WPC4Z 2MBR ZCourierw Roman#|d)w RomanTimes New Roman Bold@XPPS - PSt 4M ROOM 228 LPT1XPPSPS.WRSSd  @YG"j@|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<"dxtldpxxdCourierRomanNew RomanLPT1HPLA4MP0.PRSXj\  P6G;\ifXP2F $A#|d'CourierRomanTimes New Roman (TT)man BoldTimes New Roman ItalicCourier ItalicCourierRomanTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)T@2 xX`gK X01Í ÍX01Í Ídr5dddXd6X@Q@Ay.K8?XpK\  P@QPB7PC2X XP\  P6QXP.7UC2X$XU4  pQXSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/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  { "a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 2   t<a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2n"> !!a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2"%"'##|$a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2U(T%&&3"'a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical 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)Documentg2-(e,,p-PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:a4Agenda.E+O *Ç:tAgenda Items:LK3 =(O  J;*O #?@21$q10%q0&q1'q1a5Agenda.E+O *Ç:tAgenda Items:LK3 =(O  J;*O $ABa6Agenda.E+O *Ç:tAgenda Items:LK3 =(O  J;*O %CDa7Agenda.E+O *Ç:tAgenda Items:LK3 =(O  J;*O &EFa8Agenda.E+O *Ç:tAgenda Items:LK3 =(O  J;*O 'GH24('2)2*y3+4HeadingChapter Heading(J d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers)>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheading*0\ E A.  head1 #+'d#2p}wC@ #26,}4-=5.5/X6a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf,$ a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf-/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf.:` ` `  a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf/E` ` `  2:0(717283D9a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf0P  ` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf1[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf2f  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf3q 2;4p@:5q:6e!;7e;Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O g4` ` ` Document[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g5  . Document[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g6  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g7  2M>8<9p<: =;=Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g8*    Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g9  ` ` ` Right Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g:8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g;A@` ` `  ` ` ` 2A<>=?>??e@Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g<0     Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g=J` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g>S` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g?\` ` `  @hhh hhh 2_D@MAA BBBCCRight Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g@e` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gAn` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gBw` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gCF    ׃  2FDDEEFEG7FTechnical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gD&!"  . Technical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gE&#$  . Technical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gF*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gG''(   2LIHFIGJBHKHTechnical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gH&)*   Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gI4+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gJ&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gK&/0  . 2KXLv ~IMoUNcVOiVMACNormalL;     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#FootnoteMÍčfootnote tex#N'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#headerOAx 4 <D  #FxX  Pg9CXP# 2U]P}XQ~YRiZS^[referenceP;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1Q&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2RI ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# heading 3SF` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# 2.`TO]U^VlV_Wl_footer!T!!