WPC 2BJZ Courier3|X>^x6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4 LPT2:ional)HPLA4ADD.PRSx  @\4!k`X@26 FKP Z3|X"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+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/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+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNa݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheading"0\ E A.  2##^!$d!%B"&W#FOOTNOTEFootnote - Appearance#PHIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd$+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date% X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style off&@@    2 ('X!$(1y$)1%*1&HEADERHeader A - Appearance'LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5( 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5)f 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11*L 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   2*+1>(,no)-X).5*LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14+ 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a Document,K\ * ăFOOTERFooter A - Appearanced-BLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indented.N X 2>./i*0dQ+1j+2,HEADING 33rd Heading Level/| XHIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold Large0B*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored1 V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/margins2u H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   2R33Ep.4-/580682INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math Invoice3 ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page Format4D.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice5:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macro6z 4p, $0$00236738X%59[}5:[5INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice7+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle8SMALLSmall Typestyle9FINEFine Typestyle:28;[e6<[6=[7>v7LARGELarge Typestyle;EXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle<VERY LARGEVery Large Typestyle=ENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header>+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   2;?X+9@X9A9B{:MACNormal?,.1@dfStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without MarginsA$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5B$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO 2BCM;Dl,@EAF4BStyle 11Initial Codes for Advanced IICJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/TabsD )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsEDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 FontF4h )a [ PfQO  dddn 2NEG|BHnCIDJDStyle 2Dutch Italic 11.5G$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 PointH$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5I$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 PointJ$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO 2YKELJMONTStyle 10oInitial Codes for AdvancedK U )a [ PfQK  dddn  ##  [[ b, oT9 !b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  QN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8PfInitial Codes for BeginninggLi )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9Initial Codes for IntermediateM )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 Њ [ e )^ `> XifQ ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   3 )^ `> XifQ Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jf )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`+ >Page  jX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 UpdateInitial Codes for Update ModuleN )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`7 CPage  jN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2\OYPZQ}[R[Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph FontO11#XXz PQXP##Iz PQP#head1 #P'd#2p}wC@ #a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfQ$ a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfR/` ` ` 2^SK\T\U|]V%^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 a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfV[   2uaW _X_Yp`Zqaa7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfWf  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfXq Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O gY` ` ` Document[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gZ  . 2tc[ea\e b]qb^pcDocument[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g[  Document[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^  ` ` ` 2 f_c`8dadbheRight Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g_8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g`A@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O ga0     Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gbJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` 2(ic>fdfegf`hRight Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gcS` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gd\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gee` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gfn` ` `  hhh@  2kgZih+jijjjkRight Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O ggw` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O ghF    ׃  Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gi&!"  . Technical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gj&#$  . 2nk!lllmRmnmTechnical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gk*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gl''(   Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gm&)*   Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gn4+$,     2ponpMoqorQpTechnical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O go&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gp&/0  . footnote tex#q'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#referencer;#FxX  Pg9CXP#2us~qtiru sv uitemizeX1s&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2tI ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileuW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded Documentviޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#2u~wuxxy9zzW|toc 1toc 1w` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#toc 2toc 2x` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3y` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4z` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#2w{~|ŀ}v~Ytoc 5toc 5{` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#toc 6toc 6|` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7} toc 8toc 8~` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#2!LJtoc 9toc 9` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#index 1index 1` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toatoa` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#2˓vSlɎK5Kcaptioncaption _Equation Caption_Equation Caption "i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"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"")>F)))))))))<)C"VV5VYO5O5O5O5^<^<^<^>^<^C^F.".C.).CaC>>^CO"O6O)O0O"VCVVCVC^<^O=O)OFVCVCVCVCVCVCxVV>O5O5O5VCO)VCC.O)V<X<<( (WTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN+HH+@<)<<<<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 2jX߲13S&CAC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )e` ` `  hhh@ hhh 14S&CBC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )n` ` `  hhh@  15S&CCC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )w` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 16S&CDC^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )F   ׃  2׶!B17S&CEC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&  . 18S&CFC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&  . 19S&CGC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )*    20S&CHC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )'   2W MҸ21S&CIC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&   22S&CJC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )4$     23S&CKC^fTechnical Document StyleCC+ -2( -Ct )&  . 24S&CLC^fTechnical Document StyleCC9 -2( -Ct )&  . 2}!25S&CMC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CG -2( -Ct )$ 26S&CNC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CU -2( -Ct )/` ` ` 27S&COC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cc -2( -Ct ):` ` `  28S&CPC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cq -2( -Ct )E` ` `  2׾N 29S&CQC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )P` ` ` hhh 30S&CRC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )[ 31S&CSC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )f 32S&CTC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )q 2 ׿yDefault ParaC^fDefault Paragraph Font2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#_Equation CaC^f_Equation CaptionF2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#endnote refeC^fendnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>>#PP##PP#footnote refC^ffootnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>#PP#2vAvv-vheading 4heading 4 heading 5heading 5 heading 6heading 6 heading 7heading 7 2vKvv7heading 8heading 8 endnote textendnote text footnote textfootnote text toa headingtoa heading` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#2ZdWpq+1, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.E1.A, B,t ?