WPC 2MBKRKZ3|j& X* X #o\  PCyoXP#"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+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&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+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNa2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# 2)# ~ !! ! t"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. ` (# 2& [#$$%a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2)&'()Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 2,){*"++a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   22,B-3-.a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:0>Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g-n` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g.w` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g/F    ׃  Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g0&!"  . 2A1?2,@3@4]ATechnical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g1&#$  . Technical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g2*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g3''(   Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g4&)*   2SP5#B6B7XC8v CTechnical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g54+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g6&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g7&/0  . MACNormal8;     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#2oS9oP:P;isQ<RFootnote9Íčfootnote tex#:'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#header;Ax 4 <D  #FxX  Pg9CXP# reference<;#FxX  Pg9CXP#25Y=~S>iU?^V@OWitemizeX1=&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2>I ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# heading 3?F` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# footer!@!!#d\  PCP#2!\A gYBtZCv5[Dv[CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileAW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded DocumentBiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#heading 4heading 4C heading 5heading 5D 2!^EvS\Fv\Gv?]Hl]heading 6heading 6E heading 7heading 7F heading 8heading 8G Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph FontH 2`IvS^Jr^Kv;_Le_endnote textendnote textI endnote referenceendnote referenceJ footnote textfootnote textK footnote referencefootnote referenceL 2bMlH`Nx`Ol,aPlaDocument 8Document 8M Document 4Document 4N  Document 6Document 6O Document 5Document 5P 2JgQl6bRlbScT,eDocument 2Document 2Q Document 7Document 7R Right Par 1Right Par 1S` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 2Right Par 2T` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2BnUl|gVgWjX$lDocument 3Document 3U Right Par 3Right Par 3V` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 4Right Par 4W` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 5Right Par 5X` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#2vYtnZp[r\(tRight Par 6Right Par 6Y` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 7Right Par 7Z` 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 (#Document 1Document 1\` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2H|]$(w^$Ly_lp{`l{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_ Technical 3Technical 3` 2Ra$z|bl~c$ d$.Technical 4Technical 4a` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 1b Technical 7Technical 7c` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 8Technical 8d` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2efghމtoc 1toc 1e` hp x (#(#`(#`` hp x (#toc 2toc 2f` hp x (#` (#`` (#`` hp x (#toc 3toc 3g` hp x (#` (#` (#` hp x (#toc 4toc 4h` hp x (# (# (#` hp x (#2i.jLkvjltoc 5toc 5i` hp x (#h(#h(#` hp x (#toc 6toc 6j` hp x (#(# (# ` hp x (#toc 7toc 7k toc 8toc 8l` hp x (#(# (# ` hp x (#2m0nNolptoc 9toc 9m` hp x (#(#`(#`` hp x (#index 1index 1n` hp x (#` (#` (#` hp x (#index 2index 2o` hp x (#` (#`` (#`` hp x (#toa headingtoa headingp` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#2<qvڛrlPstcaptioncaptionq _Equation Caption_Equation Captionr para numnumbered indented paragraphss' Y- 1.(i) 1) 1.#Xw P7[hXP# 1. 1.ҲHeadingChapter HeadingtJ d  ) I. ׃  2unv wdxRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersu>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheadingv0\ E A.  HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldeddw+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Datex X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟ2xyMz1{1|1GDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style offy@@    LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5z 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5{f 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11|L 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   2.}1~nۧIdʨLEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14} 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a Document~K\ * ăBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedN X HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold LargeB*d. 2[j`ʩE-.HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/marginsu 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 Invoice ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   288ůXINVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macroz 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle2[([[޳[9SMALLSmall TypestyleFINEFine TypestyleLARGELarge TypestyleEXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle2[ƴ!XVERY LARGEVery Large TypestyleENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   1dfStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Margins$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO 2UηnlMStyle 12Dutch Italics 11.5$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  2|/Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Font4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Point$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO 2Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Point$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for Advanced 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 Beginninggi )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9Initial Codes for Intermediate )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 2}{UpdateInitial Codes for Update Module )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 head1 #'d#2p}wC@ #a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf$ a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf/` ` ` 2*Ea3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf:a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfE` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfP  ` ` ` hhh 2\}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 Paragraph[1]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B$ab 2HcParagraph[2]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B/cd` ` ` Paragraph[3]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B:ef` ` `  Paragraph[4]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BEgh` ` `  Paragraph[5]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BPij` ` ` hhh 27OParagraph[6]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B[kl Paragraph[7]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bfmn Paragraph[8]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bqop toatoa` hp x (#` hp x (#27qiee?2S&C6C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )s t . 