WPC, 2BJZCourier3|]x6X@KX@HP LaserJet 5Si PostScript rm 8409HPLA5SPO.PRSx  @$`MX@  2DT ZlL3|]  HP LaserJet 5Si PostScript rm 8409HPLA5SPO.PRSX\  P6G;$`MP"S^*8DSS888S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZ8*888888888888S.xJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxJxJoJoJoJoJxSfJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSxSxS8S8S888SA8xSf.f8f8f8f.xSxSxSxSxSxo8o8o8]A]A]A]Af8f8f8xSxSxSxSxxSfJfJN:*LS8JSSSSS.4}}S2S}2JJS88SS]]8J2t^^\\^^ee*C^.wR)Ewn\1fy\r\Sxx\r2Dvp?k05-29-97 10:24a  a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2FkLv\ta5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2 x   \ 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. ` `  (# 2F :   v a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2_xQQa8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 2N?a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   23a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: X 8B#XP\  PQXP#` (#DDRAFTă `0(#@D3 1, 4D  2'(@$)X$*c4%+c&DRAFT OFF@`6}Turn Draft Style off8 @:*78/R NE(D?@    HEADER A`6}Header A - Appearance8 A:*78/R NE)ABLETTER LAND`6}Letter Landscape - 11 x 8.5 B:*78/R NE* CD '3   LEGAL LAND`6}Legal Landscape - 14 x 8.5 C:*78/R NE+ EF 'A   2+,c,(-c).n*/X`+LETTER PORT`6}Letter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 D:*78/R NE, GH 3'   LEGAL PORT`6}Legal Portrait - 8.5 x 14 E:*78/R NE- IJ A'   TITLE F`6}Title of a Document8 F:*78/R NE.KL* ăFOOTER G`6}Footer A - Appearance8 G:*78/R NE/MN2-0+1ik,2d,3j8-BLOCK QUOTE`6}Small, single-spaced, indented:*78/R NE0OP HEADING 3I`6}3rd Heading Level78 I:*78/R NE1QR HIGHLIGHT 2`6}Large and Bold=(78 J:*78/R NE2ST HIGHLIGHT 3`6}Large, Italicized and Underscored:*78/R NE3 U V234-5IW0617<2LETTERHEAD`6}Letterhead - date/margins L:*78/R NE4!W X X  3'   * 3' Ѓ   INVOICE FEE`6}Fee Amount for Math Invoice M:*78/R NE5YZ X, $0  MEMORANDUM`6}Memo Page Format(78 N:*78/R NE6[\  * M E M O R A N D U M ă y<N dddy INVOICE EXP`6}Expense Subtotals for Math Invoice*78/R NE7]^ ,p, $0298<49[5:X9;[i9INVOICE TOT`6}Totals Invoice for Math MacroP:*78/R NE8_` p,p, $0INVOICE HEAD`6}Heading Portion of Math Invoice:*78/R NE9ab   p,X 9B#XP\  PQXP# XX #XP\  PQXP# XX  *$HHީ  ӧ   XX B#XP\  P QXP# XX #XP\  P QXP# XX  *$HHީNORMAL U`6}Return to Normal Typestyle U:*78/R NE:cdSMALL V`6}Small Typestyle=(78 V:*78/R NE;ef2b;<[9=[Q:>[:?[;FINER W`6}Fine Typestyle=(78 W:*78/R NE<ghLARGE X`6}Large Typestyle=(78 X:*78/R NE=ijEXTRA LARGE`6}Extra Large Typestyle8 Y:*78/R NE>klVERY LARGE`6}Very Large Typestyle8 Z:*78/R NE?mn2?@-;AX=BX>Cq>ENVELOPE [`6}Standard Business Envelope with Header78/R NE@op V,  X  , 8B#XP\  P QXP#  #XP\  P QXP#    `   MACNormal]`6} f6*=(78 ]:*78/R NEAqr2J/R ^`6}$ f6*=(78 ^:*78/R NEBstStyle 14 _`6}Swiss 8 Pt Without Margins _:*78/R NEC'u'v#Co> P QP##)a [ PQXP#2sODI?Er ?FsaMGNStyle 12 b`6}Dutch Italics 11.578 b:*78/R NED'w'x#)^ `> XiQXX##)a [ PQXP#Style 11 d`6}Initial Codes for Advanced IId:*78/R NEE yz#)a [ PQXP# dn  #  [ b, oT9 !#)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiQXX#`e%%Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   #)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiQXX#Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   #)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiQXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  #)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiQXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3 j`6}Dutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs*78/R NEF{|#)a [ PQXP# n  ## b, oT9 !Style 4 k`6}Swiss 8 Point with Margins k:*78/R NEGG}~#Co> PQP# dd  #  2QHOI4PJPKYQStyle 1 l`6}Dutch Roman 11.5 Font8 l:*78/R NEH7#)a [ P QXP# dn Style 2 m`6}Dutch Italic 11.578 m:*78/R NEI'#)^ `> Xi!QXX#Style 5 n`6}Dutch Bold 18 Point8 n:*78/R NEJ''#T~> p"Qp##)a [ P#QXP#Style 7 p`6}Swiss 11.5f6*=(78 p:*78/R NEK''#)ao> P$QXP##)a [ P%QXP#2{L1RM RN q`O nStyle 6 r`6}Dutch Roman 14 Point8 r:*78/R NEL''#w [ P&QP##)a [ P'QXP#Style 10 t`6}Initial Codes for Advanced t:*78/R NEMB #)a [ P(QXP# dn   #  [ b, oT9 !#)a [ P)QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ P*QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi+QXX#`Ue%'Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P,QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ P-QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi.QXX#Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide    #)a [ P/QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ P0QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi1QXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage   #)a [ P2QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ P3QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi4QXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8 y`6}Initial Codes for Beginning y:*78/R NENB #)a [ P5QXP# dn  ## b, oT9  [ #)a [ P6QXP# ## b, oT9 #)a [ P7QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi8QXX#`1e%&Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P9QXP# ## b, oT9 #)a [ P:QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi;QXX#Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P<QXP# ## b, oT9 #)a [ P=QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi>QXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  #)a [ P?QXP# ## b, oT9 #)a [ P@QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XiAQXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9 ~`6}Initial Codes for Intermediate:*78/R NEO@ #)a [ PBQXP# dn  ## b, oT9 Њ [ #)a [ PCQXP# ## b, oT9 #)a [ PDQXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XiEQXX#`ke%%Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ PFQXP# ## b, oT9 #)a [ PGQXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XiHQXX#Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ PIQXP# ## b, oT9 #)a [ PJQXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XiKQXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`e%APage  #)a [ PLQXP# ## b, oT9 #)a [ PMQXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XiNQXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2cP {Q~RtSpUpdate `6}Initial Codes for Update Module:*78/R NEPQ #)a [ POQXP# dn  ##  [ b, oT9 !