WPC  2HBVX@Z3|P (TT)7PC2X DXP\  P6QXP"5@^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddHP LaserJet 5P/5MPM812HPLAS5P.WRSXw PE37,,, 7bXP2. z Z@3|PHP LaserJet 5P/5MPcriptHPLAS5P.WRSC\  P6Q,,, 7bP"5@^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777CE7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSf.fExSxSxSxo7oE]A]AN:*LS7JSSSSS.4}}S2S}277JJS77SS7J72t7[[[[^ee*C`^.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7.S^7SC[227`L*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSS2`@@: nz I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)"5@^*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BW*7777CE7S]xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxJxJxJoJoJoJSSSS]]C]A]A7A]S]o.oEx]x]SxxJxJ]A]AN:*ZS7SSSSSS27}}S2}}S}277SSS77SS7S72t7[[[[_ee*C`_.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BW7SSSS7]777SS:S7A7xx*7SSSS%S7}2S_7}SC[227`Z*727S}}}SxxxxxxxooooAAAAxx_xxxxxf]SSSSSSxJJJJJ....S]SSSSS[S]]]]S]"5@^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddBibliogrphy@6LBibliographyH =(&88 *&O3 8.E 2NTech Init@6LInitialize Technical Style8 *&O3 8.E 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1Technical+&*O3Technical Document Style5wH =(&88 *&4!     a2Technical+&*O3Technical Document Style5wH =(&88 *&*    a3Technical+&*O3Technical Document Style5wH =(&88 *&'     28. a4Technical+&*O3Technical Document Style5wH =(&88 *&&     a5Technical+&*O3Technical Document Style5wH =(&88 *&&   . a6Technical+&*O3Technical Document Style5wH =(&88 *&&  . a7Technical+&*O3Technical Document Style5wH =(&88 *& &  . 24 j   a8Technical+&*O3Technical Document Style5wH =(&88 *& &  . Doc Init8@6LInitialize Document Style8 *&O3 8.E     I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentҲa1DocumentE+&*O3Document Style'5wH =(&88 $*& F *  ׃  a2DocumentE+&*O3Document Style'5wH =(&88 $*& *    26fqelea3DocumentE+&*O3Document Style'5wH =(&88 $*&0     a4DocumentE+&*O3Document Style'5wH =(&88 $*& . a5DocumentE+&*O3Document Style'5wH =(&88 $*&   a6DocumentE+&*O3Document Style'5wH =(&88 $*& !" 2 php[Hea7DocumentE+&*O3Document Style'5wH =(&88 $*&#$` ` ` a8DocumentE+&*O3Document Style'5wH =(&88 $*&%&` ` ` Pleading8%@6LHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper*&O3 8.E'(   ,#c P7P##c P7P# X  y*dddyy*dddy H\1 H\2 H\3 H\4 H\5 H\6 H\7 H\8 H\9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   Heading 2)@6LUnderlined Heading Flush Left)*&O3 8.E)* 2J"p: s !!Heading 1*@6LCentered Heading(&88 **&O3 8.E+,* à  Bullet List@6LIndented Bullet List88 +*&O3 8.E-.` ` ` a1Right Par+&*O3Right-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH=(&`*&8/0@   a2Right Par+&*O3Right-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH=(&`*&A12@` `  ` ` ` 2B%|" ##$a3Right Par+&*O3Right-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH=(&`*&J34` ` @  ` `  a4Right Par+&*O3Right-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH=(&`*&S56` `  @  a5Right Par+&*O3Right-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH=(&`*&\78` `  @hh# hhh a6Right Par+&*O3Right-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH=(&`*&e9:` `  hh#@( hh# 2_(t%<&  '!'a7Right Par+&*O3Right-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH=(&`*&n;<` `  hh#(@- ( a8Right Par+&*O3Right-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH=(&`*&w=>` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp HeadingChapter Heading J d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers!>a݅@  I.   X(# 2*"(#^')$d)%)SubheadingSubheading"0\ E A.  FOOTNOTEFootnote - Appearance#PHIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd$+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date% X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟ2.&0+'X+(1 ,)1Q-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;   21*1.+1/,n1-X1LETTER 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 Document,K\ * ăFOOTERFooter A - Appearanced-23.2/i20d21j\3BLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indented.N X HEADING 33rd Heading Level/| XHIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold Large0B*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored1 V -q29233E64-\7588LETTERHEADLetterhead - date/margins2u 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 Invoice3 ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page Format4D.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice5:A ,p, $0$002=6897+;8X<9[$=INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macro6z 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice7+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle8SMALLSmall Typestyle92?:[=;[ ><[g>=[>FINEFine Typestyle:LARGELarge Typestyle;EXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle<VERY LARGEVery Large Typestyle=2"B>O??X@@X*AAAENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header>+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   MACNormal?,.1@dfStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without MarginsA$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO 2IBTBCBDlGE?IStyle 12Dutch Italics 11.5B$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IICJ )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/TabsD )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsEDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  2ULF JG|JHKIKStyle 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 FontF4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5G$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 PointH$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5I$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO 2:\JLK'ML.RM5WStyle 6Dutch Roman 14 PointJ$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for AdvancedK 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 BeginninggLi )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 