#d\  PCP#Default ParaMtDefault Paragraph FontRK+7*P0_ f—+7*bUDefault Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph FontV Document 8Document 8W 2bXx``Yl`ZlDa[laDocument 4Document 4X  Document 6Document 6Y Document 5Document 5Z Document 2Document 2[ 2bg\lNb]b^d_lfDocument 7Document 7\ Right Par 1Right Par 1]` hp x (#X` hp 0X` hp 0` hp x (#Right Par 2Right Par 2^` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#Document 3Document 3_ 2 p`gaibkcmRight Par 3Right Par 3`` hp x (#X` hp 0X` hp 0` hp x (#Right Par 4Right Par 4a` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#Right Par 5Right Par 5b` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#Right Par 6Right Par 6c` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#2xd>pe\rf(ztg$vRight Par 7Right Par 7d` hp x (#X` hp 0X` hp 0` hp x (#Right Par 8Right Par 8e` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#Document 1Document 1f` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#Technical 5Technical 5g` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#2~h$xil{jl{k${Technical 6Technical 6h` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#Technical 2Technical 2i Technical 3Technical 3j Technical 4Technical 4k` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#2llJ~m$~n$ڀoTechnical 1Technical 1l Technical 7Technical 7m` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#Technical 8Technical 8n` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#toc 1toc 1o` hp x (#` hp x (#2ƍpNqlrstoc 2toc 2p` hp x (#` ` ` hp x (#toc 3toc 3q` hp x (#` ` ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4r` hp x (#  ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5s` hp x (#hh` hp x (#2Ȕtuvvwtoc 6toc 6t` hp x (#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7u toc 8toc 8v` hp x (#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9w` hp x (#` hp x (#2ʛxyz6{vTindex 1index 1x` hp x (#` ` ` hp x (#index 2index 2y` hp x (#` ` ` hp x (#toa headingtoa headingz` hp x (#` hp x (#captioncaption{ 2Ȣ|l}$h~_Equation Caption_Equation Caption| Agenda 1Agenda 1}` hp x (#` hp x (# ` hp x (#` hp x (#Agenda 2Agenda 2~` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Agenda 3Agenda 3` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2r6TAgenda 4Agenda 4` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Agenda 5Agenda 5` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Agenda 6Agenda 6` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Agenda 7Agenda 7` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2­Agenda 8Agenda 8` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Paragraph 1Paragraph 1` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Paragraph 2Paragraph 2` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Paragraph 3Paragraph 3` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2ƼNlParagraph 4Paragraph 4` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Paragraph 5Paragraph 5` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Paragraph 6Paragraph 6` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Paragraph 7Paragraph 7` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2flxlParagraph 8Paragraph 8` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Document 8aDocument 8a Document 4aDocument 4a  Document 6aDocument 6a 2lllpDocument 5aDocument 5a Document 2aDocument 2a Document 7aDocument 7a Right Par 1aRight Par 1a` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#2,lJRight Par 2aRight Par 2a` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Document 3aDocument 3a Right Par 3aRight Par 3a` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 4aRight Par 4a` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2$B`~Right Par 5aRight Par 5a` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 6aRight Par 6a` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 7aRight Par 7a` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 8aRight Par 8a` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2($$l>Document 1aDocument 1a` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 5aTechnical 5a` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 6aTechnical 6a` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 2aTechnical 2a 2l$Hll$Technical 3aTechnical 3a Technical 4aTechnical 4a` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 1aTechnical 1a Technical 7aTechnical 7a` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2$.xRll6Technical 8aTechnical 8a` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#HIGHLIGHT 1HIGHLIGHT 1  DRAFT ONDRAFT ON DRAFT OFFDRAFT OFF 2ll@llLETTER LANDLETTER LAND LEGAL LANDLEGAL LAND LETTER PORTLETTER PORT LEGAL PORTLEGAL PORT 2blvTITLETITLE44#6X@DQ@# #Xx6X@DQX@#BLOCK QUOTEBLOCK QUOTE HIGHLIGHT 2HIGHLIGHT 244#6X@DQ@# #Xx6X@DQX@#HIGHLIGHT 3HIGHLIGHT 344#6X@DQ@##Xx6X@DQX@#2llLETTERHEADLETTERHEAD INVOICE FEEINVOICE FEE` hp x (#d#d#` hp x (#MEMORANDUMMEMORANDUM INVOICE EXPINVOICE EXP` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#2ldINVOICE TOTINVOICE TOT` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#INVOICE HEADINVOICE HEAD SMALLSMALL11#_6X@DQ@##Xx6X@DQX@#FINEFINE11#^F6X@DQ^@##Xx6X@DQX@#2V ~8LARGELARGE11#6X@DQ@##Xx6X@DQX@#EXTRA LARGEEXTRA LARGE11#6X@DQ@##Xx6X@DQX@#VERY LARGEVERY LARGE11#6X@DQ@##Xx6X@DQX@#ENVELOPEENVELOPE` hp x (#X` h(p x (#X` h(p x (#` hp x (#2lXLj_Equation Caption1_Equation Caption1 NORMALReturn to Normal Typestylea1tempAy k xP'1.