3S&C7C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct ) uv 4S&C8C^fDocument StyleNF2CC! -2( -Ct ) wx 5S&C9C^fDocument StyleNF2CC/ -2( -Ct )*yz   2pik6S&C:C^fDocument StyleNF2CC= -2( -Ct ){|` ` ` 7S&C;C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK -2( -Ct )8}~@  8S&C<C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersY -2( -Ct )A@` ` `  ` ` ` 9S&C=C^fDocument StyleNF2CCg -2( -Ct )0    2q10S&C>C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersu -2( -Ct )J` ` ` @  ` ` ` 11S&C?C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )S` ` `  @  12S&C@C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )\` ` `  @hhh hhh 13S&CAC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )e` ` `  hhh@ hhh 2^14S&CBC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )n` ` `  hhh@  15S&CCC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )w` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 16S&CDC^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )F   ׃  17S&CEC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&  . 2T18S&CFC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&  . 19S&CGC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )*    20S&CHC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )'   21S&CIC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&   2K}22S&CJC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )4$     23S&CKC^fTechnical Document StyleCC+ -2( -Ct )&  . 24S&CLC^fTechnical Document StyleCC9 -2( -Ct )&  . 25S&CMC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CG -2( -Ct )$ 2<m26S&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` ` `  29S&CQC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )P` ` ` hhh 2SH30S&CRC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )[ 31S&CSC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )f 32S&CTC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )q Default ParaC^fDefault Paragraph Font2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#2S'Z_Equation CaC^f_Equation CaptionF2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#endnote refeC^fendnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>>#PP##PP#footnote refC^ffootnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>#PP#1, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.E1.2dIpqeA, B,t ?@65Uppercase Letters1 ?*1÷$t ?.E .33`O5hT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5h.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 34`O5iT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5i.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  . 35`O5jT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5j.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  2e%p36`O5kT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5k.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  37`O5lT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5l.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>*   38`O5mT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5m.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 39`O5nT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>8@   2Q%40`O5oT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>A@` `  ` ` ` 41`O5pT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5p.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>0    42`O5qT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>J` ` @  ` `  43`O5rT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>S` `  @  2yA44`O5sT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>\` `  @hh# hhh 45`O5tT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>e` `  hh#@( hh# 46`O5uT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>n` `  hh#(@- ( 47`O5vT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2 D 48`O5wT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5w.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>F *  ׃  49`O5xT(G2PTechnical Document Stylex.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 50`O5yT(G2PTechnical Document Styley.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 51`O5zT(G2PTechnical Document Stylez.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>*    24  k   52`O5{T(G2PTechnical Document Style{.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>'   53`O5|T(G2PTechnical Document Style|.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&   54`O5}T(G2PTechnical Document Style}.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>4$     55`O5~T(G2PTechnical Document Style~.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 2f } h  56`O5T(G2PTechnical Document Style.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 57`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>$ 58`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>/` ` ` 59`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>:` ` `  2oS60`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+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>[ 63`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>f 2SkaW64`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+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>OO#PP##PP#67`O5T(G2Pendnote reference^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>RR#PP##PP#2/p1q68`O5T(G2Pfootnote reference^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>R#PP#69 _5(_>7footnote text _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tZP70 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t` ` ` 71 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  . 2eDeK\Y72 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  73 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  "i~'^0?]SS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99]]]Snnnxnnx?Sngxxgxn]gxnngg9/9]S9SSISI9S]//S/]SSS??/]InSI?9%9]9+]]999+999999S9S/nSnSnSnSnSxnInInInInI?/?/?/?/x]xSxSxSxSx]x]x]x]gInSxSxSxSgIxSgSnSnSnSnInIn]nIx{nInInInIxSxSxSx]xS]]?