IntermediateM )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 2bNl\OpaPqaQecbUpdateInitial Codes for Update ModuleN )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 Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O gO` ` ` Document[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gP  . Document[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gQ  2dRebS_cTpcUbdDocument[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gR  Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gS*    Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gT  ` ` ` Right Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gU8 @  2gV&eWeXVfYfRight Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gVA@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gW0     Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gXJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gYS` ` `  @  2jZg[h\Ni]jRight Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gZ\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right 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 g\n` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g]w` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 2ym^k_k`XlalDocument[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g^F    ׃  Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g_&!"  . Technical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g`&#$  . Technical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O ga*%&    2 pbmc@ndneoTechnical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gb''(   Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gc&)*   Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gd4+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O ge&-.  . 2 sf;pg phqirTechnical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gf&/0  . CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FilegW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded Documenthiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#footnote tex#i'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#26wj?sk~sliPum}vreferencej;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1k&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2lI ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# a1Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fm$ 2ynhwowpxq!ya2Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fn/ a3Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fo: a4Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FpE a5Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FqP   2|ryszto{ud9|a6Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fr[   a7Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fsf  a8Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Ftq 1, 2, 3, 6W6Numbers$1/$=('*'=d Eu .2m~vX|wp'}xq}ye~2*ïE[@6Op/2?! =(!8E[*!ïE.Evop3*ïE@6ODocument Style=(!8E*!ïE.Ew` ` ` 4*ïE@6ODocument Style=(!8E*!ïE.Ex  . 5*ïE@6ODocument Style=(!8E*!ïE.Ey  2ze~{|p}6*ïE@6ODocument Style=(!8E*!ïE.Ez  7*ïE@6ODocument Style=(!8E*!ïE.E{*   8*ïE@6ODocument Style=(!8E*!ïE.E|` ` ` 9*ïE@6ORight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*!ïE.E}8@   2L~ˀf10ïE@6ORight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*!ïE.E~A@` `  ` ` ` 11ïE@6ODocument Style=(!8E*!ïE.E0    12ïE@6ORight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*!ïE.EJ` ` @  ` `  13ïE@6ORight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*!ïE.ES` `  @  2~414ïE@6ORight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*!ïE.E\` `  @hh# hhh 15ïE@6ORight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*!ïE.Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 16ïE@6ORight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*!ïE.En` `  hh#(@- ( 17ïE@6ORight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*!ïE.Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2x18ïE@6ODocument Style=(!8E*!ïE.EF DD/  ׃  19ïE@6OTechnical Document StyleE*!ïE.E&  . 20ïE@6OTechnical Document StyleE*!ïE.E&  . 21ïE@6OTechnical Document StyleE*!ïE.E*    2Py)22ïE@6OTechnical Document StyleE*!ïE.E'   23ïE@6OTechnical Document StyleE*!ïE.E&   24ïE@6OTechnical Document StyleE*!ïE.E4$     25ïE@6OTechnical Document StyleE*!ïE.E&  . 2?e26ïE@6OTechnical Document StyleE*!ïE.E&  . Format Downl@6OFormat Downloaded DocumentE*!ïE.EU XX    X\ #d6X@]7@#a128.E+!*ïRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers?!=(!*!8@   a228.E+!*ïRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers?!=(!*!A@` `  ` ` ` 27qxa328.E+!*ïRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers?!=(!*!J` ` @  ` `  a428.E+!*ïRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers?!=(!*!S` `  @  a528.E+!*ïRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers?!=(!*!\` `  @hh# hhh a628.E+!*ïRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers?!=(!*!e` `  hh#@( hh# 2i1@|Ba728.E+!*ïRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers?!=(!*!n` `  hh#(@- ( a828.E+!*ïRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers?!=(!*!w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp "5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCddddddZi44d4i_d_QQGiVr_ZVC&Cr000!0i4R0_i___________dZdZdZdZdZ44444444mii_i_i_i_riririri0Z__idi_i_dZi_dd__ii__dZdZdZdZiidZmZm_mmZmZriri4iii444iGidV4VRmimiii00iQiR_Q00N00Gd0V___d0____Z______000000000000000__t_|nnV_yy24Z_7c__nCzZhcnonvyXzXshn~|y00000000000000000000000000000000L0Ld_rw0CCL|0|0i__________00r|rV_idid_mr4GiVwmiiii_Zr_r_d_CCCi_0_dZdZ>Zi44d4i_d_QQGiVr_ZVC&Cr00000000000000000000000000000000000Z__d4di_______4|__0ZG00______V_______ddddd4444imiiiii_irrrrddi______ZZZZZ4444_i_____V_iiiiZd2@"bg3"5@^2CTdd+CCd2C28ddddddddddCCdzzzzCYozzdozzooN8NTdCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddNN8dYYYNP7Pl2CC!CCPRCddzdzdzdzdzdYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYzddddoYdzdzdzdzdYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdYYo8oRdddzNzRdNdNNF2idNdddddd7>d<d<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYdpara numnumbered indented paragraphs' Y- 1.