Ill. Bell, et al., E9193, Complaint at 4; B.D.A. Sales v. NYTC, E9350, Complaint at 7;  yO*-Total v. GTE, E9190, Complaint at 4.  X- ` }x18.` ` The defendant LECs deny that IPPs are excluded from the definition of "end user"  X- xin their tariffs and that they are in violation of their tariffs or Section 203(c) of the Act.W5X  yOu-  MԍxSee, e.g., Ascom v. NYTC, et al., E9360, et al., Answer and Motion to Dismiss at 4; Crescent Comms. v.  yO= - xNYTC, E9374, Answer and Motion to Dismiss at 3; Alcazar Ltd. v. NYTC, E9356, Answer and Motion to Dismiss at 3.W  They  xmaintain that assessment of EUCL charges on the complainant IPPs is authorized by their  Xv- x=tariffs.6v@ yOg -  .ԍxSee, e.g., Total v. Central Tel. Co. of Ill. Inc., E9186, Answer at 56; Total v. GTE, E9188, et al., Answer  yO/- xat 23; Ascom v. NYTC, et al., E9360, et al., Answer and Motion to Dismiss at 3, Memorandum in Support of  xOpposition to Dismiss at 46. They acknowledge that their tariff language defining "end users" mirrors the  yO- xCommission's definition, which they believe, permits them to assess a EUCL charge on IPPs. See, e.g., NYNEX Telephone Companies Tariff FCC No. 1, Section 2.6. They further explain that their tariffs include a provision, as required by our rules, for  X_-the collection from end users of a EUCL charge.{7_  yO-ԍxSee, e.g., NYNEX Telephone Companies Tariff FCC No. 1, Section 31.4.{  X1-x 2.` ` Discussion  X -  X - ` x19.` ` The complainants are incorrect in alleging that the defendant LECs' tariffs do not  X - x=provide for EUCL charges to be assessed on IPPs. Consistent with the CFC Reconsideration  X - xOrder, we have found that complainants are "end users" as that term is defined in the  xlCommission's rules. Because the defendant LECs' tariffs contain the same definition, we  xconclude that the complainants are "end users" under the defendant LECs' tariffs. Furthermore,  x<we find that under the defendants' tariffs, the defendants may assess EUCL charges against "end  X}- xusers." Thus, the defendant LECs have not violated their tariffs or Section 203(c) of the Act,  xwhich requires common carriers to furnish service solely in accordance with the charges,  XO-practices, classifications and regulations of their tariffs filed with the Commission.n8O  yO-#X\  P6G;pP#эx47 U.S.C. 203(c).n  X!- E.xPROCEDURAL MATTERS  X- ` x20.` ` As mentioned herein, some of the defendants have filed motions to dismiss and  x<motions for summary judgment. Since this order discusses the merits of each of the issues raised  X- x>in these motions, we accordingly dismiss the motions as moot. In addition, CFC has filed a  xmotion to consolidate its complaint in this proceeding with the proceedings in File Nos. E89170  x>through 172 and E89180 through 182. The complaints associated with these file numbers," 8,=(=(JJQ"  X- xhowever, have already been addressed in the CFC Order. Accordingly, we deny CFC's motion  X-to consolidate.x9 yOd-ԍxWe inadvertently failed to address this motion in the CFC Orders.x  X- ` x21.` ` The APCC has moved for leave to intervene in certain of the proceedings that have  X- xbeen consolidated hereinr:X yO-ԍxFile Nos. 89170 through E89172, and E180 through E182.r solely to address the "carrier end user issue," and has submitted a brief  x!with its motion. In addition, in those same proceedings, the National Exchange Carriers  Xx- xAssociation ("NECA") has filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant LECs. We grant the  Xc-intervention of APCC and NECA and accept their amicus briefs.  X7- ` Px22.` ` Finally, the defendant LECs argue that the complainants' claims for periods earlier  xthan two years before the complaints were filed are barred by the statute of limitations set forth  X - xin Section 415 of the Act.;  yO-  yԍxSee, e.g., NYPAY v. NYTC, E9334, Answer at 4; Alcazar Ltd. v. NYTC, E9356, Answer at 4; North American  yOj-Industries of New York, Inc. v. NYTC, E9378, Answer at 5. Because we find that the defendant LECs are not liable to the complainants, this issue is moot.  X -x` `   IV.hhCONCLUSION  X- ` Bx23.` ` For the reasons stated above, we find that complainant IPPs, who are resellers  xwhose resale transmissions originate entirely on their premises, are "end users." In addition, we  xfind that complainant IPPs do not provide "public" telephone service and therefore do not come  xwithin the "public" telephone exemption. Therefore, we conclude that the complainant IPPs are  x-subject to end user common line charges. We further conclude that the complainants have failed  xto prove their allegations that the defendant LECs have violated Sections 201(a), 201(b), 202(a), and 203(c) of the Communications Act, or their tariffs.  X- x` `  V.hhORDERING CLAUSES  X- ` x24.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the  X- xCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j) and 208, and the  xauthority delegated in Section 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.291, that the abovecaptioned complaints, which have been consolidated herein, ARE DENIED.  X?- ` x25.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions to dismiss filed by New York  x-Telephone Company, New England Telephone Company, United Telephone Company of Florida,  x0Carolina Telephone Company, United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, Ameritech  xCorporation, Central Telephone Company of Illinois, Continental Telephone of Indiana, Inc.,  xSouthwestern Bell Telephone Company, GTE North of Michigan, GTEIndiana Operations, Inc., and GTE Service Corporation in the abovecaptioned complaints ARE DISMISSED." @;,=(=(JJ"Ԍ X- ` ԙx26.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment filed by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company in the abovecaptioned complaints IS DISMISSED.  X- ` `x27.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Intervene filed by the  xAmerican Public Communication Council IS GRANTED for the limited purpose of filing an  X- xamicus brief, and that the amicus briefs filed by APCC and NECA ARE ACCEPTED into the record. x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@William F. Caton x` `  hh@Acting Secretary" ;,=(=(JJm "  X-) APPENDIX A ă  X- List of Individual Complaints ă E9186 Total Communications Services, Inc. v. Central Telephone Company of Illinois, Inc. E9187 Total Communications Services, Inc. v. Continental Telephone of Indiana, Inc.  x>E9188 through E9190 Total Communications Services, Inc. v. GTE North of Michigan, Inc., GTE Indiana Operations, Inc., and GTE Service Corporation  xE9191 through E9193 Total Communications Services, Inc. v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., Indiana Bell Telephone Company, and Ameritech Operating Companies, Inc. E9297 C.F. Communications Corp. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co. E9334 NYPAY Communications Company v. New York Telephone Company  xE9335 through E9338 Ascom Communications, Inc. v. Bell Telephone Company of  XK- x<Pennsylvania, New Jersey Bell Telephone Company, C&P Telephone Company of Maryland, and C&P Telephone Company of Virginia E9339 Ascom Communications, Inc. v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company  xE9340 through E9342 Ascom Communications, Inc. v. GTE Florida, Inc., GTE North, Inc.,  X-and GTE South, Inc.  X-E9343 Ascom Communications, Inc. v. Carolina Telephone Company  E9344 Ascom Communications, Inc. v. United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania E9345 Ascom Communications, Inc. v. United Telephone Company of Florida  xyE9346 through E9347 Millicom Services Company v. New Jersey Bell Telephone Company and Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania E9348 Millicom Services Company v. New York Telephone Company E9349 Millicom Services Company v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company E9350 B.D.A. Sales, Inc. v. New York Telephone Company E9351 Payline, Inc. v. New York Telephone Company "#' ;,=(=(JJ%"ԌE9352 AllGlobal TelCom, Inc. v. New York Telephone Company E9353 Telecorp Public Communications, Inc. v. New York Telephone Company E9356 Alcazar Ltd. v. New York Telephone Company E9357 American Pay Phone, Inc. v. New York Telephone Company E9358 Kayson Communications, Inc. v. New York Telephone Company E9359 New York Pay Phone Systems, Inc. v. New York Telephone Company  xjE9360 through E9361 Ascom Communications, Inc. v. New York Telephone Company and New England Telephone and Telegraph Company E9362 JustTel, Inc. v. New York Telephone Company E9373 Best Payphones, Inc. v. New York Telephone Company E9374 Crescent Communications v. New York Telephone Company E9375 DialAProfit Pay Telephones, Inc. v. New York Telephone Company E9376 Jamco Phones v. New York Telephone Company E9377 Mitel Communications, Inc. v. New York Telephone Company E9378 North American Industries of New York, Inc. v. New York Telephone Company E9379 Pay Phone, Ltd. v. New York Telephone Company E9380 South Shore Payphone v. New York Telephone Company E9381 Telebeam Telephone Systems, Inc. v. New York Telephone Company E9382 Top Phone v. New York Telephone Company E9383 Ultra Tech Payphone Systems, Inc. v. New York Telephone Company  xE9384 North American InTeleCom, Inc./North American Industries, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company E9385 Dave Communications v. New York Telephone Company "#';,=(=(JJ%"ԌE9393 Peconic Communications, Inc. v. New York Telephone Company  xmE9467 through E9468 Southern California Pay Phone Co. v. Pacific Bell and GTE California, Inc.