` ` 25Za1ManualEnforcementT~  7-\6 Volume1:pp  a3ManualEnforcementT1F1@  7-Subchapter 0..1.:  a5ManualEnforcementQH 2 xPVerse 0..0..(1): a6ManualEnforcementKE xPVerse !0..0..(0)(a)!: 2/y-a7ManualEnforcementLt@Ū xPVerse "0..0..(0)()i)": a8ManualEnforcementNoE xPVerse $0..0..(0)()..a)$: a4ManualEnforcementS' f 7-Verse 0..0.a.: a2ManualEnforcementNl"D  7- Chapter 0A.   7- 2 '4XCitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileȵW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded Documentiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#para numnumbered indented paragraphsʼ' Y- 1.(i) 1) 1.#Xw P7[hXP# 1. 1.Ҳ1df2 Klj Style 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Margins$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced II·J )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !2L  |0  Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Font4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Point$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO 2~Style 7Swiss 11.5$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Point$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for Advanced֯ U )a [ PfQK  dddn  ##  [[ b, oT9 !b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  QN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8PfInitial Codes for Beginninggׯi )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2%}$$Style 9Initial Codes for Intermediateح )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 Moduleپ )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 Paragraph[1]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B$ab Paragraph[2]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B/cd` ` ` 2'P%%&*'Paragraph[3]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B:ef` ` `  Paragraph[4]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BEgh` ` `  Paragraph[5]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BPij` ` ` hhh Paragraph[6]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B[kl 2w,(()+Paragraph[7]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bfmn Paragraph[8]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bqop toatoa` hp x (#` hp x (#endnote referenceendnote reference44#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#2p.,q5-e-e .footnote referencefootnote reference4#XP\  P6QXP#2S&C6C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )s t . 3S&C7C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct ) uv 4S&C8C^fDocument StyleNF2CC! -2( -Ct ) wx 20.p5//705S&C9C^fDocument StyleNF2CC/ -2( -Ct )*yz   6S&C:C^fDocument StyleNF2CC= -2( -Ct ){|` ` ` 7S&C;C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK -2( -Ct )8}~@  8S&C<C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersY -2( -Ct )A@` ` `  ` ` ` 2311=229S&C=C^fDocument StyleNF2CCg -2( -Ct )0    10S&C>C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersu -2( -Ct )J` ` ` @  ` ` ` 11S&C?C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )S` ` `  @  12S&C@C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )\` ` `  @hhh hhh 2634Y5*613S&CAC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )e` ` `  hhh@ hhh 14S&CBC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )n` ` `  hhh@  15S&CCC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )w` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 16S&CDC^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )F   ׃  2Q977 8817S&CEC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&  . 18S&CFC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&  . 19S&CGC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )*    20S&CHC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )'   2;9::L;21S&CIC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&   22S&CJC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )4$     23S&CKC^fTechnical Document StyleCC+ -2( -Ct )&  . 24S&CLC^fTechnical Document StyleCC9 -2( -Ct )&  . 