(i) 1) 1.#Xw P7[hXP# 1. 1.ҲDefault Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font11#XXz PQXP##Iz PQP#26}head1 #'d#2p}wC@ #Paragraph[1]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B$ab Paragraph[2]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B/cd` ` ` Paragraph[3]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B:ef` ` `  2"hcParagraph[4]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BEgh` ` `  Paragraph[5]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BPij` ` ` hhh Paragraph[6]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B[kl Paragraph[7]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bfmn 2xT<ZParagraph[8]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bqop toc 1toc 1` hp x (#44` hp x (#toc 2toc 2` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#toc 3toc 3` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#2zȽvtoc 4toc 4` hp x (#4 <4 <` hp x (#toc 5toc 5` hp x (#4<4<` hp x (#toc 6toc 6` hp x (#44` hp x (#toc 7toc 7 2$toc 8toc 8` hp x (#44` hp x (#toc 9toc 9` hp x (#44` hp x (#index 1index 1` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#index 2index 2` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#2Vt8toatoa` hp x (#` hp x (#captioncaption;1#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#_Equation Caption_Equation Caption11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#endnote referenceendnote reference44#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#2Jpfootnote referencefootnote reference4#XP\  P6QXP#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 2|030S&CRC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )[ 31S&CSC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )f 32S&CTC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )q Default ParaC^fDefault Paragraph Font2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#2g[v_Equation CaC^f_Equation CaptionF2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#endnote refeC^fendnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>>#PP##PP#footnote refC^ffootnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>#PP#heading 4heading 4 2qvvvvheading 5heading 5 heading 6heading 6 heading 7heading 7 heading 8heading 8 2vvdendnote textendnote text footnote textfootnote text toa headingtoa heading` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#A, B,t ?@65Uppercase Letters1 ?*1÷$t ?.E .2pCqe$e33`O5hT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5h.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 34`O5iT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5i.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  . 35`O5jT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5j.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  36`O5kT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5k.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  2P p#37`O5lT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5l.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>*   38`O5mT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5m.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 39`O5nT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>8@   40`O5oT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>A@` `  ` ` ` 2h41`O5pT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5p.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>0    42`O5qT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>J` ` @  ` `  43`O5rT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>S` `  @  44`O5sT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>\` `  @hh# hhh 2bP45`O5tT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>e` `  hh#@( hh# 46`O5uT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>n` `  hh#(@- ( 47`O5vT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 48`O5wT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5w.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>F *  ׃  2:49`O5xT(G2PTechnical Document Stylex.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 50`O5yT(G2PTechnical Document Styley.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 51`O5zT(G2PTechnical Document Stylez.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>*    52`O5{T(G2PTechnical Document Style{.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>'   2OE53`O5|T(G2PTechnical Document Style|.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&   54`O5}T(G2PTechnical Document Style}.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>4$     55`O5~T(G2PTechnical Document Style~.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 56`O5T(G2PTechnical Document Style.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 2}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+&>:` ` `  60`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>E` ` `  2F61`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`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 64`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>q 265`O5T(G2PDefault Paragraph Font5.K+&,$@`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#68`O5T(G2Pfootnote reference^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>R#PP#2 pq7e69 _5(_>7footnote text _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tZP70 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t` ` ` 71 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  . 72 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  29e?p773 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  74 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t*   75 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t` ` ` 76 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+t8@   2k?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` ` @  ` `  80 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tS` `  @  2,[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#(@- ( 84 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2^"85 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tF *  ׃  86 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&  . 87 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&  . 88 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t*    2\ @LR y.C8*XrxC\  P6QP.y.G8*X}G4  pQ7PC2XXP\  P6QXP.7UC2X>XU4  pQXW!0(XAh0\  P6QhPI(!Xy,(\  P6Q,P{,C8*X3C*f9 xQX 7ZCLXROXZ\  P@QXP 5PC2X3 XP*f9 xQXX l6RC2XX XR9 xyQX"5@^2Nodd8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdNdzzozzzC8CrdCddYdYCdo88d8odddNN8oYdYNF,Fr2CC!CCPRCdddddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddoooozYddddzYdzddddYYYYYYddddooPdNdNCNdddz8zRoodNRoNoNNF2ddNdddddd5to alter their study area boundaries and allowing the buyers to operate under rateofreturn  xregulation after acquiring the exchanges. We therefore grant the joint petition, in part, as explained more fully below.  X -  X -II. STUDY AREA WAIVERS ă  X -  X-A. Background  Xb-  x5. A study area is a geographical segment of a carrier's telephone operations. Generally,  xa study area corresponds to a carrier's entire service territory within a state. Thus, carriers  xoperating in more than one state typically have one study area for each state, and carriers  xxoperating in a single state typically have a single study area. Study area boundaries are important  X- xlprimarily because carriers perform jurisdictional separations at the study area level.0L yOS-  LԍxThe phrase "jurisdictional separations," or "separations," refers to the process of dividing costs and revenues  {O-between a carrier's state and interstate operations. See generally 47 C.F.R.  36.136.741.0 For  xjurisdictional separations purposes, the Commission froze all study area boundaries effective  X- xNovember 15, 1984.[ L {O"-  >ԍx47 C.F.R. 36 app. (defining "study area"). See MTS and WATS Market Structure, Amendment of Part  {OI#- x,67 of the Commission's Rules and Establishment of a Joint Board, Recommended Decision and Order, 49 Fed. Reg.  {O$- x48325 (December 12, 1984) ("1984 Joint Board Recommended Decision"); id., Decision and Order, 50 Fed. Reg.  {O$- x939 (January 8, 1985) ("1985 Order Adopting Recommendation"); see also Amendment of Part 36 of the  {O%- x;Commission's Rules and Establishment of a Joint Board, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 5 FCC Rcd 5974 (October  {Oq&-10, 1990) ("Study Area Notice").[ The Commission took that action primarily to ensure that local exchange  xcarriers ("LECs") do not set up highcost exchanges within their existing service territories as"z,N(N(ZZ"  X- x<separate study areas to maximize highcost payments.L {Oy-  [ԍxSee 1984 Joint Board Recommended Decision, supra note 5,  66; 1985 Order Adopting Recommendation,  {OC-supra note 5,  1,5. The study area freeze also prevents LECs  xfrom transferring exchanges among existing study areas for the purpose of increasing interstate  xyrevenue requirements and compensation. A LEC must apply to the Commission for a waiver of  xkthe frozen study area rule if the LEC wishes to sell an exchange to another carrier and if that  X-transaction would have the effect of changing the study area boundaries of either carrier.P$L yOy-ԍx47 C.F.R. 1.3, 36 app.P  Xv-  x6. Waiver of Commission rules is appropriate only if special circumstances warrant  X_- xdeviation from the general rule and such a deviation will serve the public interest._L {O -   ԍxNortheast Cellular Tel. Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990); see also WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969); 47 C.F.R.  1.3. In evaluating  x[petitions seeking a waiver of the rule freezing study area boundaries, the Commission employs  xa threeprong standard: first, the change in study area boundaries does not adversely affect the  X - xUSF support program;B h  L {O-  ԍxSee 1984 Joint Board Recommended Decision, supra note 5,  66. The Commission created the USF to  {O- xpreserve and promote universal service. See Amendment of Part 67 of the Commission's Rules and Establishment  {Om- xof a Joint Board, Decision and Order, 96 FCC 2d 781 (1984). The USF allows LECs with high local loop plant  xcosts to allocate a portion of those costs to the interstate jurisdiction, thus enabling the states to establish lower local  xiexchange rates in study areas receiving such assistance. To determine which LEC study areas are eligible for USF  xsupport, the USF rules prescribe an eligibility threshold set at 115 percent of the national average unseparated loop  xcost per working loop. When loop cost in a particular study area exceeds that threshold, the study area is eligible  xfor support equal to a certain percentage of the loop cost in excess of that threshold. The study area becomes eligible  xfor higher levels of support as its loop cost rises above additional thresholds set farther above the national average  xLunseparated loop cost. Because USF assistance is targeted primarily at small study areas, the level of support  {O- xprovided at each threshold generally is greater if the study area has 200,000 or fewer working loops. See 47 C.F.R.  36.631.B second, the state commission(s) having regulatory authority over the  xexchange(s) to be transferred does not object to the change; and third, the public interest supports  X -such a change. ^ >L {O-  ԍxSee  U S WEST Communications, Inc., and Eagle Telecommunications, Inc., Joint Petition for Waiver of  {O- x,the Definition of "Study Area" Contained in Part 36, AppendixGlossary of the Commission's Rules, Memorandum  {Oo-Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 1771,  5 (1995) ("U S WESTEagle Study Area Order").  X -  x7. The Commission's concern about adverse USF impacts was mitigated, in the short term  X - xat least, by its adoption of the Joint Board's recommendation for an indexed cap on the USF.  dL yO#-  ԍxThe Joint Board recommended, and the Commission adopted, interim rules that limit the rate of growth of  {O$- xthe USF to the rate of growth in the total number of working loops nationwide. See generally Amendment of Part  {ON%- x36 of the Commission's Rules and Establishment of a Joint Board, Recommended Decision, 9 FCC Rcd 334 (1993)  {O&- x("1993 Joint Board Recommended Decision"); id., Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 303 ("Interim Cap Order"). The  xCommission extended these interim rules through July 1, 1996. Amendment of Part 36 of the Commission's Rules"& ,N(N('"  {O- xwand Establishment of a Joint Board, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 1077 (1995), summarized in 60 Fed. Reg. 65011  yOZ- x(1995). Recently, the Joint Board recommended, and the Commission adopted, an extension of the interim cap rules  xon the USF until the final universal service rules become effective. FederalState Joint Board on Universal Service,  {O- x: Recommended Decision, CC Docket No. 9645, released June 19, 1996 ("1996 Joint Board Recommended Decision");  {O-id., Report and Order, FCC 96281, released June 26, 1996 ("Extension of Interim Cap Rules"). " ~ ,N(N(ZZ "  xKThe Commission nonetheless recognized that, even in the short term, the granting of a study area  xwaiver may adversely affect the fund's distribution, if not its size. Under the indexed USF cap  xrules, any study area reconfiguration that increases the USF draw of one USF recipient often  xreduces that of other USF recipients. Consequently, in evaluating whether a study area change  xwould have an adverse impact on the distribution or level of the USF, the Commission applies  X- xa "onepercent" guideline to study area waiver requests filed after January 5, 1995. ~L {O -ԍxSee U S WESTEagle Study Area Order, supra note 10,  1417. Under this  x[guideline, no study area waiver is granted if it would result in an annual aggregate shift in USF  xassistance in an amount equal to or greater than one percent of the total USF, unless the parties  xzcan demonstrate extraordinary public interest benefit. To prevent carriers from evading this  xlimitation by disaggregating a single large sale of exchanges into a series of smaller transactions  xthat in the aggregate have the same effect on the USF, the Commission further requires that the  xguideline be applied to all study area waivers granted to either carrier, as a purchaser or seller,  X -pending completion of the current review of the universal service program. \ L {O-  kԍxId. In this context, the Commission defines the term "carrier" to include all affiliated carriers (i.e., those  x,carriers that are in common control, as the term "control" is defined in Section 32.9000 of the Commission's rules,  {O?-47 C.F.R.  32.9000). Id.  14 note 34. x  X - B. Pleadings  X -#X P.7OXP#x` ` #Xw P/7XP#  X-   x8. Petition. U S WEST proposes to sell: two exchanges serving 1,137 access lines to  xLeaco Rural Telephone Cooperative ("Leaco"); one exchange serving 455 access lines to  xZRoosevelt County Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc. ("Roosevelt"); and three exchanges serving  x3,854 access lines to the Tularosa Basin Telephone Company ("Tularosa"). Petitioners seek  xwaivers of the rule freezing study area boundaries to enable U S WEST to remove the six  xexchanges from its New Mexico study area. The requested waivers also would allow Leaco and  xRoosevelt to add the acquired exchanges to their existing New Mexico study areas, and allow Tularosa to establish a new study area in New Mexico.  X-   x9. Petitioners state that the proposed changes would serve the public interest. They state  xithat Leaco and Roosevelt have substantial experience in serving rural areas, and that the principal  X- xowners of Tularosa have considerable experience in operating rural exchanges.E4 L yOz$-ԍxJoint Petition at 6.E The buyers state  X~- xthat they will upgrade the facilities to assure quality service and meet customer demand.U~ L {O&-ԍxU S WEST Letter, supra note 1.U They"~V ,N(N(ZZ"  x\state they will adhere to U S WEST's construction schedule for upgrading switches and for  X- xiproviding singleparty service to the customers in the six exchanges.tL yOb-ԍxU S WEST Letter at Response to Question No. 1, Attachments B1B3.t In addition, Roosevelt and  xlTularosa state they plan to install fiber optic cables. They state that these upgrades will  X- x>significantly improve service and allow for remote monitoring of the switches.xXL yO-ԍxU S WEST Letter at Response to Question No. 1, Attachments B2 and B3.x Petitioners  X-estimate that the upgrades will require an investment outlay of approximately $4,669,000.L yO= -ԍxU S WEST Letter at Response to Question No. 1, Attachments B1B3.  Xv-  x 10. Petitioners assert that the transfer of the six exchanges will not adversely affect the  xUSF in any material way. Petitioners estimate that, if the study area waivers were granted, the  xktransfer of the six exchanges would result in an initial increase of $239,280 in combined 1997  X1- xUSF draws.s1xL yOZ-ԍxU S WEST Letter at Attachments B1B3, Appendices B1B3.s Petitioners further estimate that their proposals will ultimately increase their  x=combined USF draws by another $126,880 due to the facilities' upgrades, for a total increase of  X - x$336,160.s L yO-ԍxU S WEST Letter at Attachments B1B3, Appendices B1B3.s They state that the exchange transfers would have no effect on U S WEST's USF  x.assistance because its New Mexico study area would not qualify for USF assistance before or after the transfer.  X -  x 11. NECA and USTA support petitioners' requests.X L yO-ԍxNECA comments at 1; USTA comments at 1.X AT&T argues that individual caps  xxon USF are still necessary in order to reduce the adverse effects on the funds distribution caused  Xy-by unidentified errors contained in the estimates.Dy( L yOR-ԍxAT&T comments at 4.D  XK- C. Discussion  X-  x 12. Request for waivers. We have reviewed the data the petitioners filed with NECAy L yO -ԍxNECA USF 1995 Submission of 1994 Study Results filed September 29, 1995.y  xKand the estimates filed in this proceeding and have determined that the combined increase in USF  xdraws will not have a significant adverse impact on the USF total or individual carrier draws.  xIn addition, the New Mexico Commission states that it does not object to these requested  X- xxwaivers.XH L {O%-ԍ xNew Mexico Letter, supra note 3.X Finally, petitioners' proposals for significant facility upgrades demonstrate that current  xand potential customers in the affected exchanges will likely be better served by the buyers than",N(N(ZZ"  X- xU S WEST.HL {Oy-ԍxSee supra  9.H The requested study area waivers thus are likely to serve the public interest. We  xLtherefore find that the threeprong standard for granting a study area waiver has been met and that the study area waiver requests should be granted.  X-  x 13. Request for exemption from USF limits. Although we find no reason to question the  xZbuyers' estimates of the USF impact, we nonetheless are concerned that those estimates may later  xprove inaccurate when the planned upgrades are completed. To address this concern, we have  x>granted waivers of this type subject to the condition that, absent explicit approval from the  xxBureau, the annual USF support provided to the buyers' study areas shall not exceed the amounts  xspecified in their joint petition. In reference to that Bureau policy, petitioners submit several  X -arguments against the imposition of limits on buyers' USF draws.H ZL yO' -ԍxJoint Petition at 912.H    1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)x14. First, petitioners argue that it would be inappropriate for the buyers' future USF  x-draws to be restricted to current estimates because the buyers have made good faith estimates of  X - xUSF draws that may need to be adjusted once they begin daytoday operations.F L yO[-ԍxJoint Petition at 10.F  1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)We have  x/found that, even in a period of a few years, the USF estimates for some LECs have risen by  X- xunexpected amounts.~zL {O-  ԍxSee, e.g., Delta Telephone Company, Inc., Waiver of the Definition of "StudyArea" contained in Part 36,  {O- xAppendixGlossary, of the Commission's Rules, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 7100 (1990), whose  xUSF payment grew from $82,500 in 1991 to approximately $445,700 in 1993; and U S WEST Communications and  xwGila River Telecommunications, Inc., Joint Petition for Waiver of the Definition of "Study Area" Contained in Part  {O- xK36, AppendixGlossary, of the Commission's Rules, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 2161 (1992),  x[whose projection of $169,155 for Gila River's 1992 USF payment was more than doubled by the actual 1992 payment of $390,993, which has been nearly doubled again by the 1995 payment of approximately $750,000. These LECs generally had undertaken substantial upgrades or expansions  xof the local network in difficulttoserve, sparsely populated exchanges that are similar to the  xLexchanges being acquired by the buyers. However, the buyers' failure to submit accurate USF  xiestimates is not, as petitioners suggest, a valid reason for granting these waivers unconditionally.  xOn the contrary, the potential for such failure has been our primary reason for imposing limits on carriers USF draws following exchange transfers.   x15. These limits would ensure that the study area waivers will not, due to errors or  xunforeseen circumstances, result in USF impacts which substantially exceed the buyers' forecasts.  xThe limits also would ensure that the Commission's one percent guideline can be properly  x-adhered to in future filings of this kind. Absent such limits, companies could file waiver requests  xzthat appear to fall within the guideline, only to later adjust their USF estimates to exceed the  xkguideline free of any Bureau review. We therefore reject the claim that, because the buyers'  xrepresentations of the USF impacts may be inaccurate, it would be unreasonable for the buyers' USF draws to be limited by those representations."P ,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ  ԙx16. Second, petitioners argue that imposition of limits would not serve the public interest,  xthat it would be unfair to impose a cap when ongoing operations and operational characteristics  x\are unknown, and that imposition of individual caps is unnecessary. Third, they argue that  ximposing a future waiver requirement to raise a capped USF amount is contrary to the  x-Commissions policies, that it would place an additional burden on small LECs, would discourage  x-strategic investment in the further development of rural telephony, and would produce additional  Xv- xregulatory burdens and requirements on companies.IvL yO-ԍxJoint Petition at 1012.I We do not agree with petitioners'  xLarguments regarding the public interest, fairness, necessity, the Commissions policies, impact  xon investment and regulatory burden. In particular, petitioners fail to show that the limits  xestablished pursuant to their own representations would preclude their opportunity to make  x@investments. Such limits will permit the buyers to receive annual USF draws totaling  X - x$1,621,883.i XL yO -ԍxJoint Petition at Attachments B1B3, Appendices B1B3. i Petitioners also fail to show that it would be burdensome for the buyers to seek  xan increase in imposed limits that are based on the buyers' representations of their posttransfer  xUSF draws. The waiver condition would permit the buyers' USF draws to exceed the limits if,  xbased on the buyers' submission of revised data, the Bureau later determined that such an increase is warranted.   x17. In conclusion, we agree with AT&T that, in study area waivers of this type, we  Xb- x<should continue our policy of imposing limits on the buyers' USF draws.FbL yO-ԍxAT&T comments at 27.F We therefore find that  xthe waivers should be subject to the condition that, absent explicit approval from the Bureau, the  x>annual USF support provided to the buyers' study areas shall not exceed the postupgrade  X- xamounts specified by the buyers in the U S WEST Letter. ZxL yOF-  MԍxBuyers estimate that their posttransfer, postupgrade USF draws will be as follows: $616,053 for Leaco;  {O- xY$857,130 for Roosevelt; and $148,700 for Tularosa, for a total of $1,621,883. U S WEST Letter, supra note 1, at  yO-Response to Question No. 3, Attachment.hh We note that the  X- xTelecommunications Act of 1996, which became effective on February 8, 1996,z!L yOQ-ԍxTelecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).z requires the  xxreform of many mechanisms the Commission uses to support its universal service goals, including  X- xthe USF, by May 8, 1997."^* L {O!-  zԍxId. 47 U.S.C. 254(a)(2). To develop new USF rules, the Commission has initiated a proceeding to address  {O}"- xthis issue. See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order  {OG#-Establishing Joint Board, 61 Fed. Reg. 10499 (March 14, 1996). Id.  39.  It is likely that any new universal service rules will alter the method  x\used to determine the distribution of USF support to highcost areas, thereby changing the  xZprojected level of support to the buyers' study areas. This, in turn, may require us to revisit these issues, and the related waiver conditions that we have established herein.  X|- "|P ",N(N(ZZP"ԌIII. PRICE CAPS WAIVER A. Background  X-  |x 18. Section 61.41(c)(2) of the Commission's rules provides that, when a nonprice cap  xLEC acquires a price cap LEC, the acquiring company, and any LEC with which it is affiliated,  Xv- xshall become subject to price cap regulation within a year of the transaction.e#vL {O-  \ԍx47 C.F.R.  61.41(c). See Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Dominant Carriers, Second Report and  {O- xOrder, 5 FCC Rcd 6786, 6821 (1990), Erratum, 5 FCC Rcd 7664 (Com. Car. Bur. 1990) ("LEC Price Cap Order"),  {O - xmodified on recon., Order on Reconsideration, 6 FCC Rcd 2637 (1991) ("LEC Price Cap Reconsideration Order"),  {OM - x-aff'd sub nom. National Rural Telecom Ass'n v. FCC, 988 F.2d 174 (D.C. Cir. 1993), petitions for further recon.  {O - xdismissed, 6 FCC Rcd 7482 (1991), further modification on recon., Amendments of Part 69 of the Commission's  xRules Relating to the Creation of Access Charge Subelements for Open Network Architecture, Policy and Rules  {O - xConcerning Rates for Dominant Carriers, Report and Order and Order on Further Reconsideration and Supplemental  {Os - x-Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 6 FCC Rcd 4524 (1991) ("ONA Part 69 Order"), further recon., Memorandum  {O=-Opinion and Order on Second Further Reconsideration, 7 FCC Rcd 5235 (1992).e The Commission  xstated that this "allornothing" rule applies not only to the acquisition of an entire LEC but also  XH- xjto the acquisition of part of a study area.$\HL {O-  ԍxSee LEC Price Cap Reconsideration Order, supra note 35,  149 note 207. The Commission explained that,  xYif these two types of acquisitions were not treated the same under the allornothing rule, a LEC could avoid the rule  {O3-by selling all but one of its exchanges. Id.Ć Hence, under this rule, the buyers' acquisition of U  xS WEST's six exchanges would obligate the buyers to become subject to price cap regulation instead of rateofreturn regulation.   ^x19. The Commission explained that the allornothing rule is intended to address two  xconcerns regarding mergers and acquisitions involving price cap LECs. The first concern is that,  xzin the absence of the rule, a LEC might attempt to shift costs from its price cap affiliate to its  xMnonprice cap affiliate, allowing the nonprice cap affiliate to earn more, due to its increased  X- xrevenue requirement, without affecting the earnings of the price cap affiliate, i.e., without  xtriggering the sharing mechanism. The second concern is that, absent the rule, a LEC may  xattempt to "game the system" by switching back and forth between rateofreturn regulation and  xprice cap regulation. The Commission cited, as an example, the incentive a price cap LEC may  xhave to increase earnings by opting out of price cap regulation, building up a large rate base  xunder rateofreturn regulation so as to raise rates and, then, after returning to price caps, cutting  xcosts back to an efficient level. It would disserve the public interest, the Commission stated, to  xallow a LEC to alternately "fatten up" under rateofreturn regulation and "slim down" under  xprice cap regulation, because rates would not fall in the manner intended under price cap  X-regulation.J% L {O@$-ԍxId.  148.J "~^ %,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ  x20. The Commission nonetheless recognized that a narrow waiver of the allornothing  x.rule might be justified if efficiencies created by the purchase and sale of a few exchanges were  X- xto outweigh the threat that the system may be subject to gaming.M&L {OK-ԍxId.  149 note 207.M Such a waiver would not be  xLgranted unconditionally, however. Rather, waivers of the allornothing rule would be granted  xsubject to the condition that the selling price cap LEC shall make a downward exogenous  X- x=adjustment to its price cap indices to reflect the change in its study area.'ZL {O-  =ԍxSee Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers, First Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 8962,  {Ob - xi 328, 330 (1995) ("LEC Price Cap Review Order"). Under that requirement, U S WEST must reduce the price  xcap indices for its New Mexico study area if the changes in study area boundaries reduce the cost bases for those  xindices. The Price Cap Indices, which are the cost indices on which pricecapped rates are based, are calculated  {O -pursuant to a formula specified in the Commission's Rules for price cap LECs. See 47 C.F.R.  61.45. 0 That adjustment is  xZneeded to remove the effects of the transferred exchanges from pricecapped rates that have been  xLbased, in whole or in part, upon the inclusion of those exchanges in the study areas subject to  XH-price cap regulation.|(HL {O -ԍxSee LEC Price Cap Review Order, supra note 39,  330. |  X - B. Pleadings  X <  x21. Petition.  The buyers seek waivers of Section 61.41(c)(2) so they may operate as rate xofreturn LECs, rather than price cap LECs, after acquiring the six exchanges which currently  xare under price cap regulation. Petitioners argue that the rule's application in this instance is  xcontrary to the public interest and does not serve the purposes for which the rule was adopted.  xPetitioners further argue that the Commission's two concerns, the threat of cost shifting between  X{-affiliates and gaming of the system, are not at issue in this case.){L yO-  zԍxPetition at 1214. We note that, although U S WEST signed the joint petition, U S WEST does not seek a waiver of the allornothing rule.  XM- C. Discussion  X-  !x22.  We agree with petitioners that the Commission's first concern underlying the allor xnothing rule is not applicable in this case. None of the buyers has an incentive to shift costs  xbetween price cap and rateofreturn affiliates, because none of these companies are seeking to  xZmaintain separate affiliates under different systems of regulation. As to the Commission's second  x]concern, we find it implausible that U S WEST could game the system by moving the six  x=exchanges back and forth between price cap and rateofreturn regulation, because U S WEST  x{is selling these exchanges and a reacquisition would require a second study area waiver. Moreover, U S WEST cannot transfer the exchanges without removing the rateincreasing effects "g ),N(N(ZZ"Ԍ xof these exchanges from the pricecapped rates that have been based, in part, upon the inclusion  X-of these exchanges in its New Mexico study areas.Z*L {Ob-ԍxSee discussion supra  20.Z x   x23. We therefore find there is good cause to grant the buyers waivers of the allor xnothing rule to permit them to remain under rateofreturn regulation after acquiring the six  xexchanges which currently are under price cap regulation. As noted above, these waivers are  xsubject to the condition that U S WEST shall make a downward exogenous adjustment to its  xkprice cap indices to reflect the removal of these generally highcost exchanges from its New  xMexico study area. For the present, we will continue to regulate the buyers as rateofreturn  xcarriers. Because we are waiving Section 61.41(c)(2), they need not withdraw from the NECA  xpools. We note that, as with any other rateofreturn carriers, the buyers may elect price cap regulation in the future if they decide to withdraw from the NECA pools.  X - IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ă   }x24. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 201202 of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 155(c), 201202, and  x/Sections 0.91, 0.291, and 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, 1.3, that the  xjoint petition of Leaco Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc.; Roosevelt County Rural Telephone  xLCooperative, Inc.; Tularosa Basin Telephone Company, Inc.; and U S WEST Communications,  xInc. for waiver of Part 36, Appendix-Glossary, of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 36  xAppendixGlossary IS GRANTED subject to the condition stated in paragraph 17 and note 32 of this Order.   x25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 201202 of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 155(c), 201202, and  x/Sections 0.91, 0.291, and 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, 1.3, that the  xjoint petition of Leaco Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc.; Roosevelt County Rural Telephone  xLCooperative, Inc.; Tularosa Basin Telephone Company, Inc.; and U S WEST Communications,  xInc. for waiver of Section 61.41(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  61.41(c)(2), IS GRANTED subject to the condition stated in paragraph 23 of this Order.   x26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 201202 of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 155(c), 201202, and  x\Sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, that the National  xExchange Carrier Association, Inc. shall not distribute USF assistance exceeding the limits imposed in paragraph 17 and note 32 of this Order. "h$ Z*,N(N(ZZF#"Ԍ  ԙx27. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 201202 of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 155(c), 201202, and  xzSections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, that this Order IS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UPON RELEASE. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhKenneth P. Moran x` `  hhChief, Accounting and Audits Division x` `  hhCommon Carrier Bureau