WPC9 2fBJ% ZCourier3|a Times New Roman@`7X@Times New RomanTimes New Roman Bold P6G;PjX@HP LaserJet 4M (PCL) (Additional)HL4MPCAD.PRSC\  P6Q\%jP6G;9XP#2gK< 5kCourierCG Times"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNI\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\3|a  S- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#&J\  P6Q&P#nZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/ #XP\  P6Q9XP#"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicTimes New Roman Bold ItalicAntique Olivea.(1)(a) i) a)#&J\  P6Qu&P#2vpwkkRa8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# 2vt  ~a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers :`S@ I.  X(# 2 J   @a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# 2W"' ~!a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers_o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2g%"#Y$$Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 2V(%G&&'a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   2.()3)*a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheading#0\ E A.  FOOTNOTEFootnote - Appearance$PHIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd%+. 26&y3'4(X&5)1~5DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date& X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style off'@@    HEADERHeader A - Appearance(LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5) 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   2:*16+18,1C9-nt:LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5*f 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11+L 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14, 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a Document-K\ * ă2<.X;/l;0i;1dV<FOOTERFooter A - Appearanced.BLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indented/N X HEADING 33rd Heading Level0| XHIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold Large1B*d. 2A2j<3V=4Eu?5-@HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored2 V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/margins3u 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 Invoice4 ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page Format5D.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   2F68B78QC8D9X*FINVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice6:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macro7z 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice8+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle92 H:[F;[G<[jG=[GSMALLSmall Typestyle:FINEFine Typestyle;LARGELarge Typestyle<EXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle=2J>[RH?H@X0JAXJVERY LARGEVery Large Typestyle>ENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header?+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   MACNormal@,.1Adf2RBKCKDRLEl1QStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without MarginsB$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5C$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIDJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/TabsE )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !2UFRGkSH|SIsTStyle 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsFDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 FontG4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5H$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 PointI$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO 2`JEUKULVM[Style 7Swiss 11.5J$$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 2lN`OePjQkStyle 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 Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph FontP11#XXz PQXP##Iz PQP#head1 #Q'd#2p}wC@ #2nRKlSlTfmUna2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfR/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfS:` ` `  a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfTE` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfUP  ` ` ` hhh 2qVnWoXRpYvqa6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfV[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfWf  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfXq footnote texX6Y0/K&"=(&8oY 52*&0ß- oYFEY2|Zoq[(3r\[z]|footnote refX6Y0/K&"=(&8oY 62*&0ß- oYFEZMACDocumentX6Y0/K&"=(&8oY I2*&0ß- oYFE[x7X8    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<     #:}D4PXP#  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a),X0Í Í,X0Í Í,0Í Í,0Í Í,XÍ.,XÍ.,Í.,Í. .,., US#:}D4PXP##u\4 PXP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<     #:}D4PXP#  .,., US#:}D4P XP##:}D4P XP#para numYNX6Ynumbered indented paragraphs N2*&0ß- oYFE\;'< 1.#Xw P 7XP# 1.Ҳ3Bß- oYPX6Y`0/K&"=(&8oY P2*&0ß- oYFE]'=>#d6X@ C@#2~^|_N}`}ab~heading 4SX6Yheading 4/K&"=(&8oY S2*&0ß- oYFE^ABheading 5TX6Yheading 5/K&"=(&8oY T2*&0ß- oYFE_CDheading 6UX6Yheading 6/K&"=(&8oY U2*&0ß- oYFE`EFheading 7VX6Yheading 7/K&"=(&8oY V2*&0ß- oYFEaGH28bcd(eheading 8WX6Yheading 8/K&"=(&8oY W2*&0ß- oYFEbIJDefault ParaX6YDefault Paragraph Font8oY X2*&0ß- oYFEcKLendnote textX6Yendnote text&"=(&8oY Y2*&0ß- oYFEdMNendnote refeX6Yendnote reference&8oY Z2*&0ß- oYFEeOP22f2jg2h2΅i2toc 1 oY[X6Ytoc 10/K&"=(&8oY [2*&0ß- oYFEfQR(#`` hp x (#toc 2 oY\X6Ytoc 20/K&"=(&8oY \2*&0ß- oYFEgST` (#`` hp x (#toc 3 oY]X6Ytoc 30/K&"=(&8oY ]2*&0ß- oYFEhUV` (#` hp x (#toc 4 oY^X6Ytoc 40/K&"=(&8oY ^2*&0ß- oYFEiWX (#` hp x (#2j2dk2lȎm2Rtoc 5 oY_X6Ytoc 50/K&"=(&8oY _2*&0ß- oYFEjYZh(#` hp x (#toc 6 oY`X6Ytoc 60/K&"=(&8oY `2*&0ß- oYFEk[\(# ` hp x (#toc 7 oYaX6Ytoc 70/K&"=(&8oY a2*&0ß- oYFEl]^toc 8 oYbX6Ytoc 80/K&"=(&8oY b2*&0ß- oYFEm_`(# ` hp x (#2~n2o2p2q2Ltoc 9 oYcX6Ytoc 90/K&"=(&8oY c2*&0ß- oYFEnab(#`` hp x (#index 1oYdX6Yindex 10/K&"=(&8oY d2*&0ß- oYFEocd` (#` hp x (#index 2oYeX6Yindex 20/K&"=(&8oY e2*&0ß- oYFEpef` (#`` hp x (#toa headingX6Ytoa heading&"=(&8oY f2*&0ß- oYFEqgh(#` hp x (#2xrs:tZudcaptionoYgX6Ycaption0/K&"=(&8oY g2*&0ß- oYFErij_Equation CaX6Y_Equation Caption&8oY h2*&0ß- oYFEskl1, 2, 3,YiX6YNumbers0/K&"=(&8oY i2*&0ß- oYFEtmn1.A, B, oYjX6YUppercase Letters&8oY j2*&0ß- oYFEu op.2vw-xyT4Bß- oYkX6Y0/K&"=(&8oY k2*&0ß- oYFEv+qr5Bß- oYlX6Y0/K&"=(&8oY l2*&0ß- oYFEw'st#d6X@ C@#6Bß- oYmX6YDefault Paragraph Font8oY m2*&0ß- oYFEx(u(v7Bß- oYnX6Yendnote