@65Uppercase Letters1 ?*1÷$t ?.E .33`O5hT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5h.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 34`O5iT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5i.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  . 2ee3p+35`O5jT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5j.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  36`O5kT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5k.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  37`O5lT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5l.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>*   38`O5mT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5m.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 23_39`O5nT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>8@   40`O5oT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>A@` `  ` ` ` 41`O5pT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5p.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>0    42`O5qT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>J` ` @  ` `  2Oe43`O5rT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>S` `  @  44`O5sT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>\` `  @hh# hhh 45`O5tT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>e` `  hh#@( hh# 46`O5uT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>n` `  hh#(@- ( 2R 47`O5vT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 48`O5wT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5w.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>F *  ׃  49`O5xT(G2PTechnical Document Stylex.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 50`O5yT(G2PTechnical Document Styley.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 2Hy 51`O5zT(G2PTechnical Document Stylez.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>*    52`O5{T(G2PTechnical Document Style{.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>'   53`O5|T(G2PTechnical Document Style|.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&   54`O5}T(G2PTechnical Document Style}.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>4$     2t}v55`O5~T(G2PTechnical Document Style~.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 56`O5T(G2PTechnical Document Style.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 57`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>$ 58`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>/` ` ` 20a 59`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>:` ` `  60`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>E` ` `  61`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>P` ` ` hhh 62`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>[ 2eyo63`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>f 64`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>q 65`O5T(G2PDefault Paragraph Font5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>OO#P P##P P#66`O5T(G2P_Equation Caption^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>OO#PP##PP#2=p?67`O5T(G2Pendnote reference^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>RR#PP##PP#68`O5T(G2Pfootnote reference^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>R#PP#69 _5(_>7footnote text _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tZP70 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t` ` ` 2qeRe71 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  . 72 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  73 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  74 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t*   2pQ~75 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t` ` ` 76 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+t8@   77 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tA@` `  ` ` ` 78 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t0     2 EL79 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tJ` ` @  ` `  80 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tS` `  @  81 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+t\  ` `  @hh# hhh 82 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+te  ` `  hh#@( hh# 2=83 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tn ` `  hh#(@- ( 84 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 85 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tF *  ׃  86 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&  . 2Gh87 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&  . 88 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t*    89 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t'   90 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&   2s}}91 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t4$     92 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&   . 93 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&!"  . 94 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+t$#$ 2,G95 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+t/%&` ` ` 96 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+t:'(` ` `  97 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+tE)*` ` `  98 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+tP+,` ` ` hhh 2\FZy.X80,IX\  P6G;Py.\80, c\4  pG;!7jC:,3Xj\  P6G;XP 7nC:,Xn4  pG;X"W!@(#,9h@\  P6G;hP #H5!,,5\  P6G;,P\${,W80,%W*f9 xr G;X\%5hC:,%Xh*f9 xr G;XX&z-X80,<"X9 xOG;W!B(#,|IhB4  pG;h yO#X\  P6G;IP#X01Í ÍX81Í Í@--@  Њ x` `  hh@hpp  xx  X-+2#Xj\  P6G;3XP#Before thepp   xxDA  J!tP   J!tP  961702 J!tP   J!tP  w Federal Communications Commission  X-Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  XU-In the Matter of hh@h) x` `  hh@h)  X'-GTE Mobilnet Incorporated, on Behalf of @h)  X-Itself and Certain of its Corporate Affiliatesh) x` `  hh@h)  X -Application for Authorization Pursuant to @h)  X -Section 214 of the Communications Act ofh)ppITC95561  X -1934, as amended, to Operate as an @h)  X -International Resale Carrier for Internationalh)  X -Switched Voice Services hh@h)  XA-  ORDER, AUTHORIZATION AND CERTIFICATE ĐTP Adopted: October 10, 1996 Released: October 11, 1996TP By the Chief, International Bureau  X-T  X-I. Introduction T  X-TPx1.` ` GTE Mobilnet Incorporated (GTE Mobilnet) and certain of its corporate affiliates and partnerships jointly request authority pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act, as amended (Act), to resell on a nondominant carrier basis international switched voice services of unaffiliated U.S. carriers. The joint applicants are all whollyowned by GTE Corporation (GTE), a New York corporation whose operating companies comprise  X-the largest affiliation of independent local exchange carriers (LEC) in the United States.  yO-ԍx By independent LECs, we refer to exchange telephone companies, including GTE, other than the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs).  X-x2.` ` We find that a partial grant of the joint applicants' application subject to certain conditions that we impose on an interim basis will serve the public interest under Section 214 of the Act by facilitating the efficient and rapid provision of international services, while protecting ratepayers and competition in the U.S. international services market. We also find that the joint applicants' provision of resold international switched services should be subject to nondominant carrier regulation on all routes for which we grant them authority to provide such services. In addition, we defer a decision whether to grant the joint applicants' request to resell international switched services to the Dominican Republic and Venezuela and whether to classify them as dominant or nondominant carriers on these routes. "& 0*0*0*$"Ԍ X- II. Background Đ X-TTP  xA.` ` Application  X-x3.` ` The joint applicants T  yO4-ԍxWe refer to GTE Mobilnet and the corporate affiliates and partnerships with which GTE Mobilnet jointly filed the instant Section 214 application as "the joint applicants" and as "GTEMI." We identify these corporations and partnerships in Appendix A of this order. The corporate affiliates identified in Appendix A are subsidiaries of GTE. GTEMI Application at 2 (filed Oct. 6, 1995). The partnerships identified in Appendix A  {OT-are those "in which a GTE affiliate is the general or managing partner." See Letter from F. Gordon Maxson, Director Regulatory Affairs, GTE Service Corporation, to George Li, Deputy Chief, Operations, Telecommunications Division, International Bureau, at 1 (dated Oct. 17, 1995) (GTE Oct. 17, 1995 Letter) (amending Exhibit A of GTEMI's application to include the partnerships in which an affiliate of GTE is the  {Ov -general or managing parter); see also Letter from Gordon Maxson, Director Regulatory Affairs, GTE Service  {O@ -Corporation, to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC, at 1 (dated June 5, 1996) (GTE June 5, 1996 Ex Parte Letter) (certifying that the "affiliates listed on Exhibit A to [its] . . . Section 214 application are [commercial mobile radio services] . . . carriers and not local exchange carriers"). Since the filing of the original Section 214  {O-application by the joint applicants, the "Contel cellular companies . . . under[went] name changes." Ex parte Letter from F. Gordon Maxson, Director Regulatory Affairs, GTE Service Corporation, to William F. Caton,  {O,-Acting Secretary, F.C.C., at 1 (dated Sept. 19, 1996) (GTE Sept. 19, 1996 Ex Parte Letter).  Appendix A of this order identifies the old and new names of these companies. We identify both names because market share  {O-information data correspond with the old names of these companies. See infra Section III. A.  request Section 214 authority to resell on a nondominant  X-carrier basis international switched voice services of unaffiliated U.S. carriers.Z yO9-ԍxGTEMI Application at 1, 6 and Exhibit A. Z The joint applicants seek authority to resell such services to customers other than their commercial  Xv-mobile radio services (CMRS) customers.Xvt yO-ԍxMost of the joint applicants hold Section 214 authority to resell international switched services as part of their mobile communications service. The instant application would authorize the joint applicants to provide  {O+-international services to their nonmobile communications service customers.  See Letter from Gordon Maxson, Director Regulatory Affairs, GTE Service Corporation, to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC, at 1 (dated  {O-Sept. 24, 1996) (GTE Sept. 24, 1996 Ex Parte Letter).X GTEMI proposes to resell international switched  X_-service originating from both "outofregion" and "inregion" points in the United States.D_( {O8-ԍxFor purposes of the InRegion proceeding, the Commission has defined an independent LEC's "inregion services" as telecommunications services originating in the independent LEC's local exchange areas or 800 service, private line service, or their equivalents that: (1) terminate in the independent LEC's local exchange areas and (2) allow the called party to determine the interexchange carrier, even if the service originates outside  {OZ -the independent LEC's local exchange areas.  Implementation of the NonAccounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Regulatory Treatment of LEC Provision of  {O!-Interexchange Services Originating in the LEC's Local Exchange Area, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC  {O"-Docket No. 96149, FCC 96308 (released July 18, 1996) (InRegion NPRM or InRegion proceeding). We apply the same definition of an independent LEC's "inregion services" for purposes of this proceeding. D GTEMI asserts that a grant of its Section 214 application is in the public interest because the Commission has found that the "introduction of new entrants into the marketplace fosters  X -competition in the rates charged and service provided by carriers."  {O'-ԍxGTEMI Application at 1 (citing TMC Communications, Inc., 5 FCC Rcd 2466, n.9 (1990)). The joint applicants, as" 0*((B " whollyowned subsidiaries of GTE, are "affiliates" of the GTE local exchange telephone  X-companies. $ {Ob-ԍxSee Policy & Rules Concerning Rates for Competitive Common Carrier Services and Facilities  {O,-Authorizations Therefor, CC Docket No. 79252 (Competitive Carrier), Fifth Report & Order, 98 FCC 2d 1191,  yO-1198 (1984) (an "affiliate" of an independent LEC is "a carrier that is owned (in whole or in part) or controlled by, or under common ownership (in whole or in part) or control with, an exchange telephone company").   X- x4.` ` The joint applicants certify that through their parent, GTE, they have affiliations with British Columbia Telephone Company (BC Tel) in the Province of British Columbia, Quebec Telephone in the Province of Quebec, Compania Dominicana de Telefonos, C. Por A. (Codetel) in the Dominican Republic, and Compania Anonima Nacional  X_-Telefonos de Venezuela (CANTV) in Venezuela._ yO -ԍxGTEMI Application at 5, 6, and 8 (GTE owns 100 percent of the common stock of AngloCanadian Telephone Company (ACTel), which owns 50.38 percent of BC Tel, which provides telecommunications services within its certificated territory in the Province of British Columbia; ACTel also owns 50.63 percent of Quebec Telephone, which provides telecommunications service within its certificated territory in the Province of Quebec; GTE indirectly owns 100 percent of Codetel which provides domestic and international telecommunications service in the Dominican Republic; GTE owns 100 percent of GTE Venezuelan Telephone Incorporated, which owns 51 percent of VenWorld Telecom, C.A., a consortium which owns 40 percent of CANTV, which provides domestic and international telecommunications services in Venezuela; GTE is also in operational control of CANTV). The joint applicants assert that, as resellers of switched services provided by unaffiliated U.S. international facilitiesbased carriers, they  X1-are entitled to nondominant carrier treatment under Section 63.10(a)(4) of the rules.H 1  yOf-ԍxGTEMI Application at 2.H We  X -address GTEMI's foreign carrier affiliations in Section III. B. infra.  X -  X -xB.` ` Interexchange and InRegion Proceedings  X -x5.` ` The Commission has raised issues relating to the regulatory treatment of the independent LECs in their provision of interstate, domestic interexchange services and  X-international services in two pending proceedings. Specifically, in the Interexchange NPRM, the Commission has sought comment on whether it should modify or eliminate the separation requirements that apply as a condition of nondominant treatment of independent LEC  XQ-provision of outofregion, domestic interstate, interexchange services. 4 Q yO!-ԍxPolicy and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace and Implementation of Section  {O!-254(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 7141, at  61 (1996)  {O"-(Interexchange NPRM or Interexchange proceeding); Interexchange NPRM at  61; see also Bell Operating  {Or#-Company Provision of OutofRegion Interstate, Interexchange Services, Report and Order, CC Docket No. 96 {O<$-21, FCC 96288 at n. 5 (released July 1, 1996) (Interim BOC Domestic OutofRegion Order) (the Interexchange  {O%-"proceeding does not include international, interexchange services"); see also id. at  2 (concluding that, on an  {O%-interim basis pending the outcome of the Interexchange proceeding, it would remove dominant carrier regulation for BOC outofregion, interstate, domestic, interexchange services when offered through an affiliate that meets"b' 0*((&"  {OX-the Competitive Carrier Fifth Report and Order separation requirements and that is treated as a nonregulated  {O"-affiliate for purposes of BOC accounting under the Commission's joint cost and affiliate transactions rules); see  {O-also NYNEX Long Distance Co. Application for Authority Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to Provide International Services from Certain Parts of the United States to International Points through Resale of International Switched Services, ITC96125, Ameritech Communications Application for Authority Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act, as amended to Provide International Services from the United States to International Points through Resale of International Switched Services, ITC96272, Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc. Application for Authority Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to Resell Service of Other Common Carriers to Provide Switched Service from the  {Of -United States to International Points through Resale of International Switched Services, ITC96181, Order,  {O0 -Authorization and Certificate, DA 961169 at  12 and 1721 (International Bur., released July 24, 1996)  {O -(NYNEX et. al Order). "Q  0*(( "Ԍ X-ԙx6.` ` In the InRegion NPRM, the Commission has requested comment on whether it should "modify our existing rules that require independent LECs (exchange companies other  X-than the BOCs) to comply with [the] . . . separation requirements [as set forth in the  X-Competitive Carrier Fifth Report and Order] in order to qualify for nondominant regulatory  X-treatment in the provision of inregion, interstate, domestic, interexchange services."   {O-ԍxInRegion NPRM at  153; see also id. at  4, 108, and 113; see also id. at  153 (proposing to limit application of separate affiliation requirements to incumbent independent LECs).  The Commission also is "consider[ing] whether to apply the same regulatory classification to the independent LECs' provision of inregion, international services as we adopt in this  Xc-proceeding for their provision of inregion, interstate, domestic, interexchange services." "c {O2-ԍxInRegion NPRM at  153; see also id. at  18 ("[t]he issue we address in this NPRM is whether a BOC affiliate or independent LEC should be regulated as dominant in the provision of inregion, international services because of the BOC or independent LEC's current retention of bottleneck facilities on the U.S. end of an international link").  X5-x7.` ` The InRegion proceeding does not modify the Commission's separate  X -framework, adopted in the International Services Order  {O-ԍxRegulation of International Common Carrier Services, 7 FCC Rcd 7331 (1992) (International Services). for regulating U.S. international carriers (including BOC affiliates or independent LECs ultimately authorized to provide inregion international services) as dominant on routes where an affiliated foreign carrier has the ability to discriminate in favor of its U.S. affiliate through control of bottleneck services or  X -facilities in the foreign destination market.O  {O"-ԍxInRegion NPRM at n.191.O  X- III. Discussion T  Xj-TP x8.` ` GTEMI's entrance into the international services market is not prohibited by the Act, judicial decree, or the Commission's rules. We find that, with the exception of GTEMI's request to resell international switched services on the U.S.Dominican Republic"<,0*(( " and U.S.Venezuela routes, a grant of GTEMI's application subject to the conditions detailed below will serve the public interest under Section 214 of the Act by facilitating the efficient and rapid provision of international services, and by benefiting competition in the U.S. international services market and U.S consumers. In addition, we find that GTEMI's application to resell international switched services to the Dominican Republic and Venezuela raises issues that we must resolve to determine whether the public interest would be wellserved by authorizing GTEMI to resell switched services on these routes. To permit the parties additional opportunity to address these outstanding issues, we defer a decision whether to grant GTEMI's application to resell international switched services to the Dominican Republic and Venezuela and whether to classify the joint applicants as nondominant carriers on these routes.  X -xA.` ` Regulation of GTEMI as Dominant or NonDominant under Competitive  X -Carrier Proceeding(#`  X -x9.` ` Although we find that, with the exception of the Dominican Republic and Venezuela routes, GTEMI's entrance into the international services market is in the public interest, we must also determine the appropriate regulatory treatment of GTEMI's provision of  Xf-resold international switched services. Since 1980, the Commission has distinguished between carriers with market power (dominant carriers) and those without market power (non X8-dominant carriers) for purposes of Title II rate and entry regulation.`P8 {O-ԍxSee Policy & Rules Concerning Rates for Competitive Common Carrier Services and Facilities  {O{-Authorizations Therefor, CC Docket No. 79252 (Competitive Carrier), First Report & Order, 85 FCC 2d 1  {OE-(1980); Second Report & Order, 91 FCC 2d 59 (1982); recon., 93 FCC 2d 54 (1983); Third Report & Order, 48  {O-Fed. Reg. 46,791 (1983); Fourth Report & Order, 95 FCC 2d 554 (1983), vacated, AT&T v. FCC, 978 F.2d 727  {O-(1992), cert. denied, MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. AT&T, 113 S.Ct. 3020 (1993); Fifth Report & Order,  {O-98 FCC 2d 1191 (1984); Sixth Report & Order, 99 FCC 2d 1020 (1985), rev'd, MCI Telecommunications Corp.  {Om-v. FCC, 765 F.2d 1186 (D.C. Cir. 1985); see 47 C.F.R.  61.3(o) (dominant carrier is defined as "[a] carrier  {O7-found by the Commission to have market power (i.e., power to control prices)").` If a common carrier is determined to be "nondominant," Title II regulatory requirements are "streamlined." The Commission has applied standard principles of antitrust analysis to determine whether a carrier possesses market power in the provision of the relevant service in the relevant  X-geographic market.m {Om-ԍxMotion of AT&T Corp. to be Declared NonDominant for International Service, Order, FCC 96209  {O7 -(released May 14, 1996) (AT&T International NonDominance Order); Competitive Carrier, First Report and  {O!-Order, 85 FCC 2d at 21; Motion of AT&T to be Reclassified as a NonDominant Carrier, 11 FCC Rcd 3271,  {O!-329394 (1995); Revisions to Price Cap Rules for AT&T Corp., 10 FCC Rcd 3009, 3016 (1995) (Commercial  {O"-Services Order); Competition in the Interstate Interexchange Marketplace, CC Docket No. 90132, Report and  {O_#-Order, 6 FCC Rcd 5880, 5888 (1991) (First Interexchange Competition Order), recon., 6 FCC Rcd 7569 (1991),  {O)$-further recon., 7 FCC Rcd 2677 (1992).m This analysis includes a focus on: (1) market share, (2) the demand".0*((6" elasticity of a carrier's customers, (3) the supply elasticity of the market, and (4) a carrier's  X-cost structure, size and resources.C {Ob-ԍxSee AT&T International NonDominance Order  at  36; see also Commercial Services Order at 3016  {O,-(describing demand elasticity); First Interexchange Competition Order at 5888 (describing supply elasticity).C  X-x 10.` ` The Commission first applied its dominant/nondominant regulatory scheme to  X-U.S. international carriers in 1985.$ {Oy-ԍxSee International Competitive Carrier Policies, Report & Order, 102 FCC 2d 812 (1985) (International  {OC -Competitive Carrier), recon. denied, 60 RR 2d 1435 (1986). The Commission held that international message telephone service (IMTS) (including international switched services) is a separate product market. The Commission also held that, in applying the dominant/nondominant regulatory scheme for international services, every destination country constituted a separate geographic  XH-market.&H {Oy-ԍx International Competitive Carrier at  37. The Commission also found all foreignowned carriers to be  {OC-dominant for all services to all countries. Id. at  7273, and 84; see infra Section III. B. The Commission  {O -recently further streamlined the Title II regulation of nondominant international carriers. Streamlining Order at  77, and 8081. The Commission did not distinguish among different regions of the continental  X1-United States in defining the relevant geographic market.@1n  yOP-ԍxThe Commission did, however, separately analyze the market power of certain carriers providing  {O-international services for noncontiguous domestic points. International Competitive Carrier at  4749; see  {O-also InRegion NPRM at  129 ("invit[ing] parties to discuss why they believe we should examine smaller areas for purposes of determining whether a BOC affiliate or independent LEC possesses market power in the provision of inregion, international services").@  X -x 11.` ` With the exception of the Dominican Republic, Venezuela and Canada routes where GTEMI is affiliated with incumbent foreign carriers, we believe that there are no critical distinctions on the basis of the joint applicants' market shares, size and resources, demand and supply elasticities, or conditions of entry from one destination country to another which would require a routebyroute analysis of the joint applicants' market positions for  X-international switched services." {Oc-ԍxSee generally AT&T International NonDominance Order at  3136.  There is nothing in the record to indicate that the joint  Xy-applicants' market positions vary substantially from one geographic market to the next. We therefore conclude that the joint applicants' market positions for international switched services do not differ among routes and that we need not generally make specific routebyroute findings with the exception of the affiliated routes identified above.  X- x 12. ` ` In applying the Commission's standard principles of antitrust analysis to determine whether a carrier possesses market power, we find that the joint applicants have a  X-de minimis share of the market for international switched services. In 1994, the joint applicants' provision of resold international switched services offered in conjunction with their mobile communications services represented less than 0.016 percent of the total international"0*((p"  X-switched service revenues reported by U.S. carriers.PZ {Oy-ԍxSee 1994 Section 43.61 International Telecommunications Data, January 1996, Figures 1 and 6, and Table D. As noted above in Section II. A., most of the joint applicants resell international switched services to their CMRS customers as part of their mobile communications service. P We have previously found that customers in the international services market are highly demandelastic and will switch  X-carriers in order to obtain price reductions and desired services.i {Om-ԍxAT&T International NonDominance Order at  47.i Also, elasticities of supply  X-in the international services market are high.Q| {O -ԍxId. at  35, 4865.Q Further, we do not envision that any of the applicants' cost structure, size, and resources, standing alone or in the aggregate, will allow any of these companies or partnerships, individually or jointly, to control prices or exclude  Xv-competition insofar as only a handful of the applicants has even a de minimis share of the market for international switched services. The joint applicants, moreover, will face a number of large, wellfinanced competitors, including MCI, Sprint, and AT&T in the product and geographic service markets that they propose to serve.  X -x 13.` ` The principal regulatory concern with GTEMI's application is whether the joint applicants may be able to leverage the market power of their LEC affiliates in the provision of local exchange and exchange access services to gain market power in the provision of international services. Specifically, we are concerned that GTE's control of local exchange and exchange access facilities potentially gives GTE an incentive and ability to disadvantage GTEMI's competitors through improper allocation of costs, discrimination, or other anticompetitive conduct.  XM-x 14.` ` The International Bureau (Bureau) recently addressed substantially the same concern in considering the appropriate treatment of GTE Telecom Incorporated's (GTE  X-Telecom)a yO-ԍxGTE Telecom is a whollyowned subsidiary of GTE.a provision of resold international switched services and international facilitiesbased  X-private line services, i.e., that GTE's control of local exchange and exchange access facilities  X-might enable it to engage in costshifting and other anticompetitive conduct.~ {OB-ԍxSee GTE Telecom Incorporated, Application for Authority Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 63.01 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations for International Resale Switched Service and Facilitiesbased Service to Various Countries, ITC95443, Order,  {O!-Authorization and Certificate, DA 961546, at  15 (International Bur., released Sept. 16, 1996) (GTE Telecom  {Of"-Order) ("we are concerned that GTE's control of local exchange and exchange access facilities potentially gives GTE an incentive and ability to disadvantage GTE Telecom's competitors through improper allocation of costs, discrimination, or other anticompetitive conduct"). To address this concern, the Bureau granted in part GTE Telecom's application to provide such services on a  X-nondominant basis subject to the same separation safeguards adopted in Competitive Carrier,  X-Fifth Report and Order that apply to affiliates of independent LECs that are regulated as non"0*((p"ԫ X-dominant in their provision of interstate, domestic interexchange services.S {Oy-ԍxGTE Telecom Order at  3.S The Bureau determined that these conditions will continue to apply to GTE Telecom's Section 214  X-authorization at least until the Commission has completed the Interexchange and InRegion  X-proceedings.SZ {O-ԍxGTE Telecom Order at  3.S  The Bureau also required GTE Telecom to be treated as a nonregulated affiliate for purposes of its affiliated LECs' accounting under the Commission's joint cost and  X-affiliate transactions rules.^ {O, -ԍxGTE Telecom Order at  3, 2223.^  Xa-x15.` ` We find no material basis for distinguishing between GTEMI's and GTE Telecom's Section 214 applications with respect to the appropriate regulatory treatment to apply to their provision of international services. In both cases, we are concerned that GTE, the parent of GTE Telecom and the joint applicants, may engage in improper cost allocation and other anticompetitive conduct to gain market power in the provision of international services. We believe that the Bureau's reasons for applying interim safeguards as a condition of its partial grant of GTE Telecom's Section 214 application are equally relevant to our  X -review of GTEMI's application._ ~ {O-ԍxSee GTE Telecom Order at  1626._ We therefore grant in part GTEMI's application to provide international switched services on a nondominant basis subject to the same safeguards that the Bureau applied on an interim basis as a condition to its partial grant of GTE Telecom's  X{-application and for the same reasons set forth in the GTE Telecom Order.  XO- x 16.` ` Specifically, we grant GTEMI's Section 214 application to resell international switched services on all international routes (with the exception of the U.S.Dominican Republic and U.S.Venezuela routes) on a nondominant basis subject to the condition that  X -each of the joint applicants complies with the Fifth Report and Order separation requirements. The joint applicants must: (1) maintain separate books of account from their affiliated LECs; (2) not jointly own transmission or switching facilities with their affiliated LECs; and (3) take any tariffed services from their affiliated LECs pursuant to the terms and conditions of the  X-LECs' generally applicable tariff. {Oq -ԍxSee GTE Telecom Order at  16 and 21 (describing the Fifth Report and Order separation requirements  {O;!-in detail); see also GTE Sept. 19, 1996 Ex Parte Letter at 1. We believe that the application of the Fifth Report and  X-Order safeguards will not impose an unreasonable burden on the joint applicants in their provision of international switched services or require extensive modifications to GTE's existing company procedures. GTEMI states that the joint applicants maintain separate books  XX-of account, do not jointly own switching or transport facilities with the GTE telephone operating companies (GTOCs), and acquire exchange access service from the GTOCs by"Al 0*(("  X-access tariff in accordance with the Fifth Report and Order.K Z {Oy-ԍxGTE September 24, 1996 Ex Parte Letter at 1; GTE September 19, 1996 Ex Parte Letter at 1; Letter from Gordon Maxson, Director Regulatory Affiars, GTE Service Corporation, to Susan O'Connell, International Bureau, FCC, at 1 (dated May 9, 1996) (GTE May 9, 1996 Letter).K In addition, we will require the joint applicants to be treated as nonregulated affiliates for purposes of their affiliated LECs'  X-accounting under the Commission's joint cost and affiliate transactions rules.! {Oo-ԍxSee GTE Telecom Order at  22 (describing the Commission's joint cost and affiliate transactions rules). We believe that the application of these safeguards as a condition to our partial grant of GTEMI's application will be an effective complement to existing equal access and nondiscrimination  X-safeguards established under the GTE Consent Decree:"^| {O -ԍxSee United States v. GTE Corporation, 603 F.Supp. 730 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (accepting with modifications  {O -consent decree submitted by GTE Corporation and U.S. government (GTE Consent Decree)) (U.S. v. GTE  {OP -Corp.).: that continue to apply to GTEMI's affiliated local exchange carriers and that will govern the joint applicants' dealings with them  Xc-in their provision of international service.#\c {O-ԍxSee GTE Telecom Order at  2426 (describing in detail the equal access and nondiscrimination  {O-requirements established under the Consent Decree that continue to apply, and the customer proprietary network information (CPNI) requirements of the decree and new Section 222 of the Communications Act).  X5-x17.` ` The safeguards that we apply as a condition to our partial grant of GTEMI's  X -application will remain in place at least until completion of the Interexchange and InRegion proceedings. We reserve the right to modify the conditions of GTEMI's authorization, as necessary, upon adoption of final rules for the independent LECs' provision of international and domestic interstate, interexchange services. In the meantime, it is our view that granting the instant Section 214 application, in part, subject to these safeguards, will serve the public interest by facilitating the efficient and rapid provision of international services, while protecting ratepayers and competition in the U.S. international services market.  Xh-xB.` ` Foreign Carrier AffiliationsĐ  X:- x18.` ` In 1992, the Commission modified its 1985 policy that treated U.S. foreignowned common carriers as dominant in their provision of all international services to all foreign markets. Specifically, the Commission adopted a framework for regulating U.S. international carriers as dominant on routes where an affiliated foreign carrier has the ability to discriminate in favor of its U.S. affiliate through control of bottleneck services or facilities  X-in the destination market.$$  {O>$-ԍxInternational Services at 7334; see also Market Entry and Regulation of Foreignaffiliated Entities,  {O%-Report and Order, IB Docket No. 9522, 11 FCC Rcd 3873, at  24555 (1995) (Foreign Carrier Entry Order) (reaffirming the basic framework for classifying and regulating a carrier as dominant based upon its foreign  {O&-carrier affiliations as set forth in International Services). The Commission considers to be "foreignaffiliated""b'#0*((&" those U.S. carriers with a greater than 25 percent interest or controlling interest at any level held by a foreign  {O -carrier, as well as those U.S. carriers with interests of more than 25 percent in, or control of, a foreign carrier.  {O-Foreign Carrier Entry Order at  7892, and 24551.  Under this framework, a U.S. international carrier that serves a" $0*((q" destination market solely through the resale of the switched services of a U.S. facilitiesbased carrier with which the reseller is not affiliated is presumptively nondominant for that route  X-"regardless of any foreign affiliations[.]"% {O7-ԍxInternational Services at 7335; 47 C.F.R.  63.10(a)(4); see also Streamlining Order at  77, 8081;  {O -International Competitive Carrier at  7677.   X-x19.` ` Under the framework adopted in International Services and Section 63.10(a)(4) of the rules, we find that the joint applicants qualify as nondominant resellers of international switched services on all routes for which we grant them Section 214 authorization, including the U.S.Canada route where they are affiliated with BC Tel and Quebec Telephone within  XJ-the meaning of Section 63.18(h)(1)(i) of the rules.E&J {O -ԍxSee supra n.36E With regard to GTEMI's resale of switched services to countries other than the Dominican Republic and Venezuela, no party filed an opposition or requests that GTEMI be classified as dominant. We find that the joint applicants qualify as nondominant resellers on all international routes, with the exception of the Dominican Republic and Venezuela routes.  X -x20.` ` We find that GTEMI's application to resell international switched services to the Dominican Republic and Venezuela raises issues relating to the settlements process that we must resolve in order to determine the public interest merits of its application to serve these destination countries. The present record does not allow us to make that determination at this time. We therefore defer a decision whether to grant GTEMI's request to resell international switched services to the Dominican Republic and Venezuela and whether to  X6-classify the joint applicants as nondominant carriers on these routes.z'X6 yO-ԍxNo party alleges, nor is there any evidence before us that suggests, that GTEMI's application to resell international switched services to Canada raises issues relating to the settlements process that would require us to defer a decision with respect to its request to provide such services on a nondominant basis on that route.z  X-x21.` ` In a petition substantively similar to the petition it filed against GTE Telecom's  X-Section 214 application,_(  {Od"-ԍxSee GTE Telecom Order at  3839._ AT&T Corp. (AT&T) asserts that GTEMI's application should be denied with respect to the joint applicants' request for authority to resell switched services on  X-the U.S.Dominican Republic and the U.S.Venezuela routes.u)T  yO%-ԍxAT&T Petition to Deny in Part (filed Nov. 20, 1995) (AT&T Petition).u AT&T maintains that granting GTEMI authority to resell international switched services on these two routes would remove  X-any incentive GTEMI's foreign affiliates (i.e., Codetel in the Dominican Republic and" )0*((Q"  X-CANTV in Venezuela) may have to reduce "their abovecost accounting rates."D* yOy-ԍxAT&T Petition at 2.D As a result, AT&T claims, U.S. consumers would continue to bear the burden of settlements subsidies to Codetel and CANTV caused by these carriers' abovecost rates. AT&T avers that GTEMI would have the incentive and ability to price resold international switched services to the Dominican Republic and Venezuela at or below its costs in order to generate significant  X-profits through its affiliates' accounting rates.F+X yO-ԍxAT&T Petition at 25.F  X_-x22.` ` In response, GTEMI maintains that "the Commission's own reports establish that . . . [Codetel and CANTV] have been working for the last few years to decrease  X1-accounting rates."r,1 yO -ԍxOpposition of GTEMI at 3 (filed Dec. 5, 1995) (GTEMI Opposition).r GTEMI claims that these carriers "are regulated entities that use international settlements to subsidize local service and develop telecommunications infrastructure [and, as a result,] . . . . have limited ability to lower international accounting  X -rates."G- x yO-ԍxGTEMI Opposition at 5.G GTEMI also asserts that "[t]he Commission has previously determined that resellers affiliated with foreign carriers present no substantial possibility of affecting the international  X -service market in an anticompetitive manner."w.  {Ow-ԍxGTEMI Oppositition at 5 (citing International Services at 7335).w  X-x23.` ` In the GTE Telecom Order, the Bureau deferred a decision with respect to GTE Telecom's request to resell international switched services to the Dominican Republic and  Xd-Venezuela.T/d {O-ԍxGTE Telecom Order at  43.T Noting that the record indicated that GTE controls both Codetel and CANTV, the Bureau expressed its concern that GTE Telecom, as a reseller of international switched services to the Dominican Republic and Venezuela, might "be able to use the market power of its foreign carrier affiliates in those countries in ways that directly undermine the public  X-interest in an effectively competitive U.S. international services market."T0,  {O-ԍxGTE Telecom Order at  43.T Although the Bureau acknowledged that a U.S. international carrier that serves a destination market solely through the resale of the switched services of a U.S. facilitiesbased carrier with which the reseller is not affiliated is presumptively nondominant for that route (regardless of any foreign affiliations), it decided that sufficient questions regarding GTE Telecom's affiliates'  X-ability to harm competition had been raised that required further analysis.1  {O&-ԍxGTE Telecom Order at  44 (citing International Services at 7335; 47 C.F.R.  63.10(a)(4)). "~ P 10*(("Ԍ X-x24.` ` Specifically, the Bureau determined that GTE Telecom's application to resell international switched services to the Dominican Republic and Venezuela "raises the question whether GTE Telecom has the ability and the incentive to manipulate the settlements process and its prices to U.S. consumers on these affiliated routes in a manner that increases U.S.  X-carrier outpayments to Codetel and CANTV."T2 {O-ԍxGTE Telecom Order at  45.T The Bureau decided that, in a petition filed against GTE Telecom's Section 214 application, AT&T had raised a "plausible scenario under which GTE could maximize its overall profits by pricing GTE Telecom's U.S. resold switched services at or even below cost in order to generate significant settlement payments to  XH-its foreign carrier affiliates."T3HZ {OS -ԍxGTE Telecom Order at  45.T The Bureau stated that such pricing behavior might cause an increase in U.S facilitiesbased carrier costs as a result of an increase in their outpayments to  X -Codetel and CANTV, which could negatively impact rates paid by U.S. consumers.T4  {O-ԍxGTE Telecom Order at  45.T The Bureau also stated that the "profitability of such a scheme for GTE may decrease that carrier's incentive to encourage its affiliates to negotiate lower, costoriented accounting rates with  X -U.S. carriers."T5 ~ {O-ԍxGTE Telecom Order at  45.T  X -x25.` ` The Bureau stated that AT&T's alleged pricing scheme would not be of concern if it were confident that charges for terminating U.S. traffic to the Dominican Republic or Venezuela were the product of effectively competitive markets or otherwise established at nondiscriminatory, costoriented levels. The Bureau, however, determined that  XK-the record did not support such a conclusion.s6K {O -ԍxGTE Telecom Order at  46; see also id. at  47.s The Bureau noted that in Venezuela, CANTV has engaged in discriminatory treatment of U.S. carriers in its accounting rate negotiations by refusing to offer the same terms and conditions to all U.S. carriers in violation of the  X-Commission's International Settlements Policy (ISP).\7 {OY-ԍxGTE Telecom Order at  4849. \  X- x26.` ` In addition, the Bureau stated that the record in Domtel Communications, Inc. contains credible evidence that Tricom, Domtel's parent and a Dominican carrier, "encountered formidable obstacles in its dealings with Codetel, and has established and  X-expanded its presence [in the Dominican Republic] only with difficulty.";8\4  {Oz$-ԍxGTE Telecom Order at  50 (quoting Domtel Communications, Inc., Application for Authority to Provide Direct Service between the United States and the Dominican Republic, 10 FCC Rcd 12159 (1995)  {O &-(Domtel Communications, Inc.)).; The Bureau also expressed the view that Codetel "also appears to have used its accounting rate negotiations"~ X 80*((n"  X-with U.S. carriers as a vehicle to thwart competition in the Dominican Republic."e9 {Oy-ԍxGTE Telecom Order at  50 (citing American Telephone and Telegraph Company and MCI Telecommunications Corporation, Petitions for Waiver of the International Settlements Policy for a Change in  {O -the Accounting Rate with the Dominican Republic, order on recon., 10 FCC Rcd 8264,  17 (International Bur.  {O-1995) (Codetel Accounting Rates) (approving growthbased accounting rates with AT&T and MCI and rejecting Tricom's claims of anticompetitive conduct as not subject to remedy in the proceeding)).e The Bureau stated that such moves to frustrate competition in the Dominican telecommunications market "undermine the Commission's efforts to encourage competition in foreign markets as a  X-vehicle to drive accounting rates toward cost."Z:~ {O -ԍxGTE Telecom Order at  50.Z  X-x27.` ` The Bureau determined that the record did not allow it to determine "the degree to which GTE Telecom has the ability and incentive to exacerbate the already serious settlements imbalance on the U.SDominican Republic and U.S.Venezuela routes and the  XH-implications of such distortions for U.S. consumers."Z;H {O -ԍxGTE Telecom Order at  51.Z The Bureau stated that it was necessary to resolve these issues in order to determine whether the public interest would be served by authorizing GTE Telecom to resell switched service on these routes. The Bureau therefore deferred a decision with respect to GTE Telecom's request for authorization on the Dominican Republic and Venezuela routes to permit the parties an additional opportunity to  X -address these outstanding issues.Z<  {O(-ԍxGTE Telecom Order at  51.Z  X -x28.` ` The Bureau's reasons for deferring a decision regarding GTE Telecom's request to resell international switched services to the Dominican Republic and Venezuela routes are equally relevant to our consideration of GTEMI's application to resell international switched services to those two destinations. No party to this proceeding has raised any persuasive arguments that undercut the plausibility of the pricing scheme that AT&T alleged in the context of GTE Telecom's Section 214 application and reasserted with respect to GTEMI's Section 214 application. Further, there is no evidence on the record before us today that would lead us to conclude that charges for terminating U.S. traffic to the Dominican Republic or Venezuela are the product of effectively competitive markets or otherwise established at nondiscriminatory, costoriented levels.  X-x29.` ` We therefore believe that, given GTE's control of Contel and CANTV and  X-these Dominican carriers' history of anticompetitive behavior,_=4  {Ox$-ԍxSee GTE Telecom Order at  4650._ we must consider whether the joint applicants, as resellers of international switched services to the Dominican Republic and Venezuela, might have the ability and the incentive to manipulate the settlements process and prices to U.S. consumers on these affiliated routes in a manner that increases U.S. carrier"N =0*(("  X-outpayments to Codetel and CANTV. We find, however, that the present record does not allow us to determine the degree to which the joint applicants have the ability and incentive to exacerbate the already serious settlements imbalance on the U.SDominican Republic and U.S.Venezuela routes and the implications of such distortions for U.S. consumers. It is necessary to resolve these issues to determine whether the public interest would be served by authorizing GTEMI to resell switched service on these routes. We therefore defer a decision with respect to the joint applicants' request for authorization on the Dominican Republic and Venezuela routes to permit the parties an additional opportunity to address these outstanding issues.  X -  IV. Conclusion ĐTP  X - x 30.` ` We find that a partial grant of GTEMI's application, subject to the conditions that we impose on an interim basis as set forth above, will serve the public interest under Section 214 of the Act by increasing competition in international services, expanding the range of new and innovative services, and allowing for the more efficient use of existing international telecommunications facilities. In addition, we find that GTEMI's application to resell international switched services to two affiliated countries, the Dominican Republic and Venezuela, raises issues relating to the settlements process that cannot be resolved on the present record at this time. We therefore defer a decision with respect to GTEMI's application to resell international switched services to those two destinations to give the parties an additional opportunity to address these issues. We also find that the joint applicants qualify for nondominant carrier regulation on the routes for which we authorize them to resell international switched service. We therefore grant in part GTEMI's application for authority to resell the switched services of other common carriers to provide international switched telecommunications services between the United States and all international points with the exception of the Dominican Republic and Venezuela. The conditions we attach to our partial grant of the instant Section 214 application will remain in place at least until the  X|-Commission completes the Interexchange and InRegion proceedings. Specifically, we reserve the right to modify the conditions of the authorization granted in this order, as necessary, upon the Commission's adoption of final rules for independent LECs' provision of international and domestic interstate, interexchange services.  X -x31.` ` As nondominant providers of international resold switched services, the joint applicants will be allowed to file tariffs on no less than one days' notice, without economic or cost support, and the tariffs will be presumed lawful. The joint applicants also will be subject to the Section 214 requirements of nondominant U.S. international carriers.  X"-x32.` ` As nondominant carriers, the joint applicants will be subject to regulation under Title II of the Act. Specifically, Title II requires carriers to offer international services under rates, terms and conditions that are just, reasonable and not unduly discriminatory (Sections 201 and 202), and Title II carriers are subject to the Commission's complaint process (Sections 206209). Title II carriers also are required to file tariffs pursuant to our streamlined tariffing procedures (Sections 203 and 205). Nondominant U.S. international"%'=0*((%" carriers, such as the joint applicants, also are subject to the requirements of Sections 43.51,  X-43.61, 63.14 and 63.19 of the Commission's rules.> {Ob-ԍxSee 47 C.F.R.  43.51 (requiring common carriers engaged in foreign communications to file with the Commission certain contracts, agreements, concessions, licenses, authorizations, and other arrangements); 47 C.F.R.  43.61 (requiring common carriers engaged in the provision of international telecommunications service between the U.S. and foreign destinations to file reports containing annual traffic and revenue data); 47 C.F.R.  63.14 (prohibiting U.S carriers authorized to provide international communications service from agreeing to accept special concessions directly or indirectly from any foreign carrier or administration with respect to traffic or revenue flows between the United States and any foreign country for which the U.S. carrier is authorized to provide service); 47 C.F.R.  63.19 (requiring nondominant international carriers to "notify all affected customers of the planned discontinuance, reduction or impairment [of service] at least 60 days prior to. . . [the] planned action[;]" notification of such action must be in writing to each affected customer, unless otherwise authorized in advance by the Commission, and a copy of such notification must be filed with the Commission).  X- x  33.` ` This order will be effective upon its adoption.  X-  V. Ordering Clauses ĐTP  X_-x!34.` ` Upon consideration of the application and in view of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the present and future public convenience and necessity require the provision of resold international switched services between the United States and all international points (with the exception of the Dominican Republic and Venezuela) by GTE Mobilnet Incorporated and its corporate affiliates and partnerships in which it is a general or managing partner as identified in Appendix A of this order (collectively, GTEMI or the joint applicants) subject to the conditions set forth below.  X -x"35.` ` Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that application File No. ITC95561 filed by GTEMI IS GRANTED IN PART and GTEMI is authorized to resell on a nondominant carrier basis international switched services of unaffiliated U.S. international carriers for the provision of international switched services originating from U.S. points and terminating at all international points, with the exception of the Dominican Republic and Venezuela.  X-x#36.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the joint applicants shall each: (1) maintain separate books of account from any affiliated local exchange carrier (LEC); (2) not jointly own transmission or switching facilities with any affiliated LEC; and (3) take any tariffed services from the affiliated LEC pursuant to the terms and conditions of the LEC's generally applicable tariff.  X|-x$37.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this authorization is subject to the condition that the joint applicants be treated as nonregulated affiliates for purposes of local exchange carrier accounting under the Commission's joint cost and affiliate transactions rules as set forth in Parts 32 and 64 of the Commission's rules. " * >0*((>"Ԍ X-x%38.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the conditions that attach to the grant of GTEMI's application as set forth in Section III. A. of this order will remain in place at least until the Commission has completed Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace and Implementation of Section 254(g) of the Communications Act  X-of 1934, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 9661, FCC 96123 (released Mar.  X-25, 1996) and Implementation of the NonAccounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Regulatory Treatment of LEC Provision  Xa-of Interexchange Services Originating in the LEC's Local Exchange Area, Notice of Proposed  XL-Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 96149, FCC 96308 (released July 18, 1996). The International Bureau reserves the right to modify the conditions of the authorization granted in this order, as necessary, upon the Commission's adoption of final rules for the independent LECs' provision of outofregion and inregion international and domestic interstate, interexchange services.  X -x&39.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the joint applicants shall comply with the requirements specified in Section 63.21 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  63.21.  X-x'40.` ` This order is issued under Section 0.261 of the Commission's rules and is  Xh-effective upon adoption. Petitions for reconsideration under Section 1.106 or applications for review under Section 1.115 of the Commission's rules may be filed within 30 days of the date  X:-of the public notice of this order (see Section 1.4(b)(2)). x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@Donald H. Gips  X-x` `  hh@Chief, International Bureau ">0*(("  X-+Appendix A?֙ yOK-ԍxThis Appendix A identifies the corporate affiliates and the partnerships with which GTE Mobilnet Incorporated filed the instant Section 214 application. Since the filing of the original Section 214 application by  {O-GTE Mobilnet and its joint applicants, the "Contel cellular companies . . . under[went] name changes."  Ex Parte Letter from F. Gordon Maxson, Director Regulatory Affairs, GTE Service Corporation, to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, F.C.C., at 1 (dated Sept. 19, 1996). Appendix A lists both the old Contel names (identified with an asterix (*)) and the corresponding new names.  ă  X-  X-Corporations GTE Mobilnet Incorporated GTE Mobile Communications Incorporated GTE Macro Communications Corporation Asheville Metronet, Inc. Carolina Metronet, Inc. Danville Metronet, Inc. Fayetteville Metronet, Inc. Florence Metronet, Inc. GTE Mobilnet of the Southeast Incorporated South Carolina Metronet, Inc. Triad Metronet, Inc. Tuscaloosa/Florence Holdings, Inc. W & J Metronet, Inc. Jacksonville Cellular Telephone Corporation Jacksonville Cellular Communications, Inc. Wilmington Cellular Telephone Corporation Wilmington Cellular Communications, Inc. GTE Cellular Communications Corporation GTE Mobilnet of California Incorporated GTE Mobilnet of Cleveland Incorporated GTE Mobilnet of Hawaii Incorporated GTE Mobilnet of Indianapolis Incorporated GTE Mobilnet of New York, Inc. GTE Mobilnet of Portland Incorporated GTE Mobilnet of Clatsop Incorporated GTE Mobilnet of Tampa Incorporated GTE Mobilnet Sales Corp. GTE Mobilnet of Austin Incorporated GTE Mobilnet of Houston Incorporated  X-Contel Cellular Inc.* hh@hGTE Mobilnet Holding Inc.xx 0(#(#X  X -Contel Cellular of California, Inc.*hh@hGTE Mobilnet of Central California" B?0*(("Ԍ X-Contel Cellular of Alabama, Inc.*hh@hGTE Mobilnet of Alabama Inc.  X-Florence Cellular Telephone Company, Inc.* hGTE Mobilnet of Florence, Alabama, Inc.  X-Contel Cellular of Birmingham, Inc.* @hGTE Mobilnet of Birmingham Inc.  X-Contel Cellular of Chattanooga, Inc.* @hGTE Mobilnet of Chattanooga Inc.  X- Contel Cellular of Chattanooga II, Inc.* @hGTE Mobilnet of Chattanooga II Inc.  X-Contel Cellular of Gadsden, Inc.*hh@hGTE Mobilnet of Gadsden Inc.  Xv-Contel Cellular of Kentucky, Inc.*hh@hGTE Mobilnet of Kentucky Inc.  X_-Contel Cellular of Knoxville, Inc.* @hGTE Mobilnet of Knoxville Inc.  XH-Contel Cellular of Memphis, Inc.* hh@hGTE Mobilnet of Memphis Inc.  0  X1-Contel Cellular of Memphis II, Inc.* @hGTE Mobilnet of Memphis Inc.  X -Contel Cellular of Nashville, Inc.* hh@hGTE Mobilnet of Nashville Inc.  X -Contel Cellular of Tennessee, Inc.* @hGTE Mobilnet of Tennessee Inc.  X -Cumberland Cellular Telephone Company, Inc.* hGTE Mobilnet of Clarksville Inc.  X -Contel Cellular of Davenport, Inc.* @hGTE Mobilnet of Davenport Inc.  X -Contel Cellular of Illinois Funding, Inc.* @hGTE Mobilnet of Illinois Funding Inc.  X -Contel Cellular of Illinois, Inc.* hh@hGTE Mobilnet of Illinois Inc.  X-Contel Cellular of Indiana, Inc.*hh@hGTE Mobilnet of Indiana Inc.  Xy-Contel Cellular of Kentucky B, Inc.* @hGTE Mobilnet of Kentucky B Inc.  Xb-Contel Cellular of Richmond, Inc.*hh@hGTE Mobilnet of Richmond Inc.  XK-Contel Cellular of the South, Inc.* hh@hGTE Mobilnet of the South Inc.  X4-Contel Cellular of the Southwest, Inc.* @hGTE Mobilnet of the Southwest Inc.  X-Contel Cellular of Huntsville, Inc.*hh@hGTE Mobilnet of Huntsville Inc.  X-Partnerships GTE Mobilnet of California Limited Partnership Indiana RSA #1 Limited Partnership GTE Mobilnet of Indiana RSA #3 Limited Partnership GTE Mobilnet of Indiana RSA #6 Limited Partnership GTE Mobilnet of Santa Barbara Limited Partnership GTE Mobilnet of Ohio Limited Partnership Ohio RSA #3 Limited Partnership GTE Mobilnet of Austin Limited Partnership GTE Mobilnet of South Texas Limited Partnership GTE Mobilnet of Texas RSA #11 Limited Partnership GTE Mobilnet of Texas RSA #16 Limited Partnership GTE Mobilnet of Texas RSA #17 Limited Partnership GTE Mobilnet of Texas #21 Limited Partnership GTE Mobilnet of Indiana Limited Partnership  X#- GTE Mobilnet of Fort Wayne Limited Partnership GTE Mobilnet of Terre Haute Limited Partnership GTE Mobilnet of Oregon Limited Partnership ":&?0*(($"Ԍ X-y Appendix A, cont'd. ĐTP  X-Partnerships, cont'd. Florida RSA #1B (Naples) Limited Partnership Danville Cellular Telephone Company Limited Partnership Fayetteville Cellular Telephone Company Limited Partnership Savannah Cellular Limited Partnership Virginia Cellular Retail Limited Partnership Virginia Cellular Limited Partnership Virginia RSA 5 Limited Partnership Virginia RSA 4 Limited Partnership Virginia RSA 3 Limited Partnership Virginia RSA 7 Limited Partnership Roanoke MSA Limited Partnership Roanoke MSA Retail Limited Partnership New Mexico RSA 3 Limited Partnership New Mexico RSA 5 Limited Partnership New Mexico RSA 6 Limited Partnership Fresno MSA Limited Partnership California RSA 3 Limited Partnership California RSA 4 Limited Partnership Texas RSA 10B3 Limited Partnership Iowa RSA No. 4 Limited Partnership Iowa RSA No. 5 Limited Partnership Evansville MSA Limited Partnership Southern Indiana RSA Limited Partnership Rockford MSA Limited Partnership Illinois RSA 1 Limited Partnership Illinois Valley Cellular RSA 21 Partnership Southern Illinois RSA Partnership Illinois Independent RSA No. 3 General Partnership Alabama RSA 1 Partnership Kentucky RSA No. 1 Partnership Tuscaloosa Cellular Partnership Gadsden CellTelCo Partnership Jacksonville Cellular Partnership Wilmington Cellular Partnership New Mexico RSA 6 II Partnership