/?S?9?S]]]nSg/gWg9g?g/x]ux]x]xSxSxn?n?n?]?]?]?]]gZg/g]x]x]x]x]x]x]ng]g?g?g?xSg9x]]?g9gS{+SS8/8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN* ԍX47 U.S.C.  254(g). Section 254 sets forth the requirement that the rates charged by interexchange and  Xinterstate service providers to subscribers in rural and high cost areas, and subscribers in each state, shall  {O*not be higher than the rates charged in urban areas and other states respectively. Id.(#ƥ and the  X*Commission's Rate Averaging and Rate Integration Order.^L {OI"* ԍXPolicy and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace, Implementation of Section 254(g)  {O#* \of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 9564 (1996) ("Rate  {O#*Averaging and Rate Integration Order").(#ƀ "*0*%%ZZ"Ԍ X*4.` ` IT&E's complaint challenges the interstate access rates charged by MTC, and alleges various violations of our rules. Prior to filing this complaint, IT&E filed an application for review of the Commission's denial of IT&E's petition to reject, suspend and investigate the revisions proposed by MTC to its FCC Tariff No. 1 through Transmittal No.  X*133, which became effective on August 1, 1997.sL yO*ԍFile No. CCB/CPD 9745 (Review Pending) (filed September 2, 1997).s MTC's Tariff F.C.C. No. 1 covers its interexchange services. In the present proceeding, we do not address IT&E's Application for Review filed with the Competitive Pricing Division. Rather, we address in this Order, strictly in the context of a Section 208 proceeding, IT&E's claims arising under Sections 201(b), 202(b), and 254(k) of the Act.  X * ` `  III.hh, DISCUSSION  X * a.` ` Complainant's Burden of Proof  X *5.` ` The Commission's rules relating to formal complaint proceedings require that  X *"[a]ll matters concerning a claim, . . . , should be pleaded fully and with specificity."R XL yO*ԍ X47 C.F.R.  1.720(a).(#R The rules specify that the "[p]leadings must contain facts which, if true, are sufficient to constitute  Xy*a violation of the Act or Commission order or regulation,"QyL yO*ԍX47 C.F.R.  1.720(b).(#Q and such "[f]acts must be  Xb*supported by relevant documentation or affidavit."CbxL yO*ԍ 47 C.F.R.  1.720(c).C Our formal complaint proceedings, unlike court litigation or administrativetrial type hearings, are often resolved solely on written  X4*pleadings.&4L {O* ԍXSee Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to Be Followed When Complaints are Filed Against  {O* Common Carriers, Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 1806, 1810 (1988); see also American Message Centers  {O* 2v. FCC, 50 F.3d 35, 4041 (D.C. Cir. 1995), 311 U.S. App. D.C. 64 (rehearing denied June 7, 1995) (proceeding on petition for review of a Commission ruling that denied complainant's motion to compel).(# Pleadings must provide factual underpinnings for decision on the merits, and thereby provide a complete identification or description, including the relevant time period, of  X*the communications, services, or other carrier conduct upon which the complaint is based.k L {O *ԍXSee American Message Centers, 50 F.3d at 41.(#k It is well established that, in a Section 208 proceeding, the complainant has the burden of" 0*%%ZZ8"  X*establishing a violation of the Act or of the Commission's rules or orders.L {Oy* ԍXSee AT&T v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 5 FCC Rcd, 143, 147 (1990); see also Amendment of Rules  {OC* Concerning Procedures to be Followed When Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, 8  {O * pFCC Rcd 2614, 261617 (1993); Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel v. AT&T Communications, 4 FCC  {O* Rcd 8130, 8133 (1989), aff'd sub nom. Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel v. FCC, 915 F.2d 75 (2d  {O*Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 1310 (1991); see generally  47 C.F.R.  1.720 1.735.(# As explained more fully below, we conclude that IT&E failed to carry its burden on each of the claims alleged against MTC.  X* b.` ` Excessive and Unreasonable Access Charges  Xv*1.` ` Comparison of MTC and GTA Access Charge Rates  X_*   XH* 6.` ` In support of its claim that MTC's access charges are excessive and  X1*unreasonable, IT&E first points to a comparison between MTC's and GTA's access rates. 1L yOd* xԍX Specifically, IT&E alleges that, prior to January 1, 1998, MTC's access charges for originating access  Fservice were about 1.5 times higher than those of other allegedly similarly situated LECs, and MTC's access  charges for terminating access service were approximately 3 times higher than those of other allegedly similarly situated LECs. Complaint at  7. (# In particular, IT&E relies on a chart it prepared that compares MTC with GTA to establish  X *that MTC's rates are higher than GTA's.5x j L yO* ԍXIT&E Brief at 6, 10 (Exhibit 1 chart comparing the access rates of GTA with the access rates of MTC,  .compiled by IT&E's consultants). The chart displays a breakout of different access rate elements that,  we presume, constitute the aggregate of MTC and GTA's access charges for those periods. The chart  reveals that MTC's rates on certain access rate elements exceed GTA's rates for the same elements, and  GTA's rates on other rate elements exceed MTC's rates for the corresponding elements. For example,  tGTA's Tandem Charge and Local Switching rates are higher than MTC's, and conversely, MTC's Carrier Common Line rate is higher than GTA's. (#5 IT&E argues that, because MTC and GTA are similarly situated, the fact that MTC's rates are higher than GTA's evidences that MTC's  X *rates are unreasonable.  L yO0* JԍXAccording to IT&E, despite MTC's contention that its cost characteristics in the Northern Marianas are  "unusual" because it serves an archipelago in the Pacific as opposed to serving in the domestic United  States, MTC has failed to show why the cost characteristics of its facilities are significantly different from  yO*the cost characteristics of its "neighbor" GTA. IT&E Brief at 11.(# We are not persuaded, however, that IT&E has demonstrated the threshold premise that MTC and GTA are similarly situated incumbent LECs. Rather, we find that there is an important fundamental difference between MTC and GTA: GTA is a member of NECA, eligible to participate in NECA's cost averaging pools. Since MTC is owned by GTE, it is subject to the Commission's price cap system and, pursuant to our rules, is not permitted to participate in the NECA pools. "K0*%%ZZr"Ԍ X*7.` ` Moreover, we agree with MTC that there are intrinsic differences between the NECA cost averaging plan and the price cap rules that make it difficult to compare rates determined under the different approaches with any degree of accuracy. The price cap system  X*sets a ceiling, or cap, on the prices that LECs can charge for their offerings.'L {O4* ԍXPrice Cap Order at  2. The price cap rules were promulgated to apply mandatorily only to GTE and the BOCs. Other LECs, however, may voluntarily elect to set their rates in accordance with the price cap rules.(#' The price cap system essentially operates through the tariff review process to ensure that rates are within the  X*parameters that the rules require.M"L {O` *ԍXId. at  4.(#M Checks and balances built into the system ensure that rates remain within a "zone of reasonableness," and periodic review and adjustment serves as a long  X_*term mode of regulation for the LECs subject to it.M_L {O *ԍXId. at  3.(#M By contrast the interstate access rates charged by NECA participants, such as GTA, reflect the costs underlying the tariffs filed by NECA. NECA files its tariffs in accordance with the Commission's rate of return regulations. The costs used to calculate the applicable rates for NECA's tariffs are an average of all LECs  X *that participate in NECA's tariffs.  FL yO* ԍXPrior to December 31, 1997, NECA set the carrier common line rate equal to the average of the carrier  common line rates of the price cap LECs. As of January 1, 1998, NECA uses the costs, after subtracting  any universal service support, of all LECs that participate in NECA's common line tariff in setting its carrier common line rates.(#ƽ These calculations reflect any universal service support received by companies participating in the NECA tariffs. Through the NECA mechanism, lower cost LECs contribute to the maintenance of averaged NECA rates. As such, high cost  X *companies benefit from NECA's cost averaging process and tariff pooling.a . L {O*ԍXSee also 47 C.F.R.  69.601(b).(#a Thus, because GTA is a NECA participant, GTA's rates do not necessarily reflect GTA's costs.  Xy*8.` ` NECA's cost averaging process is unavailable to MTC because it is owned by  Xb*GTE and, therefore, governed by the Commission's price cap regulation.! b L yO* |ԍXAnswer  23, 8; MTC Reply Brief at 4. IT&E acknowledges that MTC, which is subject to the  Commission's price cap regulation, can neither participate nor benefit from NECA's common tariff and  Jpooling arrangements. IT&E Brief at 8. Currently, GTE has made a business decision not to average its own rates among its issuing LECs.(#ƺ Based on these differences in price regulation, we are not persuaded by IT&E's claim that MTC and GTA are "similarly situated" carriers, despite the fact that they serve areas with certain similar  X*geographical characteristics.T"L {Ov$*ԍXSee IT&E Brief at 11.(#T Accordingly, because we find that IT&E has failed to establish":"0*%%ZZ\ " that MTC and GTA are similarly situated, we reject the claim that MTC's access charge rates are unreasonable because they are higher than GTA's in certain respects.  X* 2.` ` Reasonableness of MTC Rates   X* 9.` ` We likewise reject IT&E's further argument that, even within the price cap environment, MTC has violated our rules by exceeding the "zone of reasonableness" they establish. In particular, IT&E claims that whereas the price cap rules are designed to ensure that access charges continue to be costbased, MTC's access charges are not costbased, and  X1*are, therefore, unreasonable.# 1L yO * JԍX Specifically, IT&E argues that the Commission, in adopting its uniform access charge rules, intended the  trules to promote interexchange competition as well as ensure that all IXCs would be able to originate and  terminate their traffic over incumbent LEC networks at just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory rates. IT&E  Ncontends that the access rate structure mandated under Part 69 of the FCC's rules is premised on the  ptraditional rateofreturn regulatory system under which access charges are established on costs plus a return  {O* ton invested capital. IT&E Brief at 7 (referencing the provisions in the Access Charges order, 93 FCC 2d  *at 315). IT&E charges that MTC's excessive access charges violate these principles. IT&E also argues that  @the price cap rules are specifically designed to ensure that access charges under the price cap system  continue to be costbased, and thus, reasonable. IT&E asserts that the manner in which the price cap system  divides LEC services into baskets and service categories, requires annual adjustment of price caps to reflect   productivity offsets, and provides for the reduction of actual rates in accordance with the profit sharing  requirement, demonstrate that the system was specifically designed to ensure that access charges under the  {O * price cap system continue to be costbased and reasonable. Id. at 810. IT&E contends that MTC has failed  yO*to follow these rules. (# With respect to this claim, too, we find that IT&E has failed to prove its case, as it has not set forth any evidence or analysis to demonstrate that MTC's rates are beyond a "zone of reasonableness." To prove its allegation that MTC's interstate access rates are beyond a "zone of reasonableness" IT&E was required to address their reasonableness under the requirements of the price cap rules. Through discovery, IT&E was  X *given access to all documentation that MTC filed in support of its tariff filings._$X L yO* ԍXCommission staff's oral ruling on discovery matters issued at status conference held on April 24, 1998;  yO*  Commission's letter dated May 1, 1998 to the parties memorializing first status conference on discovery; MTC's letter dated April 30, 1998. (#_ IT&E did not use this material disclosed by MTC, however, to address whether or not the actual requirements of the rules were met. Instead, IT&E relied on its comparison of MTC's rates to GTA's rates to support its argument that MTC's rates go beyond the "zone of reasonableness" established by the price cap rules.  X4*  10.` ` IT&E's argument that MTC's rates violate the price cap rules is based on the contention that MTC's rates are not cost based. The only evidence IT&E provides to support this contention, however, is the rate comparison chart developed by its consultants, which, as noted above, shows that MTC's rates on certain access rate elements exceed GTA's rates for"$0*%%ZZ" corresponding elements. Because GTA is a NECA pool participant, GTA's rates do not necessarily reflect GTA's actual costs. Thus, no comparison of MTC's rates to GTA's rates could support a conclusion that MTC's rates are not cost based; this is a prime example of the proverbial appletoorange comparison. Moreover, IT&E has not seriously challenged MTC's averment that its annual filings have been investigated, concluded, and allowed to go into effect. As such, without more, we cannot find that MTC has not complied with the Commission's price cap rules. Thus, IT&E has failed to meet its burden to prove a violation of Section 201(b) of the Act.  X1*  11.` ` IT&E further asserts that even assuming arguendo that MTC calculated its interstate access rates in accordance with the Commission's price cap rules, rates that are three times higher than "similarly situated LECs" are presumptively contrary to the public interest  X *and the policy of the Commission.H% L yOe *ԍ IT&E Brief at 11H As discussed fully above, because of the differences in how their access rates are set, we cannot conclude that GTA and MTC are similarly situated, nor, by extension that MTC's rates are unreasonable in comparison with GTA's rates.  X* 12.` ` IT&E also contends, however, that in the Beehive proceeding&XL {O* fԍXId. at 1217 (Beehive Telephone Company, Inc., Order on Reconsideration, CC Docket No. 97237, FCC  {Oc*9883 (rel. May 6, 1998) ("Beehive Order on Reconsideration")).(# the Commission  X{*used industry averaging when evaluating the reasonableness of rates.:'{L {O*ԍId.: IT&E asserts that in  Xd*Beehive the Commission found the carrier's rates to be unjust and unreasonable under Section  XO*201(b) because they exceeded the prescribed rate of return.;(OFL {OF*ԍ Id.; In essence, IT&E asks that we find MTC's access rates to be unjust and unreasonable by using GTA's rates as the industry average rates, even though MTC's rates are governed by price cap regulations, not by rateof X *return regulations like GTA's rates.>) L {O*ԍSee id.>  X* 13.` ` We are not persuaded that the circumstances underlying the instant proceeding  X*are similar to Beehive. In Beehive, the Commission found that Beehive's operating expenses were unusually high and that the rates based on these expenses were unjust and unreasonable under Section 201(b) and Beehive failed to provide adequate cost support for its alleged"j )0*%%ZZr"  X*expenses.*L {Oy* ԍXSee Beehive Telephone Company Inc. et al., CC Docket No. 97249, FCC 98105, Memorandum and Order  {OC*("Beehive MO&O") at  20 (1998).(# Only after determining that Beehive's cost data was insufficient and unreliable, did the Commission prescribe rates based on operating expenses of comparable companies  X*computed from industry average methods.F+$L {O*ԍId. at  19.F In the instant proceeding, IT&E has not made any showing that MTC's rates are unjust and unreasonable because they are based on  X*unusually high operating expenses as the Commission found in Beehive.,L yO * ԍXWe also note that MTC is not obligated to make a cost showing as a price cap LEC, whereas Beehive must present cost data to support its rates as a rateofreturn LEC.(# Moreover, IT&E has not presented evidence to support a threshold finding that MTC's rates are unjust and  Xz*unreasonable.- zL yO9* ԍXMoreover, in the context of this Section 208 proceeding, IT&E has failed to make the compelling showing  that MTC's charges are unjust and unreasonable that would empower the Commission to act under Section  F205 of the Act to prescribe just and reasonable rates. Therefore, we reject IT&E's request that we prescribe rates for MTC. (#ƻ  XL* 3.` ` Comparison of Interstate Access Charges and InterIsland Toll Service  X5*` ` Charges  X * 14.` ` IT&E further argues that MTC's interstate access charges are unlawful, based on a comparison of MTC's interstate access rates for originating and terminating calls in the Northern Marianas with MTC's interisland toll service charges for islandtoisland toll calls  X *within the Northern Marianas.. L yOi* ԍXComplaint at  8. We note that IT&E made this argument in the Complaint but did not raise this argument in either of its briefs. (# Specifically, IT&E avers that MTC assesses IT&E originating interstate access charges in excess of $0.09 per minute and terminating interstate access charges in excess of $0.16 per minute for "merely terminating interstate, interexchange  X}*traffic from IT&E's POP in Saipan to an end user in Rota."/}N L yO|* TԍXSpecifically, IT&E asserts that (1) for originating switched access service, MTC assesses a Carrier Common  Line (CCL) rate of $0.01 per minute, a Local Switching rate of $0.051 per minute, and a residual Transport  JInterconnection Charge of $0.033 per minute; and (2) for terminating access service, MTC assess a CCL  (rate of $0.081 per minute, a Local Switching rate of $0.051 per minute, and a residual Transport  Interconnection Charge (TIC) of $0.033 per minute. Citing GTOC Transmittal No. 1100, Tariff FCC No.   1, at 142.1.2, 143.1, 308.3.8 (filed June 16, 1997, and effective July 1, 1997). IT&E explains that these   rates alone comprise only a portion of the total originating and terminating access charges, amounting to  $at least $0.09 per minute in originating access charges, and amounting to at least $0.16 per minute in  fterminating access charges. Complaint at 4, n.2,  23. MTC asserts that its current access rates are 10.3"$.0*%%%" cents per minute terminating and 9.4 cents per minute originating. MTC Answer  4 n.5.(# IT&E asserts that, in contrast,"} X/0*%%ZZ " MTC's charge to end users for providing interisland toll service originating from Saipan and  X*terminating in Rota is only $0.15 per minute.N0XL yO*ԍXComplaint at  23.(#N According to IT&E, the disparity between MTC's interstate access charges and its interisland toll charges for services involving the same network facilities, communications path, and functions offers compelling evidence that MTC's access charges have not been established in full conformance with the Commission's  X*access charge and price cap rules.N1L {O& *ԍXId. at  24.(#N  X_*15.` ` Our analysis of this argument turns on facts and law that IT&E has neither controverted nor directly addressed. The rates being compared are regulated by different regulatory authorities; MTC's interisland toll rates are regulated by the Northern Marianas' Commonwealth Utility Commission and MTC's interstate access charges are regulated by this  X *Commission.L2 zL yO.*ԍXMTC Brief at 34. (#L Moreover, because interisland toll rates have no relation to interstate access charges, any comparison between MTC's interstate access charges and its interisland toll rates proves nothing. Thus, we are not persuaded by IT&E's argument, particularly as it is unsupported by any description or analysis of the differing methodologies by which MTC established either its interstate access rates or its interisland toll rates. IT&E has neither disputed these facts nor demonstrated through a structured argument and supporting documentation that the methodologies involved are similar, and therefore, comparable. Accordingly, we find that IT&E has failed to provide the Commission with either relevant documentation or a persuasive argument upon which to base a finding that the comparison of MTC's interstate access rates to MTC's interisland toll rates evidences that MTC's interstate access rates are unreasonable in violation of Section 201(b).  X* c.` ` Preferential Practices  X*  X* 16.` ` As a separate claim, IT&E contends that MTC failed to impute to itself, or charge its affiliate GTE Pacifica, interstate access charges equal to those assessed against IT&E, thereby giving itself and its affiliate a competitive advantage in the marketplace that  X|*constitutes an unlawful preference in violation of Section 202(a).a3X| L yO7"* tԍXComplaint Affidavit at 7; IT&E Brief at 12; IT&E Reply Brief at 512. The Act prohibits carriers from  "mak[ing] or giv[ing] any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons or locality . . .." 47 C.F.R.  202(a). (#a IT&E however, has provided neither specific facts that form the basis for these allegations, nor sufficient"e * 30*%%ZZ$" supporting documentation in the form of sworn statements or affidavit(s) that would substantiate the allegations. The Commission's formal complaint proceeding rules require fact  X*pleading as opposed to the notice pleading requirements of the Federal courts.3^L {Oy* ԍXSee Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8(a); Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to be Followed When Formal  {OC* JComplaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22497, Appendix A,   {O *1.721(a)(5) (1997) ("Formal Complaints Order") (#ƃ Thus, the Commission's rules require that a complainant know and present the specific facts necessary  X*to prove its claim at the time of filing.a5L {O, *ԍXFormal Complaints Order at 22550. (#a The Commission's rules provide for discovery where the most probative evidence of an alleged violation is solely within the possession of a defendant carrier. However, we have recognized that this allowance does not relieve a complainant of its fact pleading obligation and a complainant asserting such a basis for deficiency in its complaint is required to demonstrate with evidence a reasonable basis for its  X *belief that a violation occurred.T6 L yOK*ԍX47 C.F.R.  1.721(a)(5).(#T Despite having been given numerous opportunities to identify a factual basis for its belief that MTC gave itself or its affiliate preferential treatment, IT&E failed to make a basic evidentiary showing.  X *17.` ` In support of its claim, IT&E submitted the affidavit of John M. Borlas,  X *President of IT&E,R7 L yOh*ԍXComplaint Affidavit at 7.(#R which states that IT&E has "reason to believe" that MTC failed to impute equivalent access charges to its own interexchange operations and failed to collect  Xy*such charges from its affiliate GTE Pacifica.B8yL {O*ԍXId.(#B In the affidavit, however, Mr. Borlas acknowledges that IT&E does not have first hand knowledge nor supporting documentation as to these allegations and fails to identify any specific facts on which to base IT&E's asserted  X4*"reason to believe."B942 L {O*ԍXId.(#B The affidavit asserts as justification for IT&E's failure to provide any  X*supporting documentation that such documentation resides with MTC.B: L {O *ԍXId.(#B  X*18.` ` Despite IT&E's lack of evidentiary showing, in refutation of IT&E's assertions of discriminatory treatment, and in response to IT&E's interrogatories, MTC submitted the affidavit of William S. Early, Controller of MTC and GTE Pacifica, stating that (1) as of" V :0*%%ZZ" January 1998, MTC has charged and collected from GTE Pacifica all interstate access charges due and owing pursuant to the applicable and effective interstate access charge tariff, and (2) prior to January 1998, and commencing in 1993, MTC imputed to its own international and interstate operations an amount equal to what was chargeable under the theneffective  X*interstate access charge tariff.a;L yO*ԍXAnswer, Affidavit of William S. Early. (#a During the course of discovery, IT&E challenged the Early affidavit as "selfserving" and asked the Commission's permission to audit MTC's books of  Xv*account to verify the assertions in the Early affidavit.<vXL {O *ԍSee IT&E's Motion to Strike, etc. at 2 (filed May 11, 1998); Commission's Letter dated May 13, 1998. MTC opposed IT&E's request for permission to audit its books of account on the ground that they contain competitively sensitive confidential information, and volunteered to have the accuracy of the affidavit  X1*verified by the independent accounting firm of Arthur Andersen.=1L {O * ԍXSee MTC's Opposition to Complainant's Motion to Compel at 11 (filed April 22, 1998); MTC's letter dated April 30, 1998; Commission's Letter dated May 1, 1998.(# Arthur Andersen provided IT&E with its verification/certificates as to the accuracy of the assertions contained in the  X *Early affidavit.> DL {O*ԍXSee Arthur Andersen verification/certificates dated May 8, 1998 and May 19, 1998.(#Ɛ IT&E moved to strike the Arthur Andersen verification/certificates on the grounds of deficiency and bias, and moved to be allowed to audit MTC's books of account by  X *its own accountant and local counsel in the Northern Marianas.?" L {O\* TԍXSee IT&E's Motion to Strike etc.; Commission's Letter dated May 13, 1998. (The parties were afforded due  popportunity to present their arguments during the status conference held on IT&E's motion to strike. Based  Fupon the parties' written submissions and oral arguments presented at the conference, the Commission staff denied IT&E's motion to strike). (# At a status conference on this motion and also at subsequent status conferences, IT&E was afforded the opportunity to provide a factual basis for its contention that MTC had failed to impute to itself or charge its  X*affiliate interstate access charges equal to those MTC charged to IT&E .z@ L {O*ԍXSee Commission Letters dated May 13, 1998 and May 27, 1998.(#z IT&E failed to provide any further basis for that contention and Commission staff denied IT&E's motion and  Xb*its request for permission to audit MTC's books of account.@AbR L {Oe*ԍId.@  X4*19.` ` In this instance, other than its unsubstantiated representation that IT&E "has reason to believe" that MTC has engaged in discriminatory, and anticompetitive, access charge  X*practices,TBL {O$*ԍSee Complaint Affidavit at 7.T IT&E has failed to provide any facts whatsoever that form the basis of its belief" vB0*%%ZZf " that MTC has accorded preferential treatment to itself or its affiliate in the assessment of interstate access charges. IT&E neglected to compile and submit any evidentiary statements of relevant facts, rendering the record inherently deficient as to its Section 202(a) discrimination claim. Furthermore, IT&E has failed to explain what constraints, if any, rendered it incapable of compiling and submitting specific facts in the form of sworn  X*statement(s) or affidavit(s) to substantiate its otherwise bald allegations as to this claim.iCL yO* pԍXIT&E also had the opportunity to present specific facts that form the basis of its Section 202(a) preferential  Ttreatment claim to the Commission staff during the eleven status conferences that were held with the parties  pon the issue of imputation, and related matters, such as the Arthur Andersen verification/certificates of Mr.  <Early's affidavit. During the course of these conferences, Commission staff reminded IT&E's counsel of  the complainant's burden of proof in a formal complaint proceeding and requested identification of specific  tfacts to support IT&E's claim, or at a minimum facts that would form a reasonable basis to believe that a  violation of Section 202(a) existed. In response to these admonitions IT&E failed to identify any specific  ffacts, but merely reiterated its suspicions of a Section 202(a) violation and requested permission to audit MTC's books of account. IT&E's request was denied. (#i  X_*20.` ` We find unpersuasive IT&E's tendered justification that its failure to carry its burden as to its Section 202(a) claim is attributable to IT&E's inability to verify independently MTC's books of account through an audit conducted by IT&E's accountant and  X *local counsel.D L {Oc*ԍXSee Complaint Affidavit at 7; IT&E Reply Brief at 512 (Exhibit 3).(#Ƃ T he Commission's rules and policies never intended that the discovery process in a complaint proceeding be used as a "fishing expedition" or as the primary means  X *to determine if a claim exists.lE * L {O*ԍXFormal Complaints Order at 22549.(#l Where, as here, a complainant has failed to allege any specific facts necessary to prove its claim, it would be contrary to Commission precedent to permit the complainant to use extraordinary measures to bolster its claim, such as granting IT&E's request to independently audit MTC's books of account. It is well established that the burden of proof lies with the complainant, not with the defendant.  Xb*21.` ` Thus, we find that IT&E has failed to meet its evidentiary burden of establishing that MTC gave itself or its affiliate an unreasonable preference or advantage in  X4*violation of Section 202(a).F~4 L yO* ԍXWhen a carrier is charged with unreasonable discrimination, the Commission applies a judicially established  threepronged test to determine whether an unreasonable discrimination in violation of Section 202(a)  {O1!* occurred. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, 680 F.2d 30, 39 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Commission  precedent consistently indicates that the term "discrimination" is applied in the context of rate discrimination  {O"* Fin the provision of like services. See American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. FCC, 377 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir.  {O#* 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 943 (1967). In this complaint, however, there is no dispute over whether the  services at issue are "like." The services are unquestionably "like" because IT&E, GTE Pacifica and MTC"W$E0*%%$"  itself, prior to the establishment of GTE Pacifica, received identical interstate access services through MTC's  local network. Moreover, IT&E does not allege that it was charged a different rate than MTC or GTE  Pacifica, but instead, that MTC did not properly impute that rate to itself or charge that rate to its affiliate.  {O*  Given these circumstances, i.e., no dispute over like services and no allegation that difference rates were charged, the application of the threepronged discrimination test does not address the basis of IT&E's claim.(# In particular, we find that IT&E has not demonstrated that"4 zF0*%%ZZ " MTC failed to impute to itself or charge to its affiliate GTE Pacifica the equivalent of the access charges MTC has charged IT&E for using MTC's local network. Moreover, we find that IT&E has not identified any other specific instance in which MTC treated itself, or its affiliate GTE Pacifica, with unreasonable preference or advantage over IT&E. Thus, we conclude that IT&E has failed to carry its burden to establish an unreasonable preference in violation of Section 202(a).  X_* d.` ` Unlawful CrossSubsidization Practices  X1* 22.` ` IT&E alleges that MTC's interexchange rates, which are in some instances below its access rates, establish that MTC is engaging in unlawful crosssubsidization  X *practices.AG zL yO.*ԍIT&E Brief at 2.A IT&E contends that because MTC offers both interexchange and local exchange services, the Commission needs to impose additional safeguards to protect MTC's local exchange subscribers against the potential risk of having to subsidize MTC's interexchange  X *operations.NH L yOy*ԍXComplaint at  40.(#N IT&E argues that such additional safeguards are also necessary to protect  X *competing IXCs, such as IT&E, from having to compete with a subsidized competitor.BI L {O*ԍXId.(#B IT&E asserts that, as a result of MTC's unreasonably excessive and discriminatory access charges, MTC was able to crosssubsidize the costs of its competitive interstate, interexchange operations with revenues from its exchange access services, in violation of Section 254(k) of  XK*the Act,JK, L yO(* ԍXSection 254(k) prohibits the subsidization of competitive services through the use of services that are not competitive. 47 U.S.C.  254(k).(# and the cost allocation rules, as set forth in Parts 64 and 69 of the Commission's  X4*rules.KK4 L yOi *ԍIT&E Brief at 1718.K IT&E also alleges that because MTC was not required, prior to 1997, to provide"4K0*%%ZZD "  X*interstate, interexchange services through a separate affiliate,1LLL {Oy* ԍXSee Regulatory Treatment of LEC Provision of Interexchange Services Originating in the LEC's Local  {OC* Exchange Area (CC Docket 96149) and Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange  {O * .Marketplace (CC Docket 9661), Second Report and Order in CC Docket 96149 and Third Report and  Order in CC Docket 9661, 12 FCC Rcd 15,756,  173 (1997) (requiring that independent LECs establish  {O* separate subsidiary to provide inregion, interstate, interexchange services). Order on Reconsideration, 12  {Oi* TFCC Rcd 8730 (1997), further recon. pending. In March 1998, the Common Carrier Bureau stayed the date  by which independent LECs must comply with this requirement pending completion of reconsideration on  {O*this issue. See Order, DA 98556 (Comm. Carr. Bur. rel. March 24, 1998).(#1 MTC has had the opportunity  X*to engage in unlawful crosssubsidization and discriminatory practices.M"L yOv * ԍXIT&E Brief at 18. IT&E also alleges that once structural separation was in place, MTC's access rates fell  bmore into line with the access rates of GTA, but MTC failed to provide any cost information or explanation  yO * for the significant differences between the structural separation rates and the poststructural separation rates.   {O *Id. at 20.(#  X*23.` ` MTC denies that the costs of its interstate interexchange operations were  X*subsidized by any affiliate.N L yO*ԍMTC reply to Interrogatories at 8 (Response to Interrogatory No. 6).(#Ɔ MTC states that when MTC provided interstate services directly, i.e., prior to January 1, 1998, MTC's cost of its interstate operations were borne by revenues  Xv*from MTC's interstate services, and were recorded in MTC's interstate accounts.BOvV L {O}*ԍXId.(#B As of January 1, 1998, MTC's long distance affiliate, GTE Pacifica provides interstate and international services to and from the Northern Marianas. MTC states that GTE Pacifica maintains its own books and accounts relating to its service; its interstate costs are borne by revenues received from its interstate customers no affiliate of GTE Pacifica subsidizes its  X *costs.LPZ L {O* ԍXId. MTC surmises that the revenues derived from the rest of GTE Pacifica's regulated services are  8implicitly "subsidizing" such costs. MTC asserts that there is no explicit mechanism for any such subsidy.  {M.*Id.(#L MTC avers that the regulated and nonregulated activities of GTE companies are  X *separated in accordance with the cost allocation manual on file with the Commission.kQ L {O*ԍXId. at 10 (Response to Interrogatory No. 7).(#k GTE Pacifica is required to charge rates for calls between the Northern Marianas and the rest of the  X *United States on the basis of an integrated structure.R" L yO "* ԍXMTC asserts that MTC and GTE opposed the rate integration requirement and filed an integrated rate  schedule under protest on July 17, 1997. The rates went into effect on August 1, 1997. The Commission  pdenied MTC's Petition for Reconsideration of this requirement by its first Memorandum Opinion and Order  {Oc$* of Reconsideration, Policy and Rules concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace, Implementation"c$Q0*%%$"  {O* @of Section 254(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, First Memorandum and Order on  {OZ* Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 11812, 1181811822 (released July 30, 1997). MTC appealed the matter to  the D.C. Circuit (Case No. 971538). The D.C. Circuit is holding the appellate proceeding in abeyance at  ~the request of the Commission while the Commission considers the impact of its rate integration policy with  {O*respect to CMRS carriers. See MTC's Reply to Interrogatories at 8 (Response to Interrogatory No. 6).(# We note that IT&E has neither refuted" ~R0*%%ZZ< " MTC's assertions, nor provided relevant facts and corroborating documentation to the contrary. Standing alone, IT&E's limited, conclusory allegations do not support a finding of any statutory violations.  X* 24.` ` As discussed above, the Commission's rules do not contemplate that a decision in a Section 208 complaint proceeding will be entered on the basis of the complainant's bald allegations, uncorroborated by any specific set of facts, or substantiated by relevant documentation or affidavits. IT&E's conjectures regarding its Section 254(k) allegations do not affirmatively establish that MTC did, in fact, engage in unlawful crosssubsidization. To succeed with its claim that MTC actually engaged in unlawful practices in violation of Section 254(k), IT&E was required to develop and validate its claim with relevant statements of fact  X *and supporting evidence that such crosssubsidization actually occurred.yS ~L {O2* ԍX  See e.g .,  Berryhill v. Schriro, 137 F.3d 1073 (8th Cir. 1998); Stephenson v. Davenport Community School  {O* fDistrict, 110 F.3d 1303 (8th Cir. 1997); Thurman v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., 90 F.3d 1160 (6th Cir.  {O* f1996); Cheffer v. Reno, 55 F.3d 1517 (11th Cir. 1995); Rosado v. C.J. Deters, et al., 5 F.3d 119 (5th Cir.  {O* 1993); Associated Business Telephone Systems Corporation v. Danihels, 829 F.Supp. 707 (D.N.J. 1993);  {OZ* bRobert H. Walton v. Avant Development Corporation dba Columbus Broadcasting Company, 115 L.R.R.M.  yO$*4084 (M.D. Ga. 1983) (claims raised but not briefed are deemed waived and abandoned).(#y We conclude that nothing in the record establishes that MTC did, in fact, crosssubsidize the costs of its competitive interstate, interexchange operations with revenues from its local services, in violation of Section 254(k) of the Act. The record is devoid of facts or documentation that would corroborate IT&E's allegations that MTC actually engaged in crosssubsidization practices. Likewise, IT&E has failed to provide any facts that would support a conclusion that MTC acted inconsistently with the Commission's cost allocation rules.   XK*` `   IV.hh,CONCLUSION   X*25.` ` We conclude that IT&E has failed to establish that MTC's access charges, as detailed herein, are excessive and therefore unjust and unreasonable under Section 201(b) of the Act. We also conclude that IT&E has failed to establish that MTC failed to impute to itself and charge its affiliate GTE Pacifica access charges in violation of Section 202(a) of the Act. We further conclude that IT&E has failed to establish that MTC crosssubsidizes the costs of its interstate, interexchange operations with revenues from its exchange access  X*services in violation of Section 254(k) of the Act. "| S0*%%ZZ"Ԍ X*` `  V.hh,ORDERING CLAUSES  X*26.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b),  X*202(a), 208, and 254(k) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 202(a), 208, 254(k), that the abovecaptioned complaint filed by IT&E, IS DENIED.  Xa* 27.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT MTC's motion to dismiss IS DISMISSED as moot. ` `  hh,FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh,Magalie Roman Salas ` `  hh,Secretary