reference&8oY n2*&0ß- oYFEy+w+x2?z4{ܟ|q]}qΠ8Bß- oYoX6Y_Equation Caption&8oY o2*&0ß- oYFEz(y(za1AgendaFE+&Bß-Agenda Items``0/K&(=(&2*&0{%{|*  a2AgendaFE+&Bß-Agenda Items``0/K&(=(&2*&0|}~a3AgendaFE+&Bß-Agenda Items``0/K&(=(&2*&0}25~qqqqSqĢa4AgendaFE+&Bß-Agenda Items``0/K&(=(&2*&0~a5AgendaFE+&Bß-Agenda Items``0/K&(=(&2*&0a6AgendaFE+&Bß-Agenda Items``0/K&(=(&2*&0a7AgendaFE+&Bß-Agenda Items``0/K&(=(&2*&02qgأja8AgendaFE+&Bß-Agenda Items``0/K&(=(&2*&0a127 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&08@   a227 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0A@` `  ` ` ` a327 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0J` ` @  ` `  2Ũۥ>a427 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0S` `  @  a527 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0\` `  @hh# hhh a627 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0e` `  hh#@( hh# a727 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0n` `  hh#(@- ( 2eȩ-lKa827 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp footnote referencefootnote reference footnote textfootnote textX` hp x (#` p x (#` p x (#X` hp x (#Indent .5Indent .5X` hp x (#` p x (##Xx6X@DQX@##XP\  P6QXP#` p x (#X` hp x (#2s@rIndent 1Indent 1X` hp x (#` p x (#` p x (#X` hp x (#page numberpage number11#Xx6X@DQX@##XP\  P6QXP#QuoteQuoteX` hp x (#` p x (#endnote referenceendnote reference 2ܵl:_Equation Caption_Equation Caption a1Order8X X-I.xa2OrderAp X-xA.` ` a3OrderJ* X-x` ` 1. 2t p.qea4Order4 X- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. 1.(1)(a) i) a)I.xDocument[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O g` ` ` Document[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g  . Document[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g  2e pDocument[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g  Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g*    Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g  ` ` ` Right Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g8 @  2SҺmRight Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gA@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g0     Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gS` ` `  @  2;¿Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O ge` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gn` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gw` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 2%Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gF    ׃  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 g*%&    2W0Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g''(   Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&)*   Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g4+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&-.  . 2l~i}Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&/0  . reference;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2I ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# 2 %CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded Documentiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#annotation rK&7>annotation referenceGw. "7>NGI "OaOb#Xv P7XP##Xv P7XP#annotation tK&7>annotation textGw/ "7>NGI "2c(d2CRp#2G2*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "8ij@  9G9*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "wwx` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 10G0*(Q&7tDocument Style Gl0 "7t GI "׸GH` ` ` 11G1*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׹4I$J     2u:12G2*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׺*KL    13G3*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׻'MN   14G4*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׼&OP   15G5*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׽&QR  . 2v16G6*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׾&ST  . 17G7*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׿&UV  . 18G8*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "&WX  . 19G9*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "8YZ@  2D020G:*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "A[\@` ` `  ` ` ` 21G;*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "J]^` ` ` @  ` ` ` 22G<*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "S_`` ` `  @  23G=*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "\ab` ` `  @hhh hhh 2p24G>*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "ecd` ` `  hhh@ hhh 25G?*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "nef` ` `  hhh@  26G@*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "wgh` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 27wSg K6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJmn` ` @  ` `  20Fh28wSg L6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ESop` `  @  29wSg M6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\qr` `  @hh# hhh 30wSg N6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Eest` `  hh#@( hh# 31wSg O6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Enuv` `  hh#(@- ( 2bp3S32wSg P6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ewwx` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 33wSg R6w Document Style=(H8g Rܺ*HںwSg E{|` ` ` 34wSg S6w Technical Document Styleg Sܺ*HںwSg E4}$~     35wSg T6w Technical Document Styleg Tܺ*HںwSg E*    2T!J36wSg U6w Technical Document Styleg Uܺ*HںwSg E'   37wSg V6w Technical Document Styleg Vܺ*HںwSg E&   38wSg W6w Technical Document Styleg Wܺ*HںwSg E&  . 39wSg X6w Technical Document Styleg Xܺ*HںwSg E&  . 2 "40wSg Y6w Technical Document Styleg Yܺ*HںwSg E&  . 41wSg Z6w Technical Document Styleg Zܺ*HںwSg E&  . 42wSg [6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   43wSg \6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 2@44wSg ]6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  45wSg ^6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  46wSg _6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 47wSg `6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 2:48wSg a6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 49wSg b6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 50wSg c6w Document Style=(H8g cܺ*HںwSg EF *  ׃  51wSg d6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  2s252wSg e6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  53wSg f6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 54wSg g6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 55wSg h6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 2,pm56wSg i6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 57wSg j6w Document Style=(H8g jܺ*HںwSg E` ` ` 58wSg k6w Technical Document Styleg kܺ*HںwSg E4$     59wSg l6w Technical Document Styleg lܺ*HںwSg E*    260wSg m6w Technical Document Styleg mܺ*HںwSg E'   61wSg n6w Technical Document Styleg nܺ*HںwSg E&   62wSg o6w Technical Document Styleg oܺ*HںwSg E&  . 63wSg p6w Technical Document Styleg pܺ*HںwSg E&  . 2PZ64wSg q6w Technical Document Styleg qܺ*HںwSg E&  . 65wSg r6w Technical Document Styleg rܺ*HںwSg E&  . 66wSg s6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   67wSg t6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 2] 68wSg u6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  69wSg v6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  70wSg w6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 71wSg x6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 2yJ72wSg y6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 73wSg z6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 74wSg {6w Document Style=(H8g {ܺ*HںwSg EF *  ׃  75wSg |6w Document Style=(H8g |ܺ*HںwSg E*   2q^ee476wSg }6w Document Style=(H8g }ܺ*HںwSg E0    77wSg ~6w Document Style=(H8g ~ܺ*HںwSg E  . 78wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  79wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  2pK;KK80wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E` ` ` "i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\4  pG;  jH )^ `> 2{:? KTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicTimes New Roman Bold ItalicAntique OliveAntique Olive Italic P6G;&P7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XP7nC:,|Xn4  pG;XW!@(#,h@\  P6G;hPH5!,i,5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,%0W*f9 xr G;X\5hC:,%2Xh*f9 xr G;XX y.\80,T\4  pG;y-X70,X\  P6G;P \z,V70,%1V*f9 xr G;X6jC:,<Xj9 xOG;X@|ND,5|\  P6G;P"i~'^DO]uuĶOOOu=O=AuuuuuuuuuuAAgרOYͨۨOAOkuOgugugOuuAAuAuuuuOYAuuuugp/p~O=~kOOO=OOOOOOOOuAggggg͘gggggOAOAOAOAuuuuuuuuuuguruuuuggggg~ggggguuu~u~uOAOuOOOu~~uA]OOAuuuuuͨOOOYYY~bAkuuuuuuۨ~ggguOuYOu=uuN*NWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNTTkuOguuuuuAKuFKuFOOgguPPuu叱T錌TƒOguF"u錇~u匌u2' K``N!"i~'^DOuuOOOu=O=AuuuuuuuuuuOOuۨYuۨ騨OAOuOuggOuAOAăugYOuuug]3]yO=yOOO=OOOOOOuOAuuuuu騨gggggVAVAVAVAuuuuuuuuuuuuuggyggggguuuyuYAYYOYyyAiO]Auu稨gggYYYywO騨ygggOYOu=uuN?NWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNTT|uOuuuuuuFOuFOuFOOuuuPPuu鏱T錌TƒOuuF"u錊~u匌uy.X80,X\  P6G;P2a=5,&a\  P6G;&P7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XP7nC:,|Xn4  pG;XW!@(#,h@\  P6G;hPH5!,i,5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,%0W*f9 xr G;X\5hC:,%2Xh*f9 xr G;XX y.\80,T\4  pG;y-X70,X\  P6G;P \z,V70,%1V*f9 xr G;X6jC:,<Xj9 xOG;X@|ND,5|\  P6G;P @ND,4  pG;L(i81,X$iA P-7PLL?!,XD,?A P-7,P"i~'K2^14Gccx+11c1114cccccccccc11`uoduc`r{.MiV{xixiY`xiiid141SS+`u]uiJor11`.rruuMMMoc]cVJSJc0ccccc1ccccccSci1u`u`u`u`u`§f]cicicici.1.1.1.1{rxrxrxrxrxoxoxoxoicu`uaxrxricuriu{Zuc{ZuZuZdcdcxnaZciciaZ{arorororo{r{r/1cicc0ix`ccicZ(Z9ccV8V.xaxa{raxrk3"i~'K2^+;;fH;f;;;;;;;;;;dfd9fFC(>$;;HCH:HCHCH:HCb[?;<0<4<0FF;;JE;;;;?;B22WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHHH2;;966;;m;;;ff;'+22;f''';f##dd;;==Ld2d2H2PhhEEf'2f'"ddddHHddd2Hdd9HHffddd2ffdddf2!!dddddH;dfHHHHHHHHHHd2F;8;fdHdJ2;H2;9HNAddHHHHHHHHHHddddd6dHHHHdddddddddddddddddddHHddddddSC=NdHddd+;HHHHddddddHHH2HHdHHdddHHH,HHHH,HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHF8C682J6;.=+J9L6?2J4Y8J8?+H9H9?6;;,9.?6QF?0PEJLF;J;H??J68LEEI;;;;FJ;;;???J92,!ddhrZz.lZrrvvnFFZ8 X4#o\  PC9XP#w  Federal Communications Commission`u(#cFCC 9942 ă   yxdddy  S'#f\  PC&P#c#o\  PC9XP#ъ+` Before thepp  * w Federal Communications Commission  X'-Washington, D.C. 20554 ă COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA STATE) CORPORATION COMMISSION,) ) ` ` Complainant,) )  X4` `  v.)ppFile No. E9901 ) MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS ) CORPORATION,) ) ` ` Defendant.) ) )  Xg'  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER \  X'X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:'ЍVirginia Constitution, Art. IX,  5; VSCC Brief 3.p  X9 47.` ` The Commission determined in the Universal Service Order that, consistent  X 4with sections 2(b) and 254 of the Act,Z F yOg'Ѝ47 U.S.C.  152(b), 254.Z it could assess interstate carriers on the basis of the carriers' total revenues, including intrastate revenues, to fund various Universal Service  X 4mechanisms.u . F yO'ЍFor purposes of assessing contributions to the high cost and low income support mechanisms, the Commission determined that, although it has authority to assess based on intrastate revenues, it would assess  {OA'based on interstate revenues only. Universal Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 9200, para. 831. For the schools and libraries and rural health care mechanisms, the Commission adopted the Joint Board's recommendation that  {O'contributions be assessed on both intrastate and interstate revenues. Id. at 9203, para. 837.u In so holding, the Commission stated that its calculation of carriers' Universal Service contributions based, in part, on carriers' intrastate revenues does "not constitute rate  X4regulation of those [intrastate] services."XF {O 'ЍId. at 9196, para. 821.X The Commission did not require carriers to recover their contribution requirements from consumers. The Commission determined, however, that carriers who choose to recoup the amount of their universal service  X#4contributions from their customers may do so "through rates for interstate services only."D\#tF {OH$'ЍId. at 919091, 9198, 920304, paras. 809, 825, 838 . The Commission also stated that carriers can  {O%'recoup their universal service contributions only from "interstate access and interexchange customers." Id. at 9199, para. 829.D "#,\(\(<<Y" The Commission further decided that carriers may not shift more than an equitable share of  X4contributions to any customer or group of customers.F zNV'#@\  P  P#ЍId. at 9199, para. 829.  X48.` ` In 1997, after release of the Universal Service Order, MCI filed certain  Xv4amendments to its Tariff F.C.C. No. 1 at issue here.tvXF yO'ЍMCI FCC Tariff No. 1.  C1.0611 through C1.0613.t These amendments added two charges  XS4to be imposed on MCIs customers: (1) the Federal Universal Service Fee (FUSF) and (2) the  X04National Access Fee (NAF).T0F yO 'ЍJoint Statement at 23. T  X 4  X49.` ` From January 1, 1998 through July 2, 1998, MCI charged the FUSF to all of  X4its business customers who had interstate usage in a given month.LxF {O'ЍId. at 34.L The purpose of the FUSF  X4was to recover MCI's contributions to the various universal service support mechanisms.L F {O_'ЍId. at 34.L MCI calculated the FUSF based on a percentage of its business customers' total invoices 5.0 % of small business customers' total invoices, and 4.4 % of large business customers'  X; 4total invoices.; F yO'ЍVSCC Brief at 14. MCI did not impose the FUSF or any other universal service recoupment charge on residential customers during the relevant period. MCI Brief at 3. "Total" invoices included intrastate, interstate, and international usage  X 4charges.Q F yO'ЍVSCC Brief at 1314. Q Similarly, from January 1, 1998, to March 31, 1998, MCI charged the NAF to its small business customers to recover MCI's presubscribed interexchange carrier charge  X 4(PICC).p F {O'ЍMCI Brief at 3; Access Reform Order at 150045.p MCI calculated the NAF using a methodology comparable to that used for the  X4FUSF.RF yOv'ЍJoint Statement at 35.R  Xi4 10.` ` In February 1998, VSCC staff members asserted to MCI that MCI's federally  XF4tariffed FUSF and NAF improperly imposed intrastate charges on MCIs interstate customers  X%4in Virginia.S%F yO|#'ЍVSCC Brief at 45.S In March 1998, MCI responded to VSCC staff that it believed the FUSF and  X4NAF were interstate charges wholly consistent with relevant FCC orders.D6F {O%'ЍId.D ",\(\(<<"Ԍ X4 11.` ` On April 3, 1998, MCI filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling with this Commission seeking a declaratory ruling that carriers may impose charges on their interstate  X4customers that are calculated in the manner that MCI calculated the FUSF.k ^F {O3'ЍMCI Petition for Declaratory Ruling, Petition for Declaratory Ruling That Carriers May Assess  {O'Interstate Customers An Interstate Universal Service Charge Which is Based on Total Revenues, CC Docket No.  {O'9645 (filed Apr. 3, 1998) (MCI Petition). k The VSCC filed  X4an opposition to the MCI Petition.]!\F {O6'ЍPetition for Declaratory Ruling That Carriers May Assess Interstate Customers an Interstate Universal  {O 'Service Charge Which is Based on Total Revenues, CC Docket No. 9645, Opposition of the Staff of the Virginia State Corporation Commission (filed April 13, 1998).] The MCI Petition is currently pending before the  Xv4Commission.  XS4  X04 12.` ` On May 8, 1998, the VSCC issued an Order on Rule to Show Cause prohibiting MCI from collecting the FUSF and the NAF from Virginia customers and requiring MCI to refund to Virginia customers all the challenged charges previously  X4collected.T"\F {O'ЍSee Order on Rule to Show Cause, State Corporation Commission v. MCI Telecommunications  {OT'Corporation of Virginia, Case No. PUC 980024 at 5 (Va. Corp. Commn May 8, 1998) (Show Cause Order) (attached to VSCC Brief at Ex. 3).T On May 11, 1998, MCI and MCIVirginia jointly filed a complaint seeking injunctive and declaratory relief from the Show Cause Order in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (District Court). The complaint contended that  X^ 4federal law preempts the VSCCs Show Cause Order.#$^ 6 F {OE'ЍMCI Telecommunications Corporation and MCI Telecommunications Corporation of Virginia v. Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission and Hullihen Williams Moore, I. Clinton Miller, and Theodore V. Morrison, Jr., in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Commonwealth of Virginia State  {O'Corporation Commission, Civil Action No. 98CV281, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On May 22, 1998 the District Court  X; 4permanently enjoined the VSCC from implementing and enforcing the Show Cause Order.$; "F {O'ЍSee MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Virginia State Corp. Commn, 11 F. Supp. 2d 669, 675 (E.D. Va. 1998). The District Court held that (1) VSCC lacked authority to invalidate MCIs tariff, and (2)  X 4VSCC could challenge the validity of MCIs tariff before the FCC only.C% |F {O"'ЍId. The District Court's decision is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth  {O'Circuit. See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. State Corp. Commn, No. 982026 (4th Cir. filed July 10, 1998).C In response, VSCC  X 4filed the instant formal complaint on October 7, 1998.& F {O["'ЍCommonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., File No. E-99-01 (filed on October 7, 1998).  X4 XX    "2&,\(\(<<"Ԍ X' EIII. DISCUSSION à  X' A.MCI's FUSF Did Not Violate the Universal Service Order.  X4X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:, {O'ЍUniversal Service Order, at 9190, para. 809.m  X420.` ` Based on a review of the record before us, we cannot conclude that MCI's  X4recovery methodology at issue here violates the Universal Service Order. In the Universal  Xm4Service Order, the Commission declined to "mandate that carriers recover contributions in a  XL4particular manner;"X<L, {O%'ЍId. at 9211, para. 853.X the Commission, instead, permitted "carriers the flexibility to decide how"Lb<,K(K(<<"  X4they should recover their contributions."J=, {Oy'ЍId.J Under these circumstances, a carrier could reasonably have concluded that the methodology for recovering universal service contributions  X4at issue here fell within the directive of the Universal Service Order. Therefore, we cannot conclude that, in this instance, MCI's recovery methodology was an unreasonable  Xv4interpretation of the Universal Service Order. We note that the appropriateness of particular recovery methodologies will be addressed fully by the Commission in a forthcoming order on  X24reconsideration of the Universal Service Order.>2Z, yO= 'ЍOur resolution of this claim here moots MCI's Petition for Declaratory Ruling. An appropriate order will be issued in that proceeding.  X' B.MCI's FUSF and NAF Did Not Violate Section 2(b) of the Act.  X421.` ` VSCC contends that MCI's inclusion of the FUSF and NAF in its federal tariff violated section 2(b) of the Act, because the FUSF and NAF allegedly constitute charges for  Xb 4intrastate communications services.?b , yO'ЍComplaint at paras. 28, 37; VSCC Brief at 912, 24; VSCC Reply at 5. Section 2(b) of the Act provides, in pertinent part: XX` ` [N]othing in this Act shall be construed to apply or to give the Commission jurisdiction with respect to [ ]charges, . . . [and] practices . . . for or in connection with intrastate communications  X4service. . ..Q@B, yO'Ѝ47 U.S.C.  152(b).Qx`  Xm422.` ` Prior to considering whether the FUSF and NAF are charges for intrastate communications service, as alleged by VSCC, we must resolve the threshold issue of whether section 2(b) even governs the actions of common carriers such as MCI. That is, assuming,  X4arguendo, that MCI filed a federal tariff that included a rate for intrastate communications service, would such action by MCI violate section 2(b)?  X4 23.` ` By its plain language, section 2(b) of the Act serves as a limitation on the application of the Act and on the jurisdiction of the Commission. Section 2(b) is silent about  XW4the actions of common carriers. The first disjunctive clause of section 2(b), i.e. "nothing in  X64this Act shall apply to" intrastate service, is a rule of construction for other provisions of the Act, and not a limitation on common carriers. We conclude, therefore, that section 2(b), in and of itself, does not establish a rule of conduct with which a common carrier such as MCI must comply. Accordingly, we deny VSCC's claim that MCI's inclusion of the FUSF and NAF in its federal tariff violated section 2(b) of the Act. " @,K(K(<<"Ԍ X4 24.` ` We emphasize that VSCC's claim that the Act itself precluded MCI from  X4including the FUSF and NAF in its federal tariff is based solely on section 2(b) of the Act. A, yOV'ЍComplaint at paras. 28, 37. Late in the fivemonth period for resolution of this matter under section  {O'208(b)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  208(b)(1), Commission staff asked the parties to submit briefs regarding, inter  {O'alia, whether section 201(b) or section 203 of the Act precludes a common carrier from including in its federal tariff a charge for intrastate communications service. Letter to J. Carl Wilson, Jr., Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., William H. Chambliss, and Alison L. Held from Deena M. Shetler, Attorney, Common Carrier Bureau, Enforcement Division, Formal Complaints and Investigations Branch (dated January 25, 1999). In its responsive  {O 'brief, MCI stated, inter alia, that it would be prejudicial, unfair, and improper for the Commission to essentially amend VSCC's complaint to allege a claim that MCI violated either section 201(b) or section 203 because the NAF and FUSF were allegedly intrastate charges. Second Supplemental Brief of MCI Telecommunications Corporation at 4 (filed January 29, 1999). In the particular circumstances of this case, we agree with MCI. In neither its Complaint nor its initial briefs did VSCC allege or state a claim that MCI violated section 201(b) or section 203 because the NAF and FUSF were allegedly intrastate charges. Moreover, such allegations or claims, had VSCC made them, would have raised difficult and important issues warranting extensive analysis by the parties and the Commission. Finally, given the statutory deadline, the Commission cannot accord either itself or the parties, particularly MCI, a full and fair opportunity to engage in such analysis. Thus, notwithstanding the  {O'Commission staff's sua sponte inquiry regarding sections 201(b) and 203, we decline to "amend" VSCC's  {O'complaint to state a claim under section 201(b) or section 203, as described above. See 47 C.F.R.  1.727(h) ("[a]mendments or supplements to complaints to add new claims or requests for relief are prohibited");  {Mp'Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to be  {O8'Followed When Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, CC Docket  {O'No.96-238, 12 FCC Rcd 22497, 2259798 (1997) (Formal Complaint Order) (explaining that permitting amendments to complaints would unduly undermine the fair resolution of complaints subject to a statutory  {O'deadline), appeal pending, U S West v. FCC, No. 989501 (10th Cir. filed Jan. 20, 1998), recon. pending; GE  {O^'Capital Communications Services Corp.v. AT&T Corp., 13 FCC Rcd 13138, 13149, para. 24 (Com. Car. Bur. 1998) (declining to address a claim raised for the first time in the complainant's brief).  X4Thus, we hold in this Order only that section 2(b) of the Act did not prohibit such inclusion. We do not address in this Order whether any other provision of the Act prohibits a common carrier from including in its federal tariff a charge similar to the FUSF and NAF.  X0' C.XMCI's Claim Under Section 203 of the Act Should Be Severed and Resolved in a  X 'Separate Subsequent Order. (#  X4 25.` ` As mentioned above, VSCC also asserts that, even assuming, arguendo, that the  X4Act and the Universal Service Order permit a common carrier to base its universal service recoupment fees on its customers' intrastate and interstate usage charges, MCI violated section 203 of the Act by imposing and collecting such fees without describing them sufficiently in  X? 4its federal tariff.jB? *, yO"'ЍComplaint at paras. 2931; VSCC Brief at 1417.j This claim is wholly independent of VSCC's claims under section 2(b) of  X 4the Act and the Universal Service Order. Moreover, this claim, unlike VSCC's claims under  X 4section 2(b) of the Act and the Universal Service Order, is not governed by the statutory  X 4deadline provided in section 208(b)(1) of the Act.C , {OE&'Ѝ47 U.S.C.  208(b)(1). See Formal Complaints Order, at 2251114, paras. 3237. In addition, this claim presents" LC,K(K(<<" challenging and potentially farreaching issues that would benefit from further consideration by the Commission.  X426.` ` Given the foregoing, we believe that the public interest dictates that we sever VSCC's claim under section 203 of the Act from VSCC's claims under section 2(b) of the  XQ4Act and the Universal Service Order. Accordingly, pursuant to our broad authority under sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the Act to structure our own proceedings to best serve the public  X 4interest,YD , yO'Ѝ47 U.S.C.  154(i),(j).Y we hereby sever VSCC's claim under section 203 of the Act, and we will promptly  X4resolve that claim in a subsequent order in a separately docketed proceeding.EZX, {O 'ЍId. See also F.R.C.P. Rule 21. In order to effectuate the severance, a new file number has been established for the severed claim. Accordingly, all pleadings, correspondence, and any other filings concerning the severed claim made after the release date of this order shall be identified by file number E9901A.  X427.` ` As described above, this Order fully and finally resolves VSCC's entirely  X 4separate and independent claims under section 2(b) of the Act and the Universal Service  X` 4Order. Consequently, with respect to those claims, this Order constitutes a final order under  X? 4applicable law.FF? z, yOj'Ѝ47 U.S.C.  402(a); 28 U.S.C.  2342(a). We note that the District Court's decision regarding MCI's challenge to VSCC's Show Cause Order does not appear to relate to VSCC's claim here under section 203 of the  {O'Act. See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Virginia State Corp. Commn, supra. In communications with Commission staff attorneys, MCI orally agreed not to request any delay of the resolution of VSCC's appeal of  {O'the District Court's decision based on the Commission's severance of the section 203 claim here. See MCI  {OV'Telecommunications Corp. v. State Corp. Commn, No. 982026 (4th Cir. filed July 10, 1998). In light of this agreement, VSCC and MCI orally consented to severance of VSCC's section 203 claim, if the Commission deemed it appropriate to do so.  X 4  X 4\= IV. CONCLUSION  X428.` ` For the reasons discussed above, we deny VSCC's claims that MCI violated the  X4Universal Service Order and section 2(b) of the Act. In addition, we sever VSCC's claim that MCI violated section 203 of the Act, and we will resolve that claim promptly in a separate,  XL4subsequent order.  X46% V. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  X429.` ` ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 2(b), 4(i), 4(j), 208, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 152(b), 154(i), 154(j), 208, 254, that the claims filed by Virginia State Corporation Commission against MCI Telecommunications Corporation in the abovecaptioned complaint alleging that MCI Telecommunications Corporation's conduct described herein violated section 2(b) of the  X4Act, 47 U.S.C.  152(b), and the Universal Service Order ARE DENIED. " F,K(K(<<u"Ԍ X430.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 203, and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), 203, 208, that the claim filed by Virginia State Corporation Commission against MCI Telecommunications Corporation in the abovecaptioned complaint alleging that MCI Telecommunications Corporation's conduct described herein violated section 203 of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  203, IS SEVERED from this proceeding and, consequently, this claim is hereby assigned the new file number E9901A. Accordingly, all pleadings, correspondence, and other filings concerning this claim made after the release date of this order shall be identified with file number E9901A. ` `  hhCqFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION############ ` `  hhC ` `  hhCqMagalie Roman v&"k.  Salas ` `  hhCqSecretary. " F,K(K(<<" ` `  hhCqpp  X'G DISSENTING STATEMENT OF  COMMISSIONER HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH \  V.4 Re:XCommonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission v. MCI Telecommunications Corporation (File No. E9901).(#  X4 I respectfully dissent from today's decision to allow carriers to recover federal schools  X4and libraries charges based on an enduser's intrastate calls.G|, yO ' " ԍThe majority opinion describes the assessment on intrastate revenue as supporting "various Universal Service  xH mechanisms." Memorandum Opinion and Order, at par. 7. For purposes of assessing contributions to the high cost  x and low income support mechanisms, however, the Commission assesses based on interstate revenue only. Universal  xb Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8776, 9200. Moreover, currently the Commission does not assess any revenue to support  {O;' x* the rural health care program. See Second Quarter 1999 Universal Service Contribution Factor Public Notice (rel.  x March 4, 1999). Thus, contrary to the majority's description, the only program that is supported through assessments  {O'on intrastate revenue is the schools and libraries program.  I believe that basing a percentage surcharge on customers' intrastate calls cannot be considered recovery "through  X^ 4rates for interstate services only," as required by the Commission itself.yH^ , yO'ԍUniversal Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8776, 919091, 9198, 920304 (1997).y Today's decision from which I dissent, however, finds that under current FCC orders it is appropriate and reasonable for a carrier to charge a federal percentage surcharge based on a customer's intrastate calling, and that such a practice does not impact the "charges" for intrastate calls that are properly under state commission jurisdiction. In contrast, I believe that such a practice does impact intrastate calls, and therefore is properly within a state's jurisdiction. Moreover, since the Commission noticeably fails to rely explicitly on the fact that MCI did not impose a surcharge on customers who made no interstate calls in a given month, the Commission signals its openness to the possibility that this "federal" surcharge could even be placed on customers where no interstate usage at all is involved. Let