2?}<<=K=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 ):` ` `  "i~'^09FSS999Sq+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99qqqSggnxggxx9In]nxgxgS]xgg]]?/?FS9SSISI/SS//I/xSSSS??/SInII?C/CZ9+ZF999+999999S9S/gSgSgSgSgSnnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/nSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]IgSxSxSxS]IxSgSgSgSgSnInInZnIxdgIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999SSZZnI]/]<]9]5]/nSanSnSxSxSng?g?g?S?S?S?ZZ]<]/]FxSxSxSxSxSxSn]Z]?]?]?xS]9nSS?]9]Sd+SS8%8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN)>F)))))))))<)C"VV5VYO5O5O5O5^<^<^<^>^<^C^F.".C.).CaC>>^CO"O6O)O0O"VCVVCVC^<^O=O)OFVCVCVCVCVCVCxVV>O5O5O5VCO)VCC.O)V<X<<( (WTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN+HH+@<)<<<<d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCddddddd<d<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYddr5dddXd6X@Q@Ay.K8?XpK\  P@QPB7PC2X XP\  P6QXP.C7UC2X$XU4  pQXD5PC2XAXP*f9 xQXXEW!0(Xh0\  P6QhP.W!3(X$3h34  pQh"5@^(1<((((01(<CW]]](<by showing that a particular complainant had purchased other access services at rates that" ,((JJ"  X- xKproduced earnings below the authorized levels during the same rateofreturn monitoring period.  yOy-  ԍxId. at 1420. The court reasoned that the Commission had effectively adjudicated the defendant LECs' claims against the customer interexchange carriers, which it had no authority to do.  xThe court's remand order directs the Commission to recalculate the complainants' damages by  X- xyremoving the underearnings offsets from the damages calculations.B   yO-ԍXxId.(#B The court also remanded  X- xin part the 198990 ROR Order to permit the Commission to recalculate the damage awards in  X-accordance with the court's decision in the MCI Remand Order.~  yO -ԍxNew York Telephone Co. v. FCC, No. 941412 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 13, 1996). ~  Xz- ` x4.` ` The staff requested the parties to provide lists of those rateofreturn proceedings  Xc- xfor which they needed damages awards recalculated as a result of the court's orders. c@ yOT-  ЍxLetter to All Counsel of Record from Thomas D. Wyatt, Chief, Formal Complaints and Investigations Branch,  xEnforcement Division, Common Carrier Bureau (Nov. 9, 1995); Letter to All Counsel of Record from Kurt Schroeder,  xwChief, Formal Complaints and Investigations Branch, Enforcement Division, Common Carrier Bureau (Sept. 27, 1996) (the "Branch Letters").  XL- xResponding to the Branch Letters, CompTel advised, inter alia, that the damages awards in File  X7- x>Nos. E89389 and E93117 needed to be recalculated.6X7(  yO-  ԍxLetter to Kurt A. Schroeder, Chief, Formal Complaints and Investigations Branch, Enforcement Division,  xCommon Carrier Bureau, from Genevieve Morelli, Vice President and General Counsel, CompTel (Oct. 18, 1996) ("CompTel Letter").6 Accordingly, in the Recalculation  X" - xLOrder, the Commission recalculated the damages awards in these proceedings by removing all  X - x=offsets from the calculations.Y H  yO-ԍxRecalculation Order at Appendix A.Y Pacific then filed the instant petition for reconsideration. Also  xin response to the Branch Letters, MCI advised that damages awards in File No. E93138 needed  X -to be recalculated.OX  yOh-  NԍxLetter to Kurt Schroeder, Chief, Formal Complaints and Investigations Branch, Enforcement Division,  xCommon Carrier Bureau from Frank W. Krogh, Appellate Counsel, Regulatory Law, MCI Telecommunications Corporation (Oct. 18, 1996) ("MCI's Initial Letter").O SWBT objected to MCI's request.Z  yO-  ԍx Letter to Kurt Schroeder, Chief, Formal Complaints and Investigations Branch, Enforcement Division,  xCommon Carrier Bureau from Paul Walters, Attorney, Southwestern Bell Telephone (Oct. 30, 1996) ("SWBT's First  xResponse"); Letter to Kurt Schroeder, Chief, Formal Complaints and Investigations Branch, Enforcement Division,  xCommon Carrier Bureau from Paul Walters, Attorney, Southwestern Bell Telephone (Nov. 20, 1996) ("SWBT's Second Response") (collectively the "SWBT Responses").Z The Recalculation Order did not " ,((JJ! "  xcontain recalculated damages for File No. E93138 and MCI has requested a clarification of this  X-matter.NX yOb-  ԍx Letter to Kurt Schroeder, Chief, Formal Complaints and Investigations Branch, Enforcement Division,  xCommon Carrier Bureau from Frank W. Krogh, Appellate Counsel, Regulatory Law, MCI Telecommunications Corporation (Dec. 20, 1996) ("MCI's Third Letter").N  X- III. DISCUSSION ă  X- A. File No. E89389  X_- ` nx5.