#)a [ PPQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ PQQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiRQXX#`e%"Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   #)a [ PSQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ PTQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiUQXX#Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide    #)a [ PVQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ PWQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiXQXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  #)a [ PYQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ PZQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi[QXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Default Para`6}Default Paragraph Font8 :*78/R NEQOO#XP\  P\QXP##C\  P]QP#head1 `6}~ f6*=(78 :*78/R NER'#2^C #3J/R `6}Document Style=(78 :*78/R NES` ` ` 2cTqUeVekWЌ4J/R `6}Document Style=(78 :*78/R NET  . 5J/R `6}Document Style=(78 :*78/R NEU  6J/R `6}Document Style=(78 :*78/R NEV  7J/R `6}Document Style=(78 :*78/R NEW*   2ǏXpYZ[28J/R `6}Document Style=(78 :*78/R NEX` ` ` 9J/R `6}Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*78/R NEY8@   10/R `6}Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*78/R NEZA@` `  ` ` ` 11/R `6}Document Style=(78 :*78/R NE[0    2\]^J_12/R `6}Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*78/R NE\J` ` @  ` `  13/R `6}Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*78/R NE]S` `  @  14/R `6}Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*78/R NE^\` `  @hh# hhh 15/R `6}Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*78/R NE_e` `  hh#@( hh# 2ɕ`abcD16/R `6}Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*78/R NE`n` `  hh#(@- ( 17/R `6}Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*78/R NEaw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 18/R `6}Document Style=(78 :*78/R NEbF DD/  ׃  19/R `6}Technical Document Style :*78/R NEc&  . 2Edefg20/R `6}Technical Document Style :*78/R NEd&  . 21/R `6}Technical Document Style :*78/R NEe*    22/R `6}Technical Document Style :*78/R NEf'   23/R `6}Technical Document Style :*78/R NEg&   2hwi'jk}124/R `6}Technical Document Style :*78/R NEh4$     25/R `6}Technical Document Style :*78/R NEi&  . 26/R `6}Technical Document Style :*78/R NEj&  . 27/R `6}1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) :*78/R NEk$ 2Blmhno28/R `6}1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) :*78/R NEl/` ` ` 29/R `6}1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) :*78/R NEm:` ` `  30/R `6}1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) :*78/R NEnE` ` `  31/R `6}1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) :*78/R NEoP` ` ` hhh 2 ptq(rsZ32/R `6}1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) :*78/R NEp[ 33/R `6}1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) :*78/R NEqf 34/R `6}1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) :*78/R NErq toc 1 `6}toc 1 f6*=(78 :*78/R NEs4` hp x (#2tZ=uZvZwZKtoc 2 `6}toc 2 f6*=(78 :*78/R NEt4 ` hp x (#toc 3 `6}toc 3 f6*=(78 :*78/R NEu4 ` hp x (#toc 4 `6}toc 4 f6*=(78 :*78/R NEv4 <` hp x (#toc 5 `6}toc 5 f6*=(78 :*78/R NEw4<` hp x (#2xZ׫y1zZ{Z=toc 6 `6}toc 6 f6*=(78 :*78/R NEx4` hp x (#toc 7 `6}toc 7 f6*=(78 :*78/R NEy2(toc 8 `6}toc 8 f6*=(78 :*78/R NEz4` hp x (#toc 9 `6}toc 9 f6*=(78 :*78/R NE{4` hp x (#2׻|Zɳ}Z#~Z}׺index 1 `6}index 1 f6*=(78 :*78/R NE|4 ` hp x (#index 2 `6}index 2 f6*=(78 :*78/R NE}4 ` hp x (#toa/R `6}toa f6*=(78 :*78/R NE~` hp x (#caption `6}caption f6*=(78 :*78/R NEYO#XP\  P_QXP##C\  P`QP#2 q_Equation Ca`6}_Equation Caption78 :*78/R NEOO#XP\  PaQXP##C\  PbQP#endnote refe`6}endnote reference78 :*78/R NERR#XP\  PcQXP##C\  PdQP#footnote ref`6}footnote reference78 :*78/R NER#XP\  PeQXP#35/R `6}Document Style=(78 :*78/R NE  . 2eHep36/R `6}Document Style=(78 :*78/R NE  37/R `6}Document Style=(78 :*78/R NE  38/R `6}Document Style=(78 :*78/R NE*   39/R `6}Document Style=(78 :*78/R NE` ` ` 2Gt 40/R `6}Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*78/R NE8@   41/R `6}Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*78/R NEA@` `  ` ` ` 42/R `6}Document Style=(78 :*78/R NE0     43/R `6}Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*78/R NEJ` ` @  ` `  2B44/R `6}Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*78/R NES` `  @  45/R `6}Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*78/R NE\  ` `  @hh# hhh 46/R `6}Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*78/R NEe  ` `  hh#@( hh# 47/R `6}Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*78/R NEn ` `  hh#(@- ( 2 48/R `6}Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*78/R NEw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 49/R `6}Document Style=(78 :*78/R NEF DD/  ׃  50/R `6}Technical Document Style :*78/R NE&  . 51/R `6}Technical Document Style :*78/R NE&  . 27^52/R `6}Technical Document Style :*78/R NE*    53/R `6}Technical Document Style :*78/R NE'   54/R `6}Technical Document Style :*78/R NE&   55/R `6}Technical Document Style :*78/R NE4$     2xi}s56/R `6}Technical Document Style :*78/R NE&   . 57/R `6}Technical Document Style :*78/R NE&!"  . 58/R `6}1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) :*78/R NE$#$ 59/R `6}1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) :*78/R NE/%&` ` ` 28=60/R `6}1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) :*78/R NE:'(` ` `  61/R `6}1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) :*78/R NEE)*` ` `  62/R `6}1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) :*78/R NEP+,` ` ` hhh 63/R `6}1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) :*78/R NE[-. 2j)FF964/R `6}1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) :*78/R NEf/0 65/R `6}1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) :*78/R NEq12 66/R `6}Default Paragraph Font8 :*78/R NEw3w4#PfP##PgP#67/R `6}_Equation Caption78 :*78/R NEw5w6#PhP##PiP#23L68/R `6}endnote reference78 :*78/R NEz7z8#PjP##PkP#69/R `6}footnote reference78 :*78/R NEz9:#PlP#heading 4`6}heading 4f6*=(78 :*78/R NE2;(<heading 5`6}heading 5f6*=(78 :*78/R NE2=(>2-e{heading 6`6}heading 6f6*=(78 :*78/R NE2?(@heading 7`6}heading 7f6*=(78 :*78/R NE2A(Bheading 8`6}heading 8f6*=(78 :*78/R NE2C(Dendnote text`6}endnote text6*=(78 :*78/R NE2E(F2)_ZZkdfootnote tex`6}footnote text*=(78 :*78/R NE2G(Htoa heading`6}toa heading6*=(78 :*78/R NEIJ(#` hp x (#1, 2, 3, `6}Numbers f6*=(78 :*78/R NEKL1.A, B, `6}Uppercase Letters78 :*78/R NE MN.2C[pqme70/R `6}footnote text*=(78 :*78/R NEOP71/R `6}Document Style=(78 :*78/R NEQR` ` ` 72/R `6}Document Style=(78 :*78/R NES T . 73/R `6}Document Style=(78 :*78/R NE UV 2oeupm74/R `6}Document Style=(78 :*78/R NE WX 75/R `6}Document Style=(78 :*78/R NE*YZ   76/R `6}Document Style=(78 :*78/R NE[\` ` ` 77/R `6}Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*78/R NE8]^@   2"<u78/R `6}Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*78/R NEA_`@` `  ` ` ` 79/R `6}Document Style=(78 :*78/R NE0a b    80/R `6}Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*78/R NEJcd` ` @  ` `  81/R `6}Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*78/R NESef` `  @  2bT 82/R `6}Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*78/R NE\gh` `  @hh# hhh 83/R `6}Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*78/R NEeij` `  hh#@( hh# 84/R `6}Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*78/R NEnkl` `  hh#(@- ( 85/R `6}Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*78/R NEwmn` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2NX86/R `6}Document Style=(78 :*78/R NEFop DD/  ׃  87/R `6}Technical Document Style :*78/R NE&qr  . 88/R `6}Technical Document Style :*78/R NE&st  . 89/R `6}Technical Document Style :*78/R NE*uv    2&O90/R `6}Technical Document Style :*78/R NE'wx   91/R `6}Technical Document Style :*78/R NE&yz   92/R `6}Technical Document Style :*78/R NE4{$|     93/R `6}Technical Document Style :*78/R NE&}~  . 2};@94/R `6}Technical Document Style :*78/R NE&  . 95/R `6}1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) :*78/R NE$ 96/R `6}1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) :*78/R NE/` ` ` 97/R `6}1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) :*78/R NE:` ` `  2L98/R `6}1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) :*78/R NEE` ` `  99/R `6}1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) :*78/R NEP` ` ` hhh 100/R `6}1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) :*78/R NE[ 101/R `6}1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) :*78/R NEf 2oa1102NE+7J/RRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers60=(7k:*788@   a2102NE+7J/RRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers60=(7k:*78A@` `  ` ` ` a3102NE+7J/RRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers60=(7k:*78J` ` @  ` `  a4102NE+7J/RRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers60=(7k:*78S` `  @  2Wa5102NE+7J/RRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers60=(7k:*78\` `  @hh# hhh a6102NE+7J/RRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers60=(7k:*78e` `  hh#@( hh# a7102NE+7J/RRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers60=(7k:*78n` `  hh#(@- ( a8102NE+7J/RRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers60=(7k:*78w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2}^ya1Paragraph+7J/R1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)6*=(78 l:*78$ a2Paragraph+7J/R1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)6*=(78 l:*78/` ` ` a3Paragraph+7J/R1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)6*=(78 l:*78:` ` `  a4Paragraph+7J/R1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)6*=(78 l:*78E` ` `  2/Iea5Paragraph+7J/R1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)6*=(78 l:*78P` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph+7J/R1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)6*=(78 l:*78[ a7Paragraph+7J/R1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)6*=(78 l:*78f a8Paragraph+7J/R1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)6*=(78 l:*78q 2va FF0a7Paragra102_>/E`6W_1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)E:*#8_>/ENEq 103_>/E`6W_Default Paragraph Font/E:*#8_>/ENEww#PSP##PTP#104_>/E `6W__Equation Caption#/E :*#8_>/ENEww#PUP##PVP#2 Lph 105_>/E `6W_endnote reference#/E :*#8_>/ENEzz#PWP##PXP#106_>/E `6W_footnote reference#/E :*#8_>/ENEz#PYP#107_>/E `6W_footnote text*=(#/E :*#8_>/ENE108_>/E `6W_Document Style=(#/E :*#8_>/ENE` ` ` 2 q e{ e E 109_>/E`6W_Document Style=(#/E:*#8_>/ENE  . 110_>/E`6W_Document Style=(#/E:*#8_>/ENE  111_>/E`6W_Document Style=(#/E:*#8_>/ENE  112_>/E`6W_Document Style=(#/E:*#8_>/ENE*   2<p z   113_>/E`6W_Document Style=(#/E:*#8_>/ENE` ` ` 114_>/E`6W_Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*#8_>/ENE8@   115_>/E`6W_Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*#8_>/ENEA@` `  ` ` ` 116_>/E`6W_Document Style=(#/E:*#8_>/ENE0     24nu117_>/E`6W_Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*#8_>/ENEJ` ` @  ` `  118_>/E`6W_Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*#8_>/ENES` `  @  119_>/E`6W_Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*#8_>/ENE\` `  @hh# hhh 120_>/E`6W_Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*#8_>/ENEe` `  hh#@( hh# 2>f.121_>/E`6W_Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*#8_>/ENEn` `  hh#(@- ( 122_>/E`6W_Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:*#8_>/ENEw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 123_>/E`6W_Document Style=(#/E:*#8_>/ENEF D*  ׃  124_>/E`6W_Technical Document Style/E:*#8_>/ENE&  . 2p&125_>/E`6W_Technical Document Style/E:*#8_>/ENE&  . 126_>/E`6W_Technical Document Style/E:*#8_>/ENE*    127_>/E `6W_Technical Document Style/E :*#8_>/ENE'   128_>/E!`6W_Technical Document Style/E!:*#8_>/ENE&   2!L129_>/E"`6W_Technical Document Style/E":*#8_>/ENE4$     130_>/E#`6W_Technical Document Style/E#:*#8_>/ENE&  . 131_>/E$`6W_Technical Document Style/E$:*#8_>/ENE&  . "S^*8]SS888S_*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo8.8aS8S]J]J8S].8].]S]]JA8]SxSSJB%BW8*888888888888].xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxJxJxJxJx]oJoJoJoJSSSSS]]A]A]A8A]S8]o.o8o8o8o.x]x]x]SSxxJxJxJ]A]A]A]Ao8o8o8x]x]x]x]xxSoJoJN:*ZS8SSSSSS27}}S2}}S}2.SSS88SS]]8S2t__\\__ee*C_.wR)Ewn\1fy\r\]xx\r2@"8$L\LLTimes RomanTimes Roman BoldTimes Roman ItalicCourier"S^2CRddCCCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`lC2CC!CCCCCCCCCCd8YYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddodYYYYYYdzYzYzYzYdddddddCdCdCCCdNCdz8zCzCzCz8dddddCCCoNoNoNoNzCzCzCdddddzYzYNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<$YYdCCddooCYd<d<+oodCCddddCo1  {O-ԍSee NARUC I, 525 F.2d at 641642.^ because it does not serve indifferently the class of private or public agencies that comprises its clientele. As noted, the universe of private and public agencies is divided into three subcategories, each of which is treated differently for eligibility purposes. Only a select group of private or public agencies were designated as "authorized" as of May 18, 1994. This group apparently did not need to certify to ICN that it wished to use the network. A second group, comprised of remaining private or public agencies that were not deemed "authorized" in the first group, were required to make the appropriate filing and certify to ITTC by July 1, 1994 that they intended to use the network. Those private and public agencies that failed to certify to ITTC by July 1, 1994 to be "authorized" could only  Xb-use the network by thereafter petitioning the state legislature.?b  yO-ԍ#X\  P6G;2P#Iowa Code  8D.9, and Iowa Admin. Code  7517.1(8D). There are further distinctions even within these subcategories. By law, for example, ICN serves only federal post offices  X4-that have federal grants for demonstration projects, but not other federal post offices.E@4 yO"-ԍIowa Code  8D.9.E Moreover, ICN treats its "certified users" differently from its "authorized" users, in that its "certified users," unlike ICN's other users, are bound by an exclusive statutory arrangement, in which they must purchase all their telecommunications services from ICN, and must specifically petition the ITTC in order to be released from taking some of their services from" @0*''PP"  X-ICN.JA$ {Oy- jԍSee Iowa Code  8D.9(2). Further, the certified user that petitions the ITTC for a waiver of the requirement   Yto use ICN for all its telecommunications needs must also go through a limited discovery period and a hearing before  {O -  ,the ITTC. See Iowa Admin. Law Code  7519.49.6(8D). The ITTC's decision constitutes "final agency action" that, if appealed, is resolved through alternative dispute resolution. Iowa Admin. Law Code  7519.6(2)(8D). J These requirements clearly indicate that ICN differentiates among various private and public agencies in the state. For all intents and purposes, ICN appears to be a private carrier, because it is under no regulatory compulsion to serve indifferently, and in fact, is under compulsion by state law to discriminate and serve only a highly restricted, individualized  X-group of users.fBZ {O - ԍNARUC II, 533 F.2d at 1481 (noting that factors supporting a finding that a carrier is a private carrier   include, among other things, there being "no specific regulatory compulsion to serve all indifferently," and the carrier choosing its clients on an individual basis).f  Xv-24. ` ` We reject ITTC's argument reciting the D.C. Circuit's holding that "a specialized carrier whose service is of possible use to only a fraction of the population may nonetheless be a common carrier, if he holds himself out to serve indifferently all potential  X1-users."[C1 {O-ԍNARUC II, 533 F.2d at 608609.[ As noted, ICN does not hold itself out at all to any group whatsover. At best, the  X -only remaining category of "potential users" consists of public and private agencies not previously authorized (either directly by Iowa statute or by the certification process that terminated on July 1, 1994). ICN does not, however, hold itself out to serve these potential users and must, in fact, deny service requests from them, absent an act of the legislature. More broadly, ICN clearly fails to hold itself out indifferently to furnish its services to many  X -other individuals or entities that could potentially use these services,sD h  {O-ԍSee Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. FCC, 19 F.3d at 1480.s that is, to those that are  X-not private or public agencies. We find unpersuasive ITTC's argument in a written ex parte that ICN's distance learning services are so specialized as to be potentially useful to only  Xf-those agencies to whom ICN offers service.Ef  {O- ԍSee Letter from J.G. Harrington, ITTC, to Magalie Roman Salas, FCC, dated May 7, 1998 (ICN May ex  {O-parte) at 3. Elsewhere, ICN concedes that its distance  XO-learning services are "pure transmission services,"FOV  {OV - >ԍ ICN describes the distance learning and telemedicine services as "pure transmission services."  ICN reply comments at 7. which undermines its assertion that the services are so specialized as to be of use to only its authorized users. Businesses, individuals, and other associations not falling within ICN's select group of authorized users could use ICN's distance learning and telecommunications services, yet they are denied access to those services. We conclude that ICN fails to show how it serves indifferently all users that could potentially use its services." F0*''PP"Ԍ X-ԙ25.` ` We also find no merit in ITTC's contention that there have previously been instances in which the Commission recognized service to limited groups as common carriage. ITTC cites, for instance, telephone companies' provision of "common carrier channel service"  X-to franchised cable operators.GZ {O4- ԍICN April 9 ex parte case list at 2 (arguing that the FCC "authorized telephone companies to acquire cable   Yfacilites for the limited purpose of providing common carrier channel service to a limited class of users franchised cable operators via those facilites subject to section 214 certification"). In the channel service cases, local telephone companies were allowed to build out video distribution facilities and services to provide channel service,  X-which links "a cable operator's headend to subscriber premises."H yO( - ԍIn the Matter of Telephone CompanyCable Television CrossOwnership Rules, Sections 63.5463.58, CC  {O -  Docket No. 87266, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration and Third Further Notice of Proposed  {O -  Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 244, 247 (1994). See, e.g., In re the Application, the Ohio Bell Telephone Company, DA  {O -  86220, Memorandum Opinion, Order and Certificate, 1 FCC Rcd 942 (1986) (emphasis added). Sections 63.54  63.55 of the Commission's rules existed to "generally prohibit telephone common carriers from directly, or indirectly,   wconstructing cable television facilities and providing video programming to subscribers within their telephone service   areas," but the rules did not "prohibit telephone companies from constructing facilities to provide channel distribution  {O-  service for use by others in their telephone service areas." Id. at 944. Sections 63.54 and 63.55 no longer exist   because the Telecommunications Act of 1996 repealed the prohibition against telephone common carriers owning   and operating cable television systems. In the Matter of Telephone CompanyCable Television CrossOwnership  {O-Rules, Sections 63.54-63.58, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 14639, 14683 (1996). The Commission required  Xv-the carriers to provide the channel service on "an indiscriminate basis . . . to any and all  Xa-similarlysituated companies or members of the public."IaT  {Of- ԍNorthwestern Indiana Telephone Co., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 872 F.2d 465, 468 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (emphasis added). A programmer, however, that wished to deliver video and cable services to subscribers via the channel service, had to obtain a Title VI cable franchise, as required of all cable operators providing cable service  X -over a cable system.J^  {O{- ԍIn the Matter of Entertainment Connections, Inc., Motion for Declaratory Ruling, Memorandum Opinion  {OE-  and Order, FCC 98111, 1998 WL 344168, at para. 11 (rel. June 30, 1998); citing National Cable Television  {O-Association, Inc., v. Federal Communications Commission, 33 F.3d 66, 7174 (D.C. Cir. 1994). The channel service cases are distinguishable from ICN's case because the Commission did not restrict the class of users that could receive the underlying channel service, and in fact, required carriers offering the channel service to provide it on an  X -"indiscriminate basis." Thus, although the Commission required entities that received the  X -channel service and provided the cable services that channel service supports to obtain a cable  X -franchise, the carrier offering the underlying channel service could not discriminate among potential users. In contrast, in ICN's case, state law clearly requires ICN's services to be  X-provided on a discriminatory basis, and restricts the group of customers for the services.KZ yO$- =ԍWe also reject ITTC's attempts to analogize its case to other examples even more tenuous than the channel  {O$-  service cases. See ICN April 9 ex parte case list. For example, ITTC erroneously compares its case to Commission   cases that allow common carriers to limit the scope of their services. As we noted above, we find that ICN is not"%J0*''%"   a common carrier not because it limits its scope of services, but because it serves a restricted class of customers.   Further, ITTC incorrectly compares ICN to Comsat and Amtrak, carriers that have been charged by federal statute  {O -  to be common carriers. See 47 U.S.C.  70102, 49 U.S.C. 24301(a)(1). ICN, in contrast to these carriers, was   never deemed to be a common carrier by Iowa statute. Moreover, ITTC incorrectly analogizes its case to a   Commission grant of a Section 214 application for a satellite station to operate on common carrier frequencies even  {Oz-  though the company was serving only one affiliated cable system. See In re Application of Tower Communication  XD-  YSystems Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 59 FCC 2d 130 (1976).#Xj\  P6G;cXP# #X\  P6G;2P# In granting the license in this case,   the Commission noted, however, that the company had filed a request to construct and operate two additional   <channels to provide service to a nonaffiliated customer and thus, that the company would be providing services  {O-indifferently to other entities that wished to use the service. See id.  " K0*''PPi"Ԍ X-ԙ26.` ` ITTC's reliance on the IUB's comments asserting that ICN is a common carrier  X-is misplaced.L"  {O! - >ԍSee ICN reply comments at 5. The IUB notes that ICN is a common carrier because it provides services   yto all authorized end users and that ICN is "significantly different from other state networks that buy or lease   facilities from underlying carriers and can thus obtain discounts on behalf of their ultimate school, library, and health provider customers." IUB comments at 2. The IUB's support of ICN's position that it is a "common carrier" is not  X-controlling or legally dispositive.rMZq  {O- ԍSee also Letter from Keith Townsend, USTA, to Magalie Roman Salas, FCC, dated August 31, 1998, at   ;3 (stating that "there is no indication in the record of this proceeding that the Board even has jurisdiction over ICN . . . . The Commission clearly is not bound by [IUB's comments]").r As the D.C. Circuit stated in NARUC I, the "common law definition of common carrier is sufficiently definite as not to admit of agency discretion in the classification of operating communications entities. . . . [an entity] is a common carrier by  X-virtue of its functions, rather than because it is declared to be so."wN {O-ԍ#X\  P6G;2P#NARUC I, 525 F.2d at 644.w Moreover, IUB's assertion that ICN is a common carrier because it provides services on its network and does not simply buy or lease facilities from underlying carriers is irrelevant to the determination of common carrier status. As case law states, a "common carrier is one which undertakes  X3-indifferently to provide communications service to the public for hire, regardless of the actual  X -ownership or operation of the facilities involved."xO % {O-ԍSee AT&T v. FCC, 572 F.2d 17, 24 (2d Cir. 1978) (emphasis added).x  X -27.` ` Finally, ITTC contends that the public interest would be harmed by an unfavorable ruling to ICN because there would be: (1) inequitable treatment between Iowa's schools and libraries and other states' schools and libraries; and (2) inequitable treatment among ICN's own schools and libraries since some of ICN's services are provided over its own facilities (and not eligible for direct reimbursement) and other ICN services are provided  X-over resold facilities (and potentially discounted from other common carriers).wP {O$-ԍSee ITTC May 7 ex parte at 5 and ITTC reply comments at 3.w We reject ITTC's argument that the public interest compels a conclusion that ICN is eligible to receive"hIP0*''PPh" direct reimbursement from universal service support mechanisms under section 254(h)(1) of  X-the Act.Q" {Ob- ԍSee IUB comments at 2; ICN petition at 5; ICN reply comments at 24. Further, NTCA notes that because   JICN is subsidized by the state, its low rates provide ICN with a competitive advantage and therefore are inconsistent   with the Commission's goals of competitive neutrality and competitive bidding under Section 254. NTCA comments at 9.  The Act explicitly provides that only "telecommunications carriers" are eligible for direct reimbursement pursuant to section 254(h)(1)(B) and for universal service support pursuant to section 254(h)(1)(A). Congress did not give the Commission discretion to allow noncommon carriers to receive direct reimbursement or universal service support pursuant to section 254(h)(1). Iowa's schools and libraries, therefore, are treated no differently from other states' schools and libraries, in that the Act provides for direct reimbursement of discounted telecommunications services under section 254(h)(1) to eligible common carriers. Although the efforts of Iowa and other states that have established state telecommunications networks to ensure affordable telecommunications services for schools and libraries are laudable, Congress did not create the federal universal service support mechanism for schools  X -and libraries specifically in order to support or supplement these state networks, and in fact, state programs such as Iowa's are incompatible with the federal program. We note, however, that under the Commission's rules, ICN may receive direct reimbursement for the provision of the nontelecommunications services of Internet and internal connections to schools and libraries, and that ICN may act as a consortium in purchasing and passing along discounted  X-telecommunications services to the schools and libraries that it serves.R {O- PԍSee Fourth Reconsideration Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 542325; 47 U.S.C.  254(h)(2); 47 C.F.R.  yO-54.501(d)(3).  Xy-  Xb-28.` ` Moreover, ICN's schools and libraries currently receive low rates, which are  XK-subsidized by funding to ICN from the General Assembly of Iowa.SK  {O- ԍSee ICN webpage, Frequently Asked Questions about the ICN and Internet, at http://www.icn.state.ia.us/ICN/HTML/FAQs.htm. For example, we note that ICN's schools and libraries are charged only $5.00 per hour for video rates, even though  X-the cost of that service is represented to be approximately $75.00.TTf  {O4-ԍSee GTE reply comments at 6. T Therefore, we find that there is nothing in the record to indicate that an unfavorable ruling to ICN would create unaffordable telecommunications services or inequitable conditions for Iowa's and ICN's schools and libraries. ICN itself has noted that the competitive bidding process required by the Commission's rules will ensure that its schools and libraries take their services from the  X-most competitive providers.LU  yOS$-ԍICN reply comments at 4. L Finally, we note that our ruling on this issue is consistent with the Commission's commitment to maintaining a support mechanism that is no larger than  X|-necessary to accomplish Congress' goal in enacting section 254(h)(1)(B) of the Act. "| U0*''PP2"Ԍ X-ԙ29.` ` Based on the above analysis, we find that ICN does not meet the test of common carriage and, therefore, is not a "telecommunications carrier." Specifically, ICN does not hold itself out at all, let alone offer its services indifferently to its potential users or  X-the clientele it is suited to serve.V {O4-ԍ#X\  P6G;2P#See NARUC I, 525 F.2d at 64142.#X\  P6G;2P# Our conclusion is supported by the fact that ICN: (1) serves a limited and stable group of entities; (2) does not serve additional entities that may seek to obtain service, absent specific legislative authorization; and (3) treats its customers differently. Because we find that ICN fails an essential element of common carriage and is not acting as a "telecommunications carrier," we need not consider ITTC's additional arguments that ICN offers services on generally available terms and conditions and serves a large number of customers. We do note that the D.C. Circuit has specifically found that even a tariff filing with the Commission was not dispositive of whether a service was a common carrier offering, and thus ITTC's contention that it offers services on generally  X -available terms and conditions is not probative of its common carrier status.WZ Z {O- jԍSee Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. FCC, 19 F.3d at 1483 (holding that "the Commission shortcircuited   any analysis of whether petitioners held themselves out indifferently to all potential users of dark fiber," by relying  yO-on an "insupportable per se rule" that a tariff filing with the Commission constitutes a common carrier offering.)  Moreover,  X -ITTC's assertion regarding the size of ICN's customer base is irrelevant.DX | {O- ԍSee RIITA comments at 4; USTA reply at 2. Contrary to ICN's assertions that the Commission previously   irelied on the size of the customer base to conclude Norlight was a private carrier, the Commission actually noted   that Norlight's proposed fiber optic network operation would constitute private carriage because the record did not   show that Norlight would hold its services out indiscriminately to the user public; and instead showed that Norlight  {O$-  would screen potential customers before allowing them to use the network. See In the Matter of Norlight,  {O-Declaratory Ruling, 2 FCC Rcd 132, 135, recon. denied, 2 FCC Rcd 5167 (1987).D Finally, because ICN has failed to satisfy the first element of common carriage, we need not consider whether ICN meets the second element of the test of common carriage, of allowing its "customers to  X-transmit intelligence of their own design and choosing."uYZ  {O;- ԍSee Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. FCC, 19 F.3d at 14801483 (finding that the Commission had not   ,adequately met the first part of the test and remanding orders to the Commission for consideration of whether dark fiber offering had been made "indifferently to all potential users").u  Xb-2 V. CONCLUSION ĐlU  X4-30.` ` We conclude that ICN is not a "telecommunications carrier" under Section  X-254(h) because ICN does not offer telecommunications on a common carrier basis.yZ {O"-ԍSee Fourth Reconsideration Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 5427. y We find, therefore, that ICN is not eligible for direct reimbursement from universal service support mechanisms for the provision of discounted telecommunications services to schools and libraries under section 254(h)(1)(B)(ii), nor is it eligible to receive a credit against its"Z0*''PP" contribution obligation for the provision of telecommunications services to rural health care  X-providers under section 254(h)(1)(A).[ {Ob-ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  1.2; 47 U.S.C.  254(h)(1)(A) and 254(h)(1)(B).  X-F VI. ORDERING CLAUSE ĐlU  X-31.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), (j), 254, and 403 of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), (j), 254, and 403, and section 1.2 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.2, that the relief sought in the Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed by the Iowa Telecommunications and Technology Commission, is DENIED. ` `  hh,VFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh,V ` `  hh,VMagalie Roman Salas ` `  hh,VSecretary "4Z[0*''PP"  X-  X-  "DISSENTING STATEMENT OF  X-q COMMISSIONER HAROLD FURCHTGOTTROTH  X-lU  Vv- Re:XDeclaratory Ruling Regarding the Iowa Communications Network in FederalState  V_-Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket 9645. (# I dissent from today's decision finding that the Iowa Communications Network is ineligible for receiving direct universal service support for the provision of discounted telecommunications services to schools, libraries, and rural health care providers under sections 254(h)(1)(A) and (B). I cannot support such a strict interpretation of our rules that disadvantages statebased networks while the Commission continues to allow noncarriers, such as large computer companies, to receive money for providing other services under Section 254. I believe that such state telecommunications networks are closer to the kinds of eligible receivers that Congress had envisioned than many of the numerous beneficiaries of the fund today. The history of the Commission's interpretation of Section 254 is not a happy one. For almost two years, the Commission has established programs and promulgated rules under the guise of Section 254. But these programs and rules, while perhaps engendered with noble intent, have not met the exacting requirements of Section 254. Indeed, many of these programs and rules are clearly outside of Section 254, and clearly outside of Commission authority. I have noted just a few of these many peculiar circumstances in several statements  X-over the past year.0\  X:- ԍ#Xw PE37cXP#See Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Harold FurchtgottRoth Regarding Federal  X%-  State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket 9645, Third Order on Reconsideration, 12  X-  FCC Rcd 22801 (1997); Statement of Commissioner Harold FurchtgottRoth Regarding the   Second Quarter 1998 Universal Service Contribution Factors, rel. March 20, 1998; Dissenting   Statement of Commissioner Harold FurchtgottRoth Regarding the FederalState Joint Board   Report to Congress, rel. April 10, 1998; Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Harold   0FurchtgottRoth Regarding the Report to Congress in Response to Senate Bill 1768 and   1Conference Report on H.R. 3579, rel. May 8,1998; Statement of Commissioner Harold   FurchtgottRoth Regarding the Common Carrier Bureau's Proposed Revisions of 1998 Collection   ^Amounts For Schools and Libraries and Rural Health Care Universal Service Support   jMechanisms, rel. May 13, 1998; Statement of Commissioner Harold FurchtgottRoth Regarding   the Common Carrier Bureau's Clarification of "Services" Eligible for Discounts to Schools and   LLibraries, rel. June 11, 1998; Statement of Commissioner Harold FurchtgottRoth Regarding the   Common Carrier Bureau's Third Quarter 1998 Universal Service Contribution Factors, rel. June  X%-  12, 1998; Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Harold FurchtgottRoth Regarding Federal State"%[0*''%"  X-  ZJoint Board on Universal Service,  Fifth Order on Reconsideration and Fourth Report and Order  X{-Regarding the FederalState Joint Board on Universal Service, rel. June 17, 1998.#Xw PE37cXP#0"f\0*''PP"ԌMany parties come before the Commission with disputes about how best to interpret for specific circumstances Commission rules under Section 254. Iowa has presented the Commission with an issue that, at least on the surface, seems have substantial merit: that it would be inequitable to disallow Iowa's schools and libraries from receiving universal service support for telecommunications services just because those services are being provided by a state telecommunications network.  Xv- The majority's responds that "The Act explicitly provides that only 'telecommunications carriers' are eligible for direct reimbursement pursuant to 254(h)(1)(B)  X1-and for universal service support pursuant to section 254(h)(1)(A)."]1f XH -ԍ#Xw PE37cXP#Declaratory Ruling at par. 27.#x6X@`7X@#ѝ Usually I would applaud such a straightforward reading of the statute's requirements. But these are the same requirements that have been ignored by this Commission on repeated occasions. For example, the Commission acknowledges that Section 254(e)'s requirement that only "eligible telecommunications carriers" receive universal service support applies to  X -Section 254(h) generally.^  Xo-ԍ#Xw PE37cXP#Declaratory Ruling at par. 5.#x6X@`7X@#ќ Indeed, it limits the recipients of support for providing telecommunications service to rural health care providers under section 254(h)(1)(A) to those eligible carriers under 254(e). But then that provision should also apply to the other provisions of 254(h), at least unless specifically excepted. Thus, Section 254(h)(1)(B), which expressly permits recipients to be "telecommunications carriers," is more specific than 254(e) and could take precedence. But the provisions of section 254(e) which require that only eligible telecommunications carriers be able to receive federal universal service support apply fully to section 254(h)(2). Thus, the requirements for being able to receive funds in conjunction with section 254(h)(2) are actually stricter a recipient would have to be designated an eligible telecommunications carrier. But the Commission has ignored this restriction. As one can see, to form an opinion about this issue, one must suspend disbelief in the legality of the underlying programs and rules. That is, how does one best interpret a statute for a particular circumstance under a rule that appears to be inconsistent with the statute? If I were able to suspend disbelief, I would applaud the strict statutory construction: only telecommunications carriers, which must be common carriers, appear to be eligible to receive discounts under Section 254(h)(1)(B). The unfortunate result under this program, however, is that states that had been more forwardlooking than most and that had invested substantial" ^0*''PP=" resources into developing education networks are disadvantaged. And, more importantly, it is only now in this circumstance that we are applying the actual requirements of Section 254. I, for one, believe that these state educational networks, are closer to being eligible telecommunications carriers than many of those receiving universal service support today.  X-Moreover, they are at least as close as the computer companies that are receiving support. Thus, I do not agree with the majority that "state programs such as Iowa's are incompatible  X_-with the federal program."__ X-ԍ#Xw PE37cXP#Declaratory Ruling at par. 27.#x6X@`7X@#ѝ Indeed, I find it ironic that it is only now that some advocate a strict interpretation of Section 254. Finally, I note that several Congressional leaders have called on the FCC to reconsider its universal service programs and to start anew in a manner consistent with Section 254. Any such renewed effort on universals should consider block grants to States and thereby allow State rather than federal officials, to make final determinations about the assignment of universal service funds. Such a system would remove FCC Commissioners from having to repeat the awkward process not only of assigning funds among many competing private companies but of resolving disputes in those assignments brought by State governments and  Xy-their agencies. Such a system would also allow states to provide support to the forwardlooking educational efforts that they have put in place.  ?4<#x6X@`7X@#