me illustrate. Under the logic of today's decision, an MCI customer who lives in Richmond and makes $100 worth of calls to Norfolk can be assessed a federal schools and libraries tax or, euphemistically, a "fee" based on this intrastate revenue, regardless of the fact that he places only one 1 minute call across state lines at the dimeaminute rate of $.10. Assuming a 5% contribution rate, that customer would owe a "federal" charge of $5.01: 5% x $100 intrastate and 5% x $.10 interstate. In effect, the Commission allows for a "federal"  X 4interstate charge and a "federal" intrastate charge. In fact the majority's analysis would not change at all if MCI's surcharge had been explicitly broken into two components: a Federal Interstate Universal Service Charge, and a Federal Intrastate Universal Service Charge. I cannot support a decision that determines, under these facts, (i) that a carrier is not recovering universal service charges through intrastate services, and (ii) that the Commission is not impacting intrastate "charges" in violation of Section 2(b). "; H,K(K(<<"Ԍ X4#Xj\  P6G;9XP#љToday's decision demonstrates the fallacy of the Commission's argument that its assessment for the schools and libraries program based on intrastate revenues does not violate Section 2(b). As I have described on several occasions, the legality of this approach to  X4calculating contributions is highly questionable.xIX, yO' " ԍ  Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Harold FurchtgottRoth Regarding the FederalState Joint Board  x Report to Congress, rel. April 10, 1998; Separate Statement of Commissioner Harold FurchtgottRoth Regarding the Second Quarter 1998 Universal Service Contribution Factors, rel. March 20, 1998.x As I read the Communications Act, it does not permit the Commission to assess contributions for universal service support mechanisms based on intrastate revenues, and I have repeatedly objected to this approach. I believe, rather, that the Act makes clear that the power to collect charges based on such revenues rests within the exclusive province of the States. Section 2(b) of the Communications Act creates a system of dual federalstate regulation for telecommunications. In essence, the Act establishes federal authority over interstate communications services while protecting state jurisdiction  X4over intrastate services. I believe that the Commission's decision to look to intrastate  X 4revenues to determine federal universal service support for the schools and libraries program  X^ 4impermissibly encroaches on states' rights and violates the Act's federalstate dichotomy. Indeed, as I have discussed on numerous occasions, the Commission's actions in this regard and in many other ways as well violate the clear directives of the Telecommunications Act  X 4and are illegal.J , {O' " ԍSee, e.g., Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Harold FurchtgottRoth Regarding the FederalState Joint  {OX' xt Board Report to Congress, rel. April 10, 1998. See also, Testimony of Commissioner Harold FurchtgottRoth  x Regarding Universal Service before the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives; Dissenting  x Statement of Commissioner Harold FurchtgottRoth Regarding Federal State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC  {O' xt Docket 9645, Third Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 22801 (1997); Statement of Commissioner Harold  xQ FurchtgottRoth Regarding the Second Quarter 1998 Universal Service Contribution Factors, rel. March 20, 1998;  x Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Harold FurchtgottRoth Regarding the Report to Congress in Response to  xc Senate Bill 1768 and Conference Report on H.R. 3579, rel. May 8, 1998; Statement of Commissioner Harold  x FurchtgottRoth Regarding the Common Carrier Bureau's Proposed Revisions of 1998 Collection Amounts For  x Schools and Libraries and Rural Health Care Universal Service Support Mechanisms, rel. May 13, 1998; Statement  xM of Commissioner Harold FurchtgottRoth Regarding the Common Carrier Bureau's Clarification of "Services"  x Eligible for Discounts to Schools and Libraries, rel. June 11, 1998; Statement of Commissioner Harold Furchtgott x Roth Regarding the Common Carrier Bureau's Third Quarter 1998 Universal Service Contribution Factors, rel. June 12, 1998. Perhaps most importantly, however, today's decision undermines several of the arguments advanced by the Commission in defense of its universal service rules before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. First, in that litigation, the Commission argued that its actions did not violate Section 2(b) because it did not "regulate" intrastate  X#4telecommunications services.tK#, yOz#'ԍFCC Brief in Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel v. FCC, at 184.t But Section 2(b) actually bars the Commission from any  X4jurisdiction with respect to "charges, classifications, practices, services, facilities or"6K,K(K(<<s"  X4regulations for or in connection with intrastate communication service . . . "L", {Oy' "R ԍ47 U.S.C. Section 152(b). See also Louisiana PSC v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 359 (1986) ("[T]he Act grants  x  to the FCC the authority to regulate 'interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication' while  yO ' x expressly denying that agency 'jurisdiction with respect to . . . intrastate communications service.") (internal citations omitted).  I find it  X4unfathomable that the Commission can uphold a federal charge based on intrastate calling as it does today, but still claim that it is not asserting jurisdiction over "charges, classifications,  X4[or] practices . . . for or in connection with intrastate communication service."KM, yO'ԍ47 U.S.C. Section 152(b). K The fact that this charge is filed in the form of a federal tariff does not convert what is essentially a charge "for or in connection with intrastate communication service" into an interstate charge.  X24Indeed, in this Order, it is striking that the Commission fails even to explain why MCI "could reasonable have concluded that the methodolgy for recovering universal service contributions  X4at issue here fell within the directive of the Universal Service Order."[NB, yO'ԍMemorandum Opinion and Order, at par. 20. [ Second, the Commission argued to the Fifth Circuit that it has not violated Section  X 42(b) because, "[a]s the FCC has made clear, contributing carriers under this system must  Xd 4recover their contributions solely through interstate rates."tOd , yO'ԍFCC Brief in Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel v. FCC, at 185.t In the decision today, however, the Commission determines that this very same language is not quite so clear. Indeed, it determines that the language is ambiguous enough for a carrier to base the level of its federal  X 4schools and libraries charge to end users on the level of intrastate communications.[P b , yO'ԍMemorandum Opinion and Order, at par. 20. [ In other words, what is now "clear" is that by "interstate rates," the Commission meant that a carrier could charge an "interstate" rate based on the number and quantity of "intrastate calls." Indeed, the Commission does not even remove the possibility that such an "interstate rate" could include a charge placed on a consumer who makes no interstate calls whatsoever. Now that the Commission is really being "clear" about what can and cannot be done, I do not understand how it can continue to assert that it is not impacting intrastate communication services or intrastate rates that are outside of its jurisdiction. Third, the Commission argued that the X[P]etitioners do[] not explain how the assessment of federal charges can constitute  XW4regulation of intrastate services when those charges can only be recovered through  X44interstate rates. Since [petitioners] ha[ve] failed to demonstrate how the challenged contribution system 'regulates' intrastate service, the court should reject the company's  X4claim that the system violates section 2(b).tQ , yO&'ԍFCC Brief in Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel v. FCC, at 186.t (# " Q,K(K(<<"Ԍ X4Certainly, with today's order, the Commission itself demonstrates how its scheme regulates  X4intrastate services since the " inter state rates" of which the Commission speaks are actually  X4rates that are based on  intra state service usage. In fact, the Commission determines that such  X4a recovery scheme was fully "within the directive of the Universal Service Order."[R, yO'ԍMemorandum Opinion and Order, at par. 20. [ To demonstrate the absurdity of the Commission's position, I take it out of the federal versus state framework. Suppose that a power or gas company, regulated by FERC and the relevant state authorities, entered the telecommunications market. The Commission's position would be analogous to claiming that it could base universal service contributions on that company's total revenue, including both its telecommunications and power or gas revenues. Under today's decision, moreover, the telecommunications subsidiary of the power company could also place a universal service surcharge on its end users based not only on that customers telecommunications revenues, but also based as a percentage of that customers power or gas usage. It seems absurd that the Commission could argue that such an action would not constitute either a charge or regulation of gas or power. Yet, the Commission seems to be arguing that it has the authority to enact such a scheme under the Telecommunications Act, claiming jurisdiction over power revenues merely because a power company's customer also availed themselves of that company's telecommunications service offering. I do not believe that Congress intended to provide such broad jurisdictional authority to the FCC. In addition, I would note the Commission has scrupulously avoided relying too closely on MCI's practice of not charging customers who have no intrastate calls in finding no  X4violation here.^SX, yO'ԍMemorandum Opinion and Order, at par. 1920. ^ The Commission has not wanted to rely too heavily on this fact because many carriers are recovering from customers through enduser charges regardless of whether any interstate calls are made. By failing to explicitly rely on this fact, however, the Commission has opened the door to upholding a "federal" universal service charge on customers who have no interstate calls whatsoever. In conclusion, I note that some might ask why is it so important for the Commission to be able to assess based on intrastate revenues for the schools and libraries program? Why is it necessary to continue these legal gymnastics and absurdities just to preserve the ability to assess a carrier's intrastate revenues as well as its interstate revenues? The answer is that the  X4contribution base more than doubles when intrastate revenues are included.T, {O"' " ԍ Second Quarter 1999 Universal Service Contribution Factor Public Notice (rel. March 4, 1999) (interstate only contribution base is $18.305 billion, while interstate and intrastate contribution base is $48.843 billion). And it is much easier to place a new tax on a broader base because the effects that will be felt are much smaller. Thus, the inclusion of intrastate revenues makes new charges harder for consumers to find and easier for consumers to swallow. I fear that some here at the Commission may view intrastate revenue as a yet untapped source of revenue for the funding of their new and additional programs." BT,K(K(<<]!" XX` ` (#`  a4 9#^\  P6Q 5P# Dissenting Statement of  a4 Commissioner Gloria Tristani  X4\# XP\  P6Q9XP#  V4/ Body Text 2#XP\  P6Q9XP#X\Re:Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission v. MCI Telecommunications  Xl4Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Orderphoenix [pfg] "Body Text 2". (#  X4#XP\  P6Q9XP# 2   X4In the Universal Service Order, the Commission required carriers to contribute to the universal service programs identified in section 254 of the Telecommunications Act. The Commission said that carriers that elect to recover their contributions from subscribers may do  X 4so through rates for interstate services only.#footnote reference#X01Í ÍX01ÍÍ RU .7 {O ' footnote textX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: