WPCg 2PB`@33|P / (TT)n (TT)Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)6Q ]XP#"5@^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)WP MultinationalA Roman (TT)P2 E4 ZR; X-#XP\  P6Q DXP#WP MultinationalA Roman (TT)Times New Roman (TT)HP LaserJet 4/4M (Copy 2)T1HL4CO2.WRSSXj\  P6G;,,$vXPzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)ndon Cd (W1) (Bold)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)l7UC2XaXU4  pQXx/d8SX3Xd{2 PQP2  V jz 3|w  X-#X\  P6G;P#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#Xj\  P6G; ]XP#W]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNiK?^:M@ONA Oheader2>I ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# heading 3?F` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# footer!@!!#d\  PCP#CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileAW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  B2]SB&QCrQDYRErRFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded DocumentBiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#a2AgendaCa1AgendaAgenda ItemsD7D yP ) I. a3AgendaE2UFSGCTHTIdwUHeadingChapter HeadingFJ d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersG>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheadingH0\ E A.  HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and BoldldeddI+. 2ZJ VK"WL1WM1XDRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and DateJ X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style offK@@    LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5L 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5Mf 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   2]N1NZO1[Pn\Q]LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11NL 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14O 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a DocumentPK\ * ăBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedQN X 2bRd]Sj5^T^UE`HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold LargeRB*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and UnderscoredS V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/marginsTu 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 InvoiceU ,, $0$0  2sgV-5bW8bcX8dYeMEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatVD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math InvoiceW:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math MacroXz 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math InvoiceY+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX 2iZXg[[g\[Xh][hNORMALReturn to Normal TypestyleZSMALLSmall Typestyle[FINEFine Typestyle\LARGELarge Typestyle]2k^[@i_[i`iaXykEXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle^VERY LARGEVery Large Typestyle_ENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header`+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   1adf2sblcldCmel"rStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Marginsb$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5c$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIdJ )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/Tabse )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !2vfsg\th|tiduStyle 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsfDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Fontg4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5h$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Pointi$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO 2j6vkvlvwm}|Style 7Swiss 11.5j$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Pointk$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for Advancedl 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 Beginninggmi )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 2nopыqvStyle 9Initial Codes for Intermediaten )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 Moduleo )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 para numnumbered indented paragraphsp' Y- 1.(i) 1) 1.#Xw P7[hXP# 1. 1.Ҳheading 4heading 4q 2rvEsvtv1uvheading 5heading 5r heading 6heading 6s heading 7heading 7t heading 8heading 8u 2vlOwvxr1yvDefault Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Fontv endnote textendnote textw endnote referenceendnote referencex footnote textfootnote texty 2zeK{l|x}lfootnote referencefootnote referencez Document 8Document 8{ Document 4Document 4|  Document 6Document 6} 2~l2ll vDocument 5Document 5~ Document 2Document 2 Document 7Document 7 Right Par 1Right Par 1` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#2ƗlPnRight Par 2Right Par 2` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Document 3Document 3 Right Par 3Right Par 3` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 4Right Par 4` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#26ܠRight Par 5Right Par 5` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 6Right Par 6` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 7Right Par 7` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 8Right Par 8` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2D(h$$lحDocument 1Document 1` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 5Technical 5` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 6Technical 6` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 2Technical 2 2lv$l$rTechnical 3Technical 3 Technical 4Technical 4` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 1 Technical 7Technical 7` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2F$ȳ (Technical 8Technical 8` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#toc 1toc 1` hp x (#(#`(#`` hp x (#toc 2toc 2` hp x (#` (#`` (#`` hp x (#toc 3toc 3` hp x (#` (#` (#` hp x (#2Hxvtoc 4toc 4` hp x (# (# (#` hp x (#toc 5toc 5` hp x (#h(#h(#` hp x (#toc 6toc 6` hp x (#(# (# ` hp x (#toc 7toc 7 2ztoc 8toc 8` hp x (#(# (# ` hp x (#toc 9toc 9` hp x (#(#`(#`` hp x (#index 1index 1` hp x (#` (#` (#` hp x (#index 2index 2` hp x (#` (#`` (#`` hp x (#2$vBl$toa headingtoa heading` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#captioncaption _Equation Caption_Equation Caption head1 #'d#2p}wC@ #2 }Rma1Paragraph 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 )DDDFrfE` ` `  2#=Ya5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfP  ` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrff  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfq 2}UZParagraph[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` ` `  Paragraph[4]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BEgh` ` `  2fParagraph[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 Paragraph[8]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bqop 2.qedetoatoa` hp x (#` hp x (#2S&C6C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )s t . 3S&C7C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct ) uv 4S&C8C^fDocument StyleNF2CC! -2( -Ct ) wx 2`pc5S&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@` ` `  ` ` ` 2^W9S&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 2O13S&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   ׃  2Yz17S&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 )'   2A 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}>Y25S&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 ):` ` `  28S&CPC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cq -2( -Ct )E` ` `  2)E29S&CQC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )P` ` ` hhh 30S&CRC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )[ 31S&CSC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )f 32S&CTC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )q 2GADefault ParaC^fDefault Paragraph Font2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#_Equation CaC^f_Equation CaptionF2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#endnote refeC^fendnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>>#PP##PP#footnote refC^ffootnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>#PP#2Zydp7q1, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.E1.A, B,t ?@65Uppercase Letters1 ?*1÷$t ?.E .33`O5hT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5h.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 34`O5iT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5i.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  . 2eJep35`O5jT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5j.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  36`O5kT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5k.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  37`O5lT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5l.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>*   38`O5mT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5m.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 2Iv 39`O5nT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>8@   40`O5oT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>A@` `  ` ` ` 41`O5pT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5p.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>0    42`O5qT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>J` ` @  ` `  2D43`O5rT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>S` `  @  44`O5sT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>\` `  @hh# hhh 45`O5tT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>e` `  hh#@( hh# 46`O5uT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>n` `  hh#(@- ( 2 47`O5vT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 48`O5wT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5w.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>F *  ׃  49`O5xT(G2PTechnical Document Stylex.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 50`O5yT(G2PTechnical Document Styley.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 29`51`O5zT(G2PTechnical Document Stylez.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>*    52`O5{T(G2PTechnical Document Style{.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>'   53`O5|T(G2PTechnical Document Style|.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&   54`O5}T(G2PTechnical Document Style}.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>4$     2zk}u55`O5~T(G2PTechnical Document Style~.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 56`O5T(G2PTechnical Document Style.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 57`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>$ 58`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>/` ` ` 2:?59`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>:` ` `  60`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>E` ` `  61`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>P` ` ` hhh 62`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>[ 2 l+   63`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>f 64`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>q 65`O5T(G2PDefault Paragraph Font5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>OO#P P##P P#66`O5T(G2P_Equation Caption^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>OO#PP##PP#2+   p67`O5T(G2Pendnote reference^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>RR#PP##PP#68`O5T(G2Pfootnote reference^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>R#PP#69 _5(_>7footnote text _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tZP70 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t` ` ` 2q]XKKd71 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  . .7PC2X ]XP\  P6QXP.y.C8*XC\  P6QPl7UC2XaXU4  pQXly.G8*XG4  pQpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""d<d<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYdxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddxxddd~ooCsdF"dsd9dCCxCddoddCdYds`xUvdddCCCCxoxoYNYYYN8YooYdYxxdxddYYxoxxxNdxYxxxxCCdddddddxCxdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2NZg9@D@JL.7PC2X ]XP\  P6QXP.y.C8*XC\  P6QPl7UC2XaXU4  pQXly.G8*XG4  pQ5PC2X3\XP*f9 xQXX.W!0(X h0\  P6QhP.I(!XI,(\  P6Q,PdddddddodpLpLpLdoddddododxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddxxdddkddCddF"ddd9dCCxCdxdoddCdYds]xUvdYYCCCCxxxoxoYxLoYdYC8YooYdYxxdxddoYoYxxoxxxxxCdooxYxxxxCCddddxdddoooxCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L"5@^(1<\4  pG;. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>$2X@!O@aR@U"5@^*7FSS$77Sq*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77qqqSffoxffxx7Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS7SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ*7777CE7SSfSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSfSoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS7S777SJoJ].]EoSoSxSofAfESASAN:*WSASSSSSS.4}}S2S}277]]S77SS7]72t7[[[[qee*C`q.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7FSS$77Sq*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77qqqSffoxffxx7Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS7SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ7S]SS7S777]]:S7A7o]*ASSSS.S7.Sq7SC[227`W*724S}}}Sffffffoffff7777xoxxxxxqxxxxx]fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSJS"5@^dC2CCdECCCCCCCd<d<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd.7PC2X ]XP\  P6QXP.y.C8*XC\  P6QPl7UC2XaXU4  pQXly.G8*XG4  pQ5PC2X3\XP*f9 xQXX.W!0(X h0\  P6QhP.I(!XI,(\  P6Q,P{,C8*X3,C*f9 xQX7dd77d7YCzdzN7C7zYYd{dYdYYoL5PC2Xj\XP*f9 xQXX.W!0(X h0\  P6QhPly.G8*XG4  pQ2g@?dv3O"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]2g X'~0 X4` `  hhCqpp  *#X\  P6G;P##Xj\  P6G; ]XP#  X4x  Federal Communications Commission  *xxXFCC 98198 _________________________________________________________________________~  #X\  P6G;P##Xj\  P6G; ]XP# #XP\  P6Q ]XP#vf %)v #C\  P6QP# %)v Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  yO'c7Washington, D.C. 20554  %)v #XP\  P6Q ]XP# %)v ԃ  XK4In the Matter of hhCq) ` `  hhCq)  X4Telephone Number PortabilityhhCq)ppCC Docket No. 95116  X4` `  hhCq)ppRM 8535  X4` `  hhCq)pp  X '  THIRD MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER  X 'T&ON RECONSIDERATION ă  Xe ' Adopted: August 12, 1998hhCqppReleased: August 13, 1998 By the Commission:   X 4  X':J I. INTRODUCTION Đ\  X41. ` ` On June 27, 1996, the Commission adopted the First Report and Order and  X4Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (First Report and Order)(d {O('ԍTelephone Number Portability, CC Docket No. 95116, First Report and Order and Further Notice of  {O'Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 8352 (1996), recon., 12 FCC Rcd 7236 (1997), further recon. pending,  {O'appeals pending sub nom. Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile, Inc. v. FCC et al., No. 979551 (10th Cir. filed May 30,  {O'1997), U S WEST, Inc. v. FCC et al., No. 979518 (10th Cir. filed Apr. 24, 1997).  in this docket which  X4implemented the provisions of section 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,d yO'ԍ47 U.S.C.  251. Section 251 was added by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996) (1996 Act).  X4that relate to telephone number portability.oXd yOD'ԍNumber portability is defined by the 1996 Act as "the ability of users of telecommunications services to retain, at the same location, existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of quality, reliability, or convenience when switching from one telecommunications carrier to another." 47 U.S.C.  153(30).o Section 251(b)(2) requires all local exchange carriers (LECs) to offer, "to the extent technically feasible, number portability in accordance  XU4with requirements prescribed by the Commission."JU0 d yO6$'ԍ47 U.S.C.  251(b)(2).J In the First Report and Order, the Commission, among other things, adopted a phased implementation schedule for the"@ 0*&&33"  X4deployment of longterm number portability by wireline carriers. In response to numerous petitions for reconsideration or clarification, the Commission modified the number portability  X4implementation schedule in a First Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration  X4(First Order on Reconsideration) adopted on March 6, 1997.x {O6'ԍSee First Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 7236 (1997).x On May 8, 1997, KMC  X4Telecom, Inc. (KMC) filed a petition for reconsideration of the First Order on  X4Reconsideration seeking further modification of the implementation timetable. For the reasons discussed below, we deny KMC's petition and affirm the modified number portability  Xg4deployment schedule for wireline carriers adopted in the First Order on Reconsideration.  X;'<f II. BACKGROUND Đ\  X 42. ` ` In the First Report and Order, the Commission required LECs operating in the  X 4100 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)" Z yO'ԍMSAs are geographic areas designated by the Bureau of Census for purposes of collecting and analyzing data. The boundaries of MSAs are defined using statistics that are widely recognized as indications of  {O'metropolitan character. See Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Dominant Carriers, CC Docket No. 87313, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 97168 (rel. May 30, 1997) at  17 n.26. to offer longterm number portability pursuant to a phased deployment schedule beginning October 1, 1997 and concluding  X 4December 31, 1998.t D yO'ԍThe Commission required deployment in one specified MSA in each of the thenexisting seven BOC regions by the end of the fourth quarter of 1997 ("Phase I"), 16 additional specified MSAs by the end of the first quarter of 1998 ("Phase II"), 22 additional specified MSAs by the end of the second quarter of 1998 ("Phase III"), 25 additional specified MSAs by the end of the third quarter of 1998 ("Phase IV"), and 30 additional  {O'specified MSAs by the end of the fourth quarter of 1998 ("Phase V"). First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 8393, app. F.t The Commission also allowed competing carriers to submit requests for deployment in areas outside the 100 largest MSAs beginning January 1, 1999 and required LECs to make longterm number portability available within six months of the receipt of such a request.  XW43. ` ` In the First Order on Reconsideration, the Commission found that the initial implementation of number portability technology would require more time than would subsequent deployment occurring after the technology had been thoroughly tested and used in  X4a live environment.&  {O!'ԍId. at 7283. The completion date of a trial of portability deployment in Chicago, originally scheduled  {OM"'for August 31, 1997, had been delayed until September 26, 1997, at the time of the First Order on  {O#'Reconsideration. Id. The Commission noted that the delay in the trial warranted the three month postponement of the deadline for Phase I completion so that small and midsize LECs could await the results of tests conducted"#0*$$#"  {O'by larger LECs in order to resolve potential problems of new technology. Id.  Therefore, the Commission extended the deadline for completion of"Z0*$$33s" portability deployment by three months for Phase I and also extended the deadline by 45 days for Phase II so that completion of both Phases I and II would not be required on the same  X4day.! ZZ {O'ԍId. at 728384. Pursuant to the revised implementation schedule, deployment in Phase I will take place from October 1, 1997 through March 31, 1998, and deployment in Phase II will take place from January 1, 1998 through May 15, 1998.! The Commission found that such a modification would "allow carriers to take  X4appropriate steps to safeguard network reliability."I | {O 'ԍId. at 7283.I In order to allow LECs to focus their resources on areas within the designated MSAs in which competitors were actually seeking  X4entry,v  {OL 'ԍFirst Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 7272.v the Commission revised the LECs' deployment obligations and required them to provide number portability only in those switches within the largest 100 MSAs for which a  X_4competing carrier specifically requested its provision. _ {O'ԍId. at 727273. Thus, pursuant to the First Order on Reconsideration, LECs are required to fulfill number portability requests only in requested switches by the deadlines established by the Commission for each deployment phase. For example, Phase I requires LECs serving Chicago, Philadelphia, Atlanta, New York, Los Angeles, Houston, and Minneapolis to provide portability in specific switches by March 31, 1998, in response to competitor requests.  The Commission concluded that such a procedure would foster efficient deployment of portability, ensure that LECs could maintain network integrity by giving them time to plan and test portability before widespread  X 4deployment, and reduce costs.@  R  {O'ԍId.@  X 44. ` ` In the First Order on Reconsideration, the Commission modified its rule that carriers outside of the largest 100 MSAs could file requests for number portability only after deployment has been completed in the 100 largest MSAs. Under the revised rule, carriers  X 4may submit portability deployment requests to the LECs at any time.D  {O>'ԍId. at 7298. D In modifying the implementation obligation of carriers, the Commission refused to adopt the proposal of several petitioners that would have accelerated the time frame within which LECs would be  Xd4required to fulfill portability requests in markets outside the 100 largest MSAs.Adv {O"'ԍId. A Rather, the Commission held that requests for deployment in smaller MSAs occurring on or prior to"M0*$$33x" January 1, 1999 either must be fulfilled within six months of January 1, 1999, or resolved in  X4private agreements for early deployment. {Ob'ԍId. The First Order on Reconsideration did not change the requirement that requests for deployment  yO,'filed after January 1, 1999, must be completed within six months of the request.  In limiting initial deployment to larger MSAs, the Commission weighed the availability of switch software, the burden on carriers serving  X4multiple regions, and the potential need for significant upgrades in smaller markets.L" {O'ԍId. at 729697.L The Commission concluded that accelerating deployment schedules in smaller markets might divert limited resources from larger MSAs and thus delay the overall deployment of number  Xv4portability.;v {O 'ԍId. ;  XH45. ` ` The revised implementation schedule leaves to industry and to state commissions the determination of the most efficient means of identifying those switches  X 4within the top 100 MSAs in which carriers have expressed interest.C F {O'ԍId. at 7273.C The Commission established minimum criteria applicable to "any procedure to identify and request switches for deployment of number portability to ensure that carriers that receive requests for deployment  X 4in their switches have adequate time to fulfill the requests.";  {O^'ԍId. ; In order to ensure that LECs are not overburdened with demands for number portability, and to provide carrier certainty, the Commission concluded that state commissions may not accelerate the deployment  X4schedule.\j  {O'ԍId. at 729798. Because the First Report and Order was silent on the issue of whether states could accelerate the deployment schedule, the Commission grandfathered any state decisions to accelerate deployment  {O='for a particular market that were adopted prior to the release of the First Order on Reconsideration. Id. at 7298.  Xb'M2 III. PETITION Đ\  X446. ` ` KMC seeks reconsideration of the revised number portability deployment  X4schedule the Commission adopted in the First Order on Reconsideration with respect to   markets outside the 100 largest MSAs. KMC contends that switch vendors may have the capacity to support number portability deployment in smaller markets now that LECs are required to implement number portability only in those switches within the 100 largest MSAs" 0*$$33"  X4where a competitor requests its provision.C yOy'ԍKMC Petition at 2.C KMC further asserted that by November 1, 1997, one month after the deadline for competitive LECs to request portability in MSAs in the first  X4three phases of the implementation schedule,\^X {O'ԍPursuant to the First Order on Reconsideration, carriers must request number portability deployment in  {O'specific switches within an MSA nine months before the deadline for deployment in that MSA. First Order on  {Oo'Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 7274.\ vendors should know if they are capable of  X4converting more switches than the implementation schedule requires LECs to convert.I~ yO 'ԍKMC Petition at 6.I Such excess vendor capacity, KMC maintains, should be used to implement portability outside the  X4largest 100 MSAs.@ {OL 'ԍId. at 3.@ Specifically, KMC proposes that, beginning November 1, 1997, LECs be required to provide number portability in any MSA outside the largest 100 within six months of the receipt of a competitor's request, unless the LEC obtains a statement from a switch  XH4vendor that it does not have capacity to fulfill the request.@H {O'ԍId. at 2.@ Pursuant to KMC's proposal, a LEC would need to submit such a vendor statement to the Commission in order to obtain a waiver of the implementation obligation.  X 'D IV. DISCUSSION Đ\  X 47. ` ` As an initial matter, we reject the procedural objections of commentersd 2  yO'ԍThe Appendix contains a list of commenting parties.d that  X 4KMC's petition simply repeats arguments advanced in its prior petition for reconsideration.  yO'ԍU S WEST Opposition at 23; Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Opposition at 23; USTA Opposition at 35. Although the instant petition, like KMC's prior petition, asks the Commission to accelerate the implementation of number portability outside the top 100 MSAs, the instant petition is based  Xb4on the Commission's modification of the implementation obligations in the First Order on  XM4Reconsideration. In this respect, the First Order on Reconsideration "modifie[d] rules adopted by the original order," and is, "to the extent of such modification, subject to  X!4reconsideration in the same manner as the original order."XX!R  yO$"'ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.429(i) provides that X[a]ny order disposing of a petition for reconsideration which modifies rules adopted by the"#0*$$#" original order is, to the extent of such modification, subject to reconsideration in the same manner as the original order. Except in such circumstance, a second petition for reconsideration may be dismissed by the staff as repetitious.  We therefore find that KMC's"!0*$$332" petition, which asserts that the Commission's modification of LEC implementation obligations created the potential for excess vendor capacity, should not be dismissed as repetitious.  X48. ` ` Although we do not dismiss KMC's petition on procedural grounds, we deny it on substantive grounds. The focus of KMC's petition is the excess vendor capacity that it anticipates will result from the revised implementation schedule. Although KMC correctly  Xv4states that the Commission in the First Report and Order took into account the ability of  Xa4switch vendors to fulfill portability implementation requests,na {O 'ԍFirst Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 8393.n KMC erroneously claims that vendor capacity was "the Commission's primary consideration in establishing the deployment  X34schedule."@3z yO^'ԍKMC Reply at 4.@ Available switch capacity was only one of the bases for the Commission's decision to implement number portability more slowly outside the 100 largest MSAs. For  X 4example, in the First Order on Reconsideration, the Commission found that confining initial deployment to the 100 largest MSAs recognized "the burden on carriers serving multiple regions and the fact that more significant upgrades may be necessary for carriers operating in  X 4smaller areas."  {O}'ԍFirst Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 7297. Ą The Commission also recognized that beginning implementation in larger markets serves to "ensure that number portability will be made available in those regions  X4where competing service providers are likely to offer alternative services.":! {O'ԍId.: We are not persuaded on the basis of this record that the potential existence of excess vendor capacity outweighs these considerations that led the Commission to focus initially on bringing local  XO4number portability to larger markets."O.  {O.'ԍSee U S WEST Opposition at 9; Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Opposition at 4; Ameritech Opposition at 3; USTA Opposition at 6.  X!49. ` ` We further find, as the Commission did in the First Order on Reconsideration, that KMC has not shown that "the necessary software, hardware, and other resources will be available earlier in areas originally scheduled for later deployment, or will be available in quantities sufficient to support deployment in additional areas, particularly in areas outside the" "0*$$33{"  X4largest 100 MSAs."v# {Oy'ԍFirst Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 7297.v The deployment of number portability in the top 100 MSAs is a major undertaking that will require LECs to commit a large amount of resources in order to ensure  X4its successful completion.$Z {O'ԍSee U S WEST Opposition at 10; Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Opposition at 5; Ameritech Opposition at 3; USTA Opposition at 8. For example, U S WEST notes that it may be necessary to upgrade tandem and operator services switches and E911 systems in the specified geographic area, modify operations support systems and service control points, and add signaling links  X4and additional trunks.:% {O 'ԍId.: To the extent that LECs are required to allocate resources to smaller markets while at the same time fulfilling their obligation to deploy number portability in the larger markets, efficient deployment of number portability may be jeopardized because resources would need to be deployed in multiple potentially distant geographic areas  X14simultaneously.R&1F yO('ԍU S WEST Opposition at 8, n.21. R We also note, in response to MCI's contention that LECs should be required to offer portability in MSAs adjacent to those within the 100 largest MSAs, that the  X 4resource demands on the LEC may be just as high in such MSAs.'X  yO'ԍLetter from Donna M. Roberts, Senior Counsel Federal Law and Public Policy, MCI Telecommunications Corp., to Richard Metzger, Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission at 2 (Dec. 10, 1997). As U S WEST asserts, "consideration of whether one or two more offices in smaller MSAs can be added to a Phase because one or two offices were not requested by LECs in the top 100 MSAs is a more complex network planning and deployment question than whether the local switch vendor has  X 4one or two open slots for loading software in endoffices' switches."P(  yON'ԍU S WEST Opposition at 8.P Given these concerns, the Commission previously found that phased implementation, beginning with requested switches in the largest 100 MSAs, is the most effective way of balancing the need for  Xb4efficient number portability deployment with the availability of LEC resources.e)b  {O'ԍFirst Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 839495.e KMC offers no response to these arguments; indeed, KMC acknowledges that "in some cases the need to perform network upgrades or modifications may preclude a LEC from meeting [a] deadline,  X4despite the availability of the necessary vendor software."@* yO"'ԍKMC Reply at 6.@ "*0*$$336"Ԍ X4 10. ` ` We note that in modifying the implementation schedule to allow more time for the initial rollout of number portability, the Commission emphasized that it considers  X4"network reliability to be of paramount importance."p+ {OK'ԍFirst Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 7285.p We continue to believe that network reliability is of the utmost importance and find that the current implementation schedule, by allowing LECs to focus on the larger MSAs for the initial phases of implementation, provides LECs certainty as to the Commission's requirements and ensures that resources will not be spread so thinly as to jeopardize number portability deployment and network reliability. It would be inconsistent with these important considerations for the Commission to accelerate the schedule for smaller markets so early in the implementation process.  X 4 11. ` ` We also find that KMC's proposal, by placing burdensome filing requirements on LECs and switch vendors, is an inefficient way to determine where network capabilities  X 4should be deployed._, Z {O'ԍSee Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Opposition at 5._ Requiring LECs first to obtain a statement from switch vendors that they do not have capacity to handle portability requests in smaller MSAs, and then to use that statement to obtain a waiver from the Commission, would create an administrative problem for LECs as they respond to number portability requests in compliance with the deployment  X4schedule, and could be administratively burdensome for the Commission as well.z- {O-'ԍKMC Petition at 2, 8. In the First Report and Order, the Commission authorized the Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau "to waive or stay any of the dates in the implementation schedule, as the Chief determines is necessary to ensure the efficient development of number portability, for a period not to exceed 9  {O'months (i.e., no later than September 30, 1999)." First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 8397. In addition, KMC maintains that a LEC could utilize the Commission's waiver procedure even without a statement of vendor capacity. z In addition, such a waiver procedure could disrupt the continued orderly and efficient deployment of number portability in areas already scheduled for deployment by diverting resources to smaller MSAs before deployment in requested switches within the 100 largest  X44MSAs is complete..4h  yOM'ԍBell Atlantic/NYNEX Opposition at 7; USTA Opposition at 6; U S WEST Opposition at 11. The Commission rejected a similar waivertype proposal in the First  X4Order on Reconsideration after concluding that "a waiver procedure would create a period of uncertainty for both the incumbent LEC and the competitive LEC as to whether portability  X4would actually be deployed in that switch."p/  {O!'ԍFirst Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 7277.p We therefore decline to adopt a proposal that  X4could place administrative hurdles in the way of efficient number portability implementation.@0  {O$'ԍId.@"00*$$33{"Ԍ X4ԙ 12. ` ` Moreover, KMC has failed to produce any evidence to support its contention that excess vendor capacity will in fact be available. KMC offers only its conclusory  X4assertion that by November 1, 1997,P1X yOK'ԍKMC suggests that by November 1, 1997, one month after the September 30, 1997, deadline for initial requests for the first three phases of number portability implementation, LECs will know the extent of the demands on their resources in deploying number portability. KMC Petition at 3. P "it should be apparent whether the initial requests for number portability within the top 100 MSAs are running at a level that leaves the vendors  X4with unused capacity.":2 {O= 'ԍId.: In response to KMC's assertion, U S WEST submitted evidence that competitors in its service area will request portability deployment in most of U S WEST's  Xv4switches in the first three phases of deployment.3zvz yO 'ԍU S WEST Opposition at 6. As an example, U S WEST notes that in Phases I, II, and III of the deployment schedule, it will be responsible for updating switches in Minneapolis, Phoenix, Seattle, Denver, and Portland, Oregon. New entrant polling indicates that in Minneapolis, only 1 of 48 host switches and 20 of 25 remote switches will not be selected by competitors for number portability deployment. In Seattle and Denver, the poll suggests that all switches will be selected. In Phoenix, polling is not complete. In Portland, the poll  {O'finds that only 4 of 26 host switches and 1 of 4 remote switches will not be selected. See U S WEST Opposition at Appendix. KMC offers nothing to counter this evidence that U S WEST will be occupied in converting most of its switches under the present implementation schedule. KMC's argument also ignores the fact that the deadline for  X14requesting number portability in 55 of the 100 largest MSAs is not until after November 1,  X 41997,m4  {O'ԍSee First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 8485. m and LECs will not yet know to what extent their resources and the resources of  X 4vendors will be needed to meet forthcoming number portability implementation requests.Q5Z N  {O'ԍSee Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Opposition at 5 (stating that in the early stages of number portability implementation it is impossible to determine what vendor capacity will be because "industry does not yet know the volume of end offices for which number portability will be requested").Q Moreover, the Commission has not been presented with any evidence in this proceeding subsequent to November 1, 1997 that suggests that excess vendor capacity is in fact now available. We decline to modify our rules based on KMC's speculative assertion that excess vendor capacity may become available.  X{4 13. ` ` Finally, we affirm the Commission's determination that any arrangements for  Xd4early deployment in smaller MSAs should be left to private agreements.|6dp {O"'ԍFirst Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 7298.| Such agreements could specify that a carrier will not request that certain switches be deployed according to the"M 60*$$33Q" Commission's schedule if the LEC from which deployment is requested agrees to deploy other number portabilitycapable switches outside the 100 largest MSAs at an earlier date than the  X4deadlines in the Commission's schedule.C7 {OK'ԍId. at 7274.C As USTA points out, KMC does not allege that it  X4has encountered any problem with this flexible approach.8Z {O'ԍUSTA Opposition at 5. See also USTA Opposition at 6; Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Opposition at 5; U S WEST Opposition at 12. Should carriers agree to "swap" the implementation deadlines for specific MSAs or switches within MSAs, they can jointly  X4file specific waivers to do so.v9 {O 'ԍFirst Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd at 7298.v Given the numerous factors that influenced the development  Xv4of the phased implementation schedule, we conclude, as did the Commission in the First  Xa4Order on Reconsideration, that permitting private agreements among LECs is preferable to a wholesale modification of the implementation system for wireline carriers.  X 'B V. CONCLUSION Đ\  X 4 14. ` ` For the reasons stated above, we deny KMC's petition for reconsideration and affirm the revised implementation schedule for wireline carriers adopted by the Commission  X 4as set forth in the First Order on Reconsideration.  X' " F90*$$33E"  X'!VI. ORDERING CLAUSES Đ\  X415. ` ` Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 201205, 218, and 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i) and (j), 201205, 218, and 251, KMC's Petition for Reconsideration IS DENIED.  ` `  hhCFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hhCMagalie Roman Salas ` `  hhCSecretary" 90*$$33 "  X'] APPENDIX Đ\  X' Petition for Reconsideration (filed 5/8/97): KMC Telecom, Inc. [KMC]  X_' Oppositions to Petition for Reconsideration (filed 5/11/97): Ameritech Bell Atlantic and NYNEX [Bell Atlantic/NYNEX] United States Telephone Association [USTA] U S WEST, Inc. [U S WEST]  X ' Reply (filed 5/23/97):  X4KMC #Xx{2 PQXP#