` ` Pacific contends that the Commission's recalculation of the damages award in this  xproceeding was erroneous because the Commission removed all offsets from the original  xcalculation of damages rather than removing only such offsets as were affected by the court's  xyorders. The remainder of the offsets, Pacific claims, reflected a reduction in the damages award  X -for overearnings refunds that it had already given to the complainants.  yO-  ԍxPetition at 23, citing Competitive Telecommunications Ass'n v. Chesapeake and Potomac Tel. Co., 8 FCC  yOd-Rcd 1224, 1232, 123738 (1993) (CompTel Order).  X - ` x6.` ` Pacific is correct that only that portion of the offsets relating to underearnings was  xaffected by the court's orders. As noted above, the court invalidated only the offsetsfor  xunderearnings portion of the Commission's damages calculation and remanded the proceedings  xto the Commission to recalculate damages by removing these offsets from the calculations. The  Xy- xcourt upheld the Commission's orders in all other respects.y@ yOj-ԍxSee infra para. 3; see also Recalculation Order at paras. 34. Thus, in the Recalculation Order,  xwe should have removed from the damages calculation in this proceeding only the offsets for  xunderearnings. We therefore correct our recalculation of the damages award in File No. E89 x389 as indicated in Appendix A. For the convenience of the parties in calculating interest in  xaccordance with our rateofreturn orders, also attached as Appendix B is a listing of the Internal Revenue Service interest rates for tax overpayments.  X- B. File No. E93117   X- ` ax7.` ` Pacific states that it reached a settlement with LDDS in File No. E93117 on  X- xJanuary 22, 1996, but the complainant failed to inform the Commission of the settlement.sX yO"-  "ԍxThis complaint was filed by CompTel on behalf of several of its member carriers, including LDDS  xCommunications ("LDDS"). In response to the Branch Letters, CompTel informed the Commission that LDDS' damages award in this proceeding needed to be recalculated. CompTel Letter at Attachment.s  xyPacific further states its understanding that LDDS will immediately file a motion to dismiss with  xprejudice, and urges the Commission to dismiss the complaint. On the day Pacific filed its  xzpetition, LDDS filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice its damages claims. In support of its  X9-motion, LDDS states that it has settled with Pacific."9 ,((JJ"Ԍ X- ` ԙx8.` ` We are satisfied that granting LDDS' motion will serve the public interest by  xeliminating the need for further litigation and the expenditure of further time and resources of  xthe parties and of this Commission. Accordingly, Pacific's petition and LDDS' motion will be granted with respect to File No. E93117, and the proceeding terminated.  X- C. File No. E93138  X_- ` Rx9.` ` In adjudicating the claims made in File No. E93138, the Commission found  xSWBT's rates for special interstate access service for the 198990 monitoring period to be unjust  xand unreasonable in violation of Section 201(b) of the Act because they produced earnings that  X - x-exceeded our rate of return prescription for that period.]  yO -ԍx198990 ROR Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 3672.] This determination was based primarily  xon information taken from SWBT's final rate of return monitoring report, Form 492, filed  xSeptember 30, 1991, which showed that SWBT had earned in excess of the prescribed rate of  X - xreturn in the special access category.Q X yO-ԍxSee 47 C.F.R.  65.600.Q We declined to consider adjustments SWBT attempted  x[to make to its Form 492 in March 1992 that would have reduced its rate of return for the special  X - xinterstate access category to prescribed levels.`  yO@-ԍx198990 ROR Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 366667.` We emphasized that the final Form 492 filed  x0on September 30, 1991 is a conclusively binding determination of a carrier's earnings for  xKpurposes of enforcing our rateofreturn prescription and that SWBT failed to show extraordinary  Xb-circumstances warranting a waiver of the Form 492 filing deadlines.~bx yO-  ԍxId. In the 198990 ROR Order we observed that the record showed that SWBT discovered its alleged errors  xin two accrual accounts before the September 30, 1991 filing deadline and yet did not amend its Form 492 until  xsix months after the filing date. SWBT offered no explanation of why it could not have made any corrections and  xtimely reported accurate information on its Form 492 by September 30, 1991, nor has it explained why it waited  yO-six months to file its amendments. Id.~  X4- ` x 10.` ` Based on the violations, we ordered SWBT to pay MCI $74,974 in damages, plus  xinterest, which we determined MCI incurred as a consequence of SWBT's unreasonable special  X- xaccess rates.`(  yO-ԍx198990 ROR Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 370304.` This damages amount represented our calculation of the difference between the  x<rates MCI paid for SWBT's interstate access service and the rates MCI would have paid if SWBT  X-had earned at the prescribed level.O  yOA#-ԍxId. at 366768, 370304.O We also determined that SWBT failed to establish that it "H ,((JJ"  X- xwas entitled to offsets against this damages amount.G yOy-ԍxId. at 370304. G On January 3, 1995, MCI filed a petition  X-for review of the 198990 ROR OrderyX yO-ԍxMCI Tel. Corp. v. FCC, No. 951005 (D.C. Cir. filed Jan. 3, 1995).y which was later resolved in the NYT Remand Order.  yO-  LԍxSee supra note 8 (noting that the NYT Remand Order consolidated and resolved several petitions for review, including No. 951005 relating to the Commission determination in File No. E93138).   X- ` x 11.` ` On January 23, 1995, SWBT filed a petition for reconsideration @ yO -  ԍxSee Section 208 Complaints Alleging Violations of the Commission's Rate of Return Prescription for the  yOv -19891990 Monitoring Period, 10 FCC Rcd 6976 (198990 Reconsideration Order). of the  X- x0Commission's findings in the 198990 ROR Order, requesting first that the Commission  xreconsider its decision to reject SWBT's adjustments to its Form 492 and, based on the amended  Xz- xForm 492, reverse the Commission's liability finding.q!z yO-ԍx198990 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 6978. q Secondly, SWBT contended that the  xCommission erroneously found that SWBT failed to provide sufficient evidence to offset MCI's  XL- x-damages claims.C"L(  yO%-ԍxId. at 6978.C Finally, SWBT requested that the Commission modify its damages calculation  X5- xNto reflect an allegedly more precise rate of return for the access services at issue.=#5  yO-ԍxId. = The  xCommission found that SWBT had submitted adequate evidence of offsets and concluded that  xjbecause of offsets, the net damages due to MCI from SWBT were zero. Given that finding, the  X - xCommission determined that the additional two issues raised by SWBT were moot.C$ H  yO-ԍxId. at 6980.C As  X - xLdiscussed more fully above, however, subsequent to the release of the Commission's 198990  X - x.Reconsideration Order, the court also remanded in part the 198990 ROR Order to permit the  X - xCommission to recalculate the damage awards in accordance with the court's decision in the MCI  X-Remand Order denying such offsets.I% yO#-ԍxSee supra para. 3.I  Xn- ` `x 12.` ` In MCI's Initial Letter, MCI advised the Commission that File No. E93138 was  XW- xpart of the review proceedings in the NYT Remand Order and remained open. MCI therefore  xrequested that the Commission recalculate damages awarded in E93138 according to the court's  X+- xremand.K&+h yOD%-ԍxMCI's Initial Letter at 1.K Responding to MCI's letter, SWBT stated that the Commission found that SWBT  X-owed nothing to MCI in the 198990 Reconsideration Order. SWBT argued that because MCI "&,((JJd"  X- xdid not seek review of the 198990 Reconsideration Order, the Commission's finding in that  X-order is final and cannot be reopened.L' yOd-ԍxSWBT's First Response at 1.L  X- ` x 13.` ` MCI then submitted another letter arguing that because it had sought judicial  X- x=review of the 198990 ROR Order on the issue of offsets, it did not need to seek review of the  X- x198990 Reconsideration Order on that same issue.N(XX yO-  ԍx Letter to Kurt Schroeder, Chief, Formal Complaints and Investigations Branch, Enforcement Division,  xCommon Carrier Bureau from Frank W. Krogh, Appellate Counsel, Regulatory Law, MCI Telecommunications Corporation (Nov. 8, 1996) ("MCI's Second Letter").N According to MCI, the NYT Remand Order  xrequires the Commission to recalculate damages for all remanded cases. The court did not  Xe- x0distinguish between cases seeking review of the 198990 ROR Order and the 198990  XP- xKReconsideration Order. In SWBT's Second Response, SWBT again maintains that because MCI  X;- xsought review of only the 198990 ROR Order, the Commission should not recalculate damages  X& - x/for File No. E93138.M)& x yOO-ԍxSWBT's Second Response at 1.M In addition, SWBT points out that in the 198990 Reconsideration  X - x>Order the Commission found it unnecessary to reach a conclusion on two issues raised by  xSWBT. SWBT contends that should the Commission recalculate damages for File No. E93138, it must address those two unresolved issues.  X - ` x 14.` ` We agree with MCI that the Commission is required by the NYT Remand Order  X- xto recalculate damages for all complaints included under the 198990 ROR Order. Because File  X- xkNo. E93138 was one of the matters decided by the 198990 ROR Order, we are required to  Xx- xrecalculate damages consistent with the court's decision in the MCI Remand Order, in which the  Xc- xcourt determined that we must remove the underearnings offsets.I*c yO-ԍxSee supra para. 3.I Accordingly, we have  x@recalculated MCI's claim against SWBT in File No. E93138 and have set forth those calculations as indicated in Appendix A.  X- ` x15.` ` We agree with SWBT, however, that the issues rendered moot by our  X- x determination to offset MCI's damages award in the 198990 Reconsideration Order have  X- xkeffectively been revived by the NYT Remand Order directing the Commission to recalculate damages by removing offsets. We address those issues here.  X- ` x16.` ` First, SWBT requested that the Commission reconsider its decision to reject  xSWBT's adjustments to its Form 492 and, based on the amended Form 492, reverse its liability  xfinding. According to SWBT, the Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau) permitted U S West to  XS- xmake adjustments to its Form 492 for the 198990 monitoring period+S yO&-  yԍxPetition for Permanent Price Cap Index Reduction, 10 FCC Rcd 630 (Com. Car. Bur. 1994) (PCI Order) recon.  yOd'-pending. nearly three years after"S +,((JJ"  X- xSWBT attempted to amend its Form 492 for the same monitoring period.m, yOy-ԍx198990 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 6978. m SWBT argues that  xthere is no justification for accepting U S West's adjustments while rejecting those requested by SWBT.  X- ` ~x17.` ` As the Commission has previously held, the final Form 492 filed by carriers is a  xj"conclusively binding determination of a carrier's earnings" for purpose of enforcing its rate of  Xv- xreturn prescription.-XvX yO -  ԍxMCI Telecommunication Corp. v. Pacific Northwest Bell telephone Co., 5 FCC Rcd 216, 225 (1990) (MCI  yOG - xLiability Order), recon. denied, 5 FCC Rcd 3463 (1990), appeal dismissed sub nom. Mountain States Tel. and Tel. Co.  yO -v. FCC, 951 F.2d 1259 (10th Cir. 1991) (per curiam). The Commission's rules clearly state that all adjustments to Forms 492 for  X_- xthe period January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1990 had to be made by September 30, 1991.U._x yO -ԍXx47 C.F.R.  65.600(d)(2).(#U As  XH- xwe previously explained in the 198990 ROR Order, SWBT failed to offer any reasons as to why  xit was unable to file what it considered to be an accurate Form 492 by the filing deadline despite  X - xdiscovering the alleged errors in its accrual accounts before the September 30, 1991 filing date.`/  yO-ԍx See supra note 26 and accompanying text.`  xzIn fact, SWBT did not file an amended form until six months after the filing deadline, a delay  xjfor which it has offered no explanation. We continue to find that SWBT has made no showing of extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a waiver of the Form 492 filing deadlines.  X - ` x18.` ` Moreover, SWBT's reliance on the decision involving US West is misplaced  xibecause the two situations are not analogous. Unlike SWBT, any amendments made by US West  xwill not be for the purpose of correcting internal miscalculations, as SWBT seeks to do. Instead,  xthe Bureau imposed the amendment requirement upon US West in an order involving US West's  xkrequest for authority to make a permanent reduction in its price cap indices (PCI) in order to  X6- xsettle certain overearnings complaints.T06 yO-ԍxPCI Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 630.T In that Order, the Bureau directed US West to account  xfor any effects of a reduction in its PCI as later adjustments to its FCC Form 492 earnings  X- xreports filed with the Commission for the 198990 monitoring period.B1(  yO-ԍxId. at 632.B Such direction was  xconsistent with the Commission requirement that LECs treat overearnings payments as  xadjustments to the period in which the overearnings occur, rather than to the period in which the  X- x=payment is made.:2  yO,$-ԍxId.: Thus, unlike the instant case, US West was not requesting an amendment  xto correct any internal miscalculations known to it before the Form 492 filing date, but instead was making a filing demanded by the Bureau in the context of settling various complaints. "~H 2,((JJn"Ԍ X- ` x19.` ` Second, SWBT claims that we should base the damages calculation for the special  xaccess category on a rate of return of 12.438129 percent rather than the rounded 12.44 percent  X- x.it reported on its Form 492.i3 yOK-ԍx198990 Reconsideration Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 6978.i SWBT claims that use of this unrounded number would produce  xa damages award of $71,477 rather than the $74,984 calculated by the Commission. Although  xSWBT itself chose to report 12.44 percent as its rate of return on Form 492, it urges now that this unrounded figure be substituted in order to reduce the damages for which it is liable.  X_- ` x20.` ` We find that the 12.44 percent rate of return reported by SWBT on its Form 492  xis the proper rate of return to utilize in calculating damages. The Commission has specifically  xdesignated the Form 492 monitoring reports to be a "final" and "conclusively binding  X - xLdetermination of a carriers' earnings."]4 X yO# -ԍxMCI Liability Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 225.] In calculating overearnings, the Commission has used  X - xzthe rate of return submitted to the Commission by the parties on the Form 492h5  yO-ԍxSee, e.g., 198990 ROR Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 3684.h and has not  xallowed adjustment to those figures or, as SWBT proposes, recalculations to produce numbers  X - x=at odds with those designated on those forms.6 x yO-  ]ԍxSee, e.g., Access Long Distance Corp. v. Mountain States Tel. and Tel. Co., 8 FCC Rcd 988, 994 (1993) (disallowing adjustments to the figures reported on the defendant's Form 492). Finally, in the MCI Remand Order, the Court  xdid not disturb the methodology we employed for calculating refunds other than barring the  X - xunderearnings offsets.N7  yO*-ԍxSee supra note 9.N We see no reason to handle SWBT's damages calculations any  xydifferently from those of the other parties and, accordingly, decline to revisit that methodology  x.here by allowing SWBT to employ a figure that differs from that which it chose to report as its  Xd-rate of return on Form 492.   X6-u  V. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES ă  X- ` Rx21.` ` Pacific's petition for reconsideration is granted to the extent indicated. The  xdamages calculations in File No. E89389 are corrected as set forth in Appendix A. In addition,  xthe complaint in File No. E93117 is dismissed with prejudice insofar as it relates to LDDS.  x.Further, the damages calculation for File No. E93138 is provided per MCI's request and is set forth in Appendix A.  X~- ` x22.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), and 208 that the  x>Petition for Reconsideration filed in these proceedings by Pacific Bell on January 3, 1997 IS GRANTED. "  ` 7,((JJ"  X- ` %x23.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), and 208 that the  x"damages calculations in those complaint proceedings identified in Appendix A ARE  xRECALCULATED to remove offsets for underearnings as described herein and as set forth in Appendix A.  Xv- ` %x24.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), and 208 that the  xMotion for Partial Dismissal filed by LDDS Communications in File No. E93117 IS GRANTED.  X - ` %x25.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), and 208 that LDDS'  xdamages claims in File No. E93117 ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and the proceeding IS TERMINATED insofar as it relates to LDDS. x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@William F. Caton  X-x` `  hh@Acting Secretary#Xj\  P6G; XP# " 7,((JJu"  X-#Xj\  P6G; XP#) APPENDIX A ă  X- PACIFIC TELESIS GROUP ă [amounts in dollars]  X_-Pacific Bell Telephone CompanyX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: