WPC 2MBVRKZ3|x 7jC:,y&Xj\  P6G;XP"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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 4M (PCL) (Add) LPT2)HL4MPCAD.PRSXj\  P6G;\ |XP2> K Z3|x "i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 4M (PCL) (Add) LPT2)HL4MPCAD.PRSx  @\ |X@2  pKzKv "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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd   2f9>/7?7@d8A}8Technical[1]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )B>4?$@     Technical[7]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )B?&AB  . Technical[8]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )B@&CD  . Paragraph[1]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BA$ab 2;B9C :D:EQ;Paragraph[2]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BB/cd` ` ` Paragraph[3]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BC:ef` ` `  Paragraph[4]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BDEgh` ` `  Paragraph[5]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BEPij` ` ` hhh 2#?F,<G<H=Ii>Paragraph[6]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BF[kl Paragraph[7]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BGfmn Paragraph[8]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BHqop Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph FontI11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#2GJU?KsALCMEtoc 1toc 1J` hp x (#44` hp x (#toc 2toc 2K` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#toc 3toc 3L` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4M` hp x (#4 <4 <` hp x (#2NNGOJPv;LQLtoc 5toc 5N` hp x (#4<4<` hp x (#toc 6toc 6O` hp x (#44` hp x (#toc 7toc 7P toc 8toc 8Q` hp x (#44` hp x (#2yWROSQT=SU[Utoc 9toc 9R` hp x (#44` hp x (#index 1index 1S` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#index 2index 2T` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#toatoaU` hp x (#` hp x (#2uZVWWoXX)YYYcaptioncaptionV;1#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#_Equation Caption_Equation CaptionW11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#endnote referenceendnote referenceX44#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#footnote referencefootnote referenceY4#XP\  P6QXP#2R\ZpZ[q[\e[]e[1S&C5C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )Zqr` ` ` 2S&C6C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )[s t . 3S&C7C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )\ uv 4S&C8C^fDocument StyleNF2CC! -2( -Ct )] wx 2^^\_p]`]a^5S&C9C^fDocument StyleNF2CC/ -2( -Ct )^*yz   6S&C:C^fDocument StyleNF2CC= -2( -Ct )_{|` ` ` 7S&C;C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK -2( -Ct )`8}~@  8S&C<C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersY -2( -Ct )aA@` ` `  ` ` ` 2ab^c{_d`e`9S&C=C^fDocument StyleNF2CCg -2( -Ct )b0    10S&C>C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersu -2( -Ct )cJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` 11S&C?C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )dS` ` `  @  12S&C@C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )e\` ` `  @hhh hhh 2dfagsbh;ci d13S&CAC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )fe` ` `  hhh@ hhh 14S&CBC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )gn` ` `  hhh@  15S&CCC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )hw` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 16S&CDC^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )iF   ׃  23gjdk}elfmf17S&CEC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )j&  . 18S&CFC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )k&  . 19S&CGC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )l*    20S&CHC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )m'   2inegogphq.i21S&CIC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )n&   22S&CJC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )o4$     23S&CKC^fTechnical Document StyleCC+ -2( -Ct )p&  . 24S&CLC^fTechnical Document StyleCC9 -2( -Ct )q&  . 2lr}isbjtju}k25S&CMC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CG -2( -Ct )r$ 26S&CNC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CU -2( -Ct )s/` ` ` 27S&COC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cc -2( -Ct )t:` ` `  28S&CPC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cq -2( -Ct )uE` ` `  23ovMlwlxmyin29S&CQC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )vP` ` ` hhh 30S&CRC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )w[ 31S&CSC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )xf 32S&CTC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )yq 2krzeo{3p|q}qDefault ParaC^fDefault Paragraph Font2CC -2( -Ct )z;;#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#2kt~lrv svsvsheading 3heading 3~heading 4heading 4 heading 5heading 5 heading 6heading 6 2uvvtvuvuvuheading 7heading 7 heading 8heading 8 endnote textendnote text footnote textfootnote text 25zvZxdyytoa headingtoa heading` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#1, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.E1.A, B,t ?@65Uppercase Letters1 ?*1÷$t ?.E .footnote tex6footnote text̺=(?. 0&ܺ*?.ںd 0E2(2|pgzqzeH{e{33`O5hT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5h.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 34`O5iT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5i.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  . 35`O5jT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5j.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  36`O5kT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5k.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  2t~D|p|G}}37`O5lT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5l.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>*   38`O5mT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5m.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 39`O5nT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>8@   40`O5oT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>A@` `  ` ` ` 2B~;41`O5pT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5p.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>0    42`O5qT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>J` ` @  ` `  43`O5rT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>S` `  @  44`O5sT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>\` `  @hh# hhh 2t3̃45`O5tT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>e` `  hh#@( hh# 46`O5uT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>n` `  hh#(@- ( 47`O5vT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 48`O5wT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5w.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>F *  ׃  2=…^49`O5xT(G2PTechnical Document Stylex.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 50`O5yT(G2PTechnical Document Styley.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 51`O5zT(G2PTechnical Document Stylez.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>*    52`O5{T(G2PTechnical Document Style{.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>'   2s%i53`O5|T(G2PTechnical Document Style|.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&   54`O5}T(G2PTechnical Document Style}.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>4$     55`O5~T(G2PTechnical Document Style~.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 56`O5T(G2PTechnical Document Style.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 2ۋ}"=57`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>$ 58`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>/` ` ` 59`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>:` ` `  60`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>E` ` `  2 j)61`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`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 64`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>q 2% 65`O5T(G2PDefault Paragraph Font5.K+&,$@`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#68`O5T(G2Pfootnote reference^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>R#PP#21pq[e̔69 _5(_>7footnote text _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tZP70 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t` ` ` 71 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  . 72 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  2]ecȕp[˖73 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  74 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t*   75 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t` ` ` 76 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+t8@   2*c77 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tA@` `  ` ` ` 78 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t0     79 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tJ` ` @  ` `  80 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tS` `  @  2PB81 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+t\  ` `  @hh# hhh 82 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+te  ` `  hh#@( hh# 83 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tn ` `  hh#(@- ( 84 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2<F85 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tF *  ׃  86 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&  . 87 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&  . 88 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t*    2r=89 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t'   90 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&   91 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t4$     92 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&   . 2}).93 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&!"  . 94 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+t$#$ 95 _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:'(` ` `  2:97 _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 99 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+t[-. 100_5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+tf/0 2ߧFFL5101_5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+tq12 102_5(_>7Default Paragraph Font5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tw3w4#PP##PP#103_5(_>7_Equation Caption _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tw5w6#PP##PP#104_5(_>7endnote reference _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tz7z8#PP##PP#2m9׮105_5(_>7footnote reference _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tz9:#PP#HeadingChapter HeadingJ d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheading0\ E A.  2^davFOOTNOTEFootnote - AppearancePHIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Dateؽ X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style off@@    2+X@11ɳ1HEADERHeader A - AppearanceLETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5f 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11L 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   2ո1]nXTLEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a DocumentK\ * ăFOOTERFooter A - AppearancedBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedN X 29djkչEHIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold LargeB*d. 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  2-k88пMEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE 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 2DX[3[[NORMALReturn to Normal TypestyleSMALLSmall TypestyleFINEFine TypestyleLARGELarge Typestyle2[v[,XEXTRA LARGEExtra Large TypestyleVERY LARGEVery Large TypestyleENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   MACNormal,.29ylXStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Margins$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5$$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 !2:|Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  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 2l Style 7Swiss 11.5$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Point$$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 2KK<KStyle 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 "i~'^'-5CCph---CK#-#%CCCCCCCCCC%%KKK;{`XX`SK``-3`Su``K`XKS``}``S-%-=C-;C;C;-CC%%C%hCCCC-3%CC`CC;@@H-#H=---#--------C%`;`;`;`;`;uWX;S;S;S;S;-%-%-%-%`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`;`C`A`C`C`CKC`;`;`;X;X;XHX;`TS;S;S;S;`C`C`C`H`C`H`C-%-C---C]KHH`CS%S5S-S-S%`CO`C`C`C`Cu`X-X-X-K3K3K3KHS8S%S=`C`C`C`C`C`C}``HS;S;S;`CS-`CK3S-`CT#CC,,W]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN0PP0=C-;CCCCC%+eeC(+eeCe(--;;C..PCCQe0PP0OooKK-;Cp("XXXXee{CePMHCKPPC"i~'^'-KCCp---CK#-#%CCCCCCCCCC--KKKC}`X``XShh3ChX}`hSh`KX````X-%-MC-CK;K;-CK%-K%pKCKK;3-KC`CC;55E-#EM---#------C-K%`C`C`C`C`C``;X;X;X;X;1%1%1%1%`KhChChChC`K`K`K`K`C`C`KgChC`C`CQK`C`C`C`;`;`E`;`cX;X;X;X;hChChChEhChKhM3%3K3-3KlKEEhKX%X/>/>/>/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+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNA.SSxSSJJSJS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxIxSxIqIqIrSrS{dgIiSiSgIxSxSxSxSxS{S{S8.SSSS8Sz]SSuSg/gK,H6X@`7h@ ?xxx,:x6Nhez7XHy.X80,X\  P6G;P \{,W80,I0W*f9 xr G;X\5hC:,I2Xh*f9 xr G;XXx/c81,`Mc PE37Py.\80,%T\4  pG;[ PfQO 24X&[~INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice X-  D9 X<w  #Xj\  P6G;9XP#Federal Communications Commission`(#5FCC 96339 ă X Պ#XP\  P6Q9XP# +JBefore the  X-[ FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION`5(#F FCC 96339 à Washington, D.C. 20554  X-  Xv-In the Matter of hh,V) ` `  hh,V)  XH-Petition of Ameritechhh,V)ppCWD 9514  X1-Communications, Inc. forhh,V)  X -Partial Waiver of Section 22.903hh,V)  X -of the Commission's Ruleshh,V)  X -  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER l  Xy-lU Adopted: August 9, 1996hh,VppReleased: August 22, 1996  XK- By the Commission: -MI. INTRODUCTION l  X-lU 1. This Order addresses the Petition for Limited Waiver ("Petition"), filed on October11, 1995, by Ameritech Communications, Incorporated ("ACI"), seeking a limited waiver of Section 22.903 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  22.903, regarding limitations on the provision of cellular service by the Bell Operating Companies ("BOCs"). In the Petition, ACI, a newlyformed affiliate of Ameritech, a BOC, requests that the Commission waive the requirement in Section 22.903(a) that a BOC affiliate that provides cellular service "must not own any facilities for the provision of landline telephone service." In addition, ACI requests a waiver of Section 22.903(e), to the extent that the provision would prohibit ACI from engaging in the sale or promotion of cellular service on behalf of Ameritech's cellular subsidiary, Ameritech Cellular Services ("ACS"). ACI contends that it seeks this limited waiver so that it may resell cellular services, or sell cellular services as a sales agent on behalf of ACS, to ACI customers, and thereby offer those customers onestop shopping opportunities. ACI further contends that the waiver will not impede the underlying purposes of Section 22.903 and that it is fully consistent with the Commission's public interest goals. 2. In a Public Notice issued October 19, 1995, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau sought comment on ACI's Petition to determine whether the request is consistent with the waiver criteria set forth in Sections 1.3 and 22.119 of the Commission's rules and whether the request is consistent with the Commission's public interest goals. We received four"Q%,,, $"  X-comments and one reply comment in this proceeding.=u Oy<ԍ#C\  P6Q P# See Public Notice, DA 952198, "Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on Ameritech's Petition for Partial Waiver of Section 22.903 of the Commission's Rules," (released Oct. 19, 1995). Comments were filed on Nov. 9, 1995 by: Sprint Telecommunications Venture ("STV"), AT&T Wireless, Inc. ("AT&T"), Cincinnati Bell Telephone ("CBT"), and SBC Communications ("SBC"). ACI filed reply comments on Nov. 20, 1995. In this Order, we grant ACI a waiver of Section 22.903(a) and declaratory relief from Section 22.903(e).  X-/g II. BACKGROUND l  X-lU 3. The ACI Petition seeks a waiver of Section 22.903 of the Commission's rules, which governs the conditions under which BOCs may provide cellular service. Section 22.903 provides, in pertinent part, that: X` ` Ameritech Corporation, Bell Atlantic Corporation, BellSouth Corporation, NYNEX Corporation, Pacific Telesis Group, Southwestern Bell Corporation, U.S. West, Inc., their successors in interest and affiliated entities (BOCs) may engage in the provision of cellular service only in accordance with the conditions in this section, unless otherwise authorized by the FCC. BOCs may, subject to other provisions of law, have a controlling or lesser interest in or be under common control with separate corporations that provide cellular service only under the following conditions:   Xb-X` ` (a) Access to landline facilities. BOCs must not sell, lease or otherwise make available to the separate corporation any transmission facilities that are used in any way for the provision of its landline telephone services, except on a  X-compensatory, arm's length basis. Separate corporations must not own any  X-facilities for the provision of landline telephone service. Access to landline exchange and transmission facilities for the provision of cellular service must be obtained by separate corporations on the same terms and conditions as those facilities are made available to other entities.   X-X` ` (b) Independence. Separate corporations must operate independently in the provision of cellular service. Each separate corporation must: (1) maintain its own books of account; (2) have separate officers; (3) employ separate operating, marketing, installation and maintenance personnel; and, (4) utilize separate computer and transmission facilities in the provision of cellular services.   X-[* * *pp  X -X` ` (e) Promotion. BOCs must not engage in the sale or promotion of  X!-cellular service on behalf of the separate corporation. However, this does not prohibit joint advertising or promotional efforts by the landline carrier and its cellular affiliate.  "p$,**F#"Ԍ47 CFR  22.903(a), (b) and (e) (emphasis added).  X-4. The original version of Section 22.903 was adopted as Section 22.901 in 1981,X=u OK<ԍ#C\  P6Q P# Inquiry Into the Use of the Bands 825845 MHz and 870890 MHz for Cellular Communications  {O#-Systems, Report and Order, CC Docket No. 79318, 86 FCC 2d 469 (1981). Originally, the Commission had adopted a onesystempermarket policy for cellular service, with the license in each market to be held by the  {O-local exchange carrier. Inquiry Relative to the Future Use of the Frequency Band 806960 MHz, Second Report  {O-and Order, Docket No. 18262, 46 FCC 2d 752 (1974); recon. granted in part, 51 FCC 2d 945 (1975), clarified  {OI-55 FCC 2d 771 (1975), aff'd sub nom. NARUC v. FCC, 525 F.2d 630 (D.C. Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 992 (1976). On reconsideration, the restriction allowing only local exchange carriers to provide cellular service was lifted. 51 FCC 2d 945 (1975).   X-and amended in 1982 to apply only to AT&T and its affiliates.j=u OT <ԍ#C\  P6Q P# Inquiry Into the Use of the Bands 825845 MHz and 870890 MHz for Cellular Communications Systems; and Amendment of Parts 2 and 22 of the Commission's Rules Relative to Cellular Communications  {O -Systems, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, CC Docket No. 79318, 89 FCC 2d 58 (1982). In 1983, the Commission  X-further amended Section 22.901 to apply to the divested Bell Operating Companies.4 =u Oo<ԍ#C\  P6Q P# Policy and Rules Concerning the Furnishing of Customer Premises Equipment, Enhanced Services  {OG-and Cellular Communications Services by the Bell Operating Companies, Report and Order, CC Docket No. 83 {O-115, 95 FCC 2d 1117, 113839, 1150 (1983) ( 5759, 80), aff'd sub nom., Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. FCC, 740 F.2d 465 (7th Cir. 1984). The  X-final revision of the separate subsidiary requirement occurred in the 1994 Part 22 Rewrite  Xx-Order as part of the comprehensive reorganization of Part 22 of the Commission's rules.x=u O?<ԍ#X\  P6G; P# See Revision of Part 22 of the Commission's Rules Governing the Public Mobile Services, Report  {O-and Order, CC Docket No. 92115, 9 FCC Rcd 6513 (1994) (Part 22 Rewrite). In that Order, Section 22.903 was amended to incorporate the provisions of former Sections  XL-22.901(b) and (c).fL=u O}<ԍ#C\  P6Q P# Id. at 666061.f Section 22.903 thus is intended to impose the same restrictions on joint  X5-sales and promotions and on access to landline facilities as the predecessor rule.5 =u O<ԍ#X\  P6G; P# In our Part 22 Rewrite proceeding, no substantive change to Section 22.903 was intended. An inadvertent change was made, however, in the description of the prohibition on joint sale or promotion of cellular and landline service in Section 22.903(e) that deleted the modifying phrase of "except on a compensatory, armslength basis" contained in old Section 22.901(d). Southwestern Bell filed for reconsideration of this change in the text of the rule. In light of the joint marketing authority granted the BOCs under Section 601(d) of the 1996 Act, which will be implemented in the proceeding underway in WT Docket No. 96162, the relief requested by Southwestern is rendered moot.  X -  III. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES l  X -lU5. In its Petition, ACI states that, as a separate affiliate of Ameritech, it seeks authority to provide wireless and wireline services, both longdistance and local, as a facilitiesbased carrier and through resale on an unseparated basis. ACI has sought authority"p,**"  X-from various state public utilities commissions to offer local exchange service.7h=u Oy<ԍ#C\  P6Q P# As of the date of release of this Order, ACI had not yet received authority to provide local exchange service in any state within the Ameritech region. ACI has been certified as a local exchange carrier in the state of Missouri. 7 ACI requires a waiver of Section 22.903(a), which prohibits BOC affiliates from owning facilities for the provision of landline telephone service, because ACI will need to purchase switching  X-equipment that it will use to switch landline traffic.c =u Od<ԍ#C\  P6Q P# ACI Petition at 6.c  X-6. ACI also seeks a waiver of Section 22.903(e), which prohibits BOC affiliates from engaging in the sale or promotion of cellular services on behalf of the BOC's separate cellular  X_-affiliate, because ACI wishes to serve as a sales agent for ACS.` _=u O <ԍ#C\  P6Q P# Id. at 6.` In support of its Petition, ACI contends that as a reseller of ACS's service, ACI would stand on the same footing as any  X1-other cellular reseller.` 18=u O<ԍ#C\  P6Q P#  Id. at 5.` ACI would procure cellular services from cellular service providers, including ACS, at prices established by ACS (or other carriers) that are generally available to  X -other customers, and package the cellular service with other offerings.`  =u O<ԍ#C\  P6Q P# Id. at 5.`  X -7. In further support of its Petition, ACI asserts that it is a startup carrier that is structurally separate from the Ameritech Operating Companies ("AOCs") in all material  X -respects.` x =u O<ԍ#C\  P6Q P# Id. at 5.` Thus, ACI argues, the Commission's concerns about BOC bottleneck local exchange facilities in large geographic areas providing opportunities for discrimination and  Xy-crosssubsidization do not apply in ACI's case.qy =u OB<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# ACI states that "as a separate subsidiary of Ameritech, subject to structural separation requirements that are modeled after the Commission's Computer II Framework, as well as stringent cost accounting rules, ACI could not possibly serve as a conduit by which Ameritech could maintain control of local exchange facilities."  {O-Id. at 9. Thus, ACI appears to be the vehicle that Ameritech has chosen to present "onestop shopping" to the public in its local exchange service areas.q The Commission exempted all interexchange carriers, including AT&T, and independent telephone companies, including  XK-GTE, from the cellular separation rules.K=u O#<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# Id. at 7. Therefore, ACI maintains that granting the requested waiver would further the public interest by promoting competition and equipping  X-ACI to meet customer needs in order to compete in the marketplace.z=u OH'<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# Id. at 6. ACI wishes to",**e" compete with future competitors (such as providers of personal communications services  X-("PCS")) who are not prohibited from offering these services on a bundled basis.=u Ob<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# Id. at 11. ACI cites AT&T, MCI and Sprint as companies that already are implementing onestop shopping for wired and wireless services.   X-8. Sprint Telecommunications Venture ("STV") argues that the Commission should  X-deny ACI's request because the waiver request is deficient under the Commission's rules.0=u O<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# STV Comments at 1. STV claims that: (1) ACI fails to demonstrate unique circumstances that justify grant of a  Xv-waiver (ACI's reason for requesting relief (i.e., profit motives) do not constitute special  Xa-circumstances);a=u O <ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# Id. at 3. (2) the public policy issues raised by ACI's request and other recent BOC petitions are too expansive and complex in the context of a waiver; and (3) the Commission should revisit its structural separation rules in the rule making context (the information provided in ACI's petition is not sufficient to allow the Commission to fully assess the impact that grant of the waiver would have on competition and consumers within ACI's area of  X -operation). p=u O<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# Id. at 5.  X -9. STV claims that petitions filed by Ameritech with both the Michigan Public Service Commission and the Illinois Commerce Commission requesting permission to provide local service in Michigan and both local and interexchange service in Illinois through ACI provide evidence that Ameritech's regulatory agenda is to achieve virtual deregulation itself  Xd-though ACI.d=u O%<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# Id. at 7. STV states that the resale relationships among ACI, Ameritech, and ACS are  XM-unclear.M =u O<ԍ#c P7 MP## C\  P6Q P# Id. at 5. STV also notes that ACI has a Petition for Nondominant Status pending with the  X6-Commission.6P =u O7<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# Id. at 7. See Public Notice, DA 951670, "Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on Ameritech Communications Inc.'s Petition for Nondominant Status," (released July 27, 1995). ACI withdrew its petition on May 7, 1996. The question of the appropriate regulatory status of BOC affiliates operating in the interexchange market is addressed in two proceedings prompted by passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L.  {Og"-No. 104104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996) ("1996 Act"). See Bell Operating Company Provision of OutofRegion  {O1#-Interstate, Interexchange Services, Report and Order, CC Docket No. 9621, FCC 96288 (released July 1, 1996); Implementation of the NonAccounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; Regulatory Treatment of LEC Provision of Interexchange Services Originating in the LEC's Local  {O%-Exchange Area, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 96149, FCC 96308 (released July 18, 1996). Thus, STV argues, given the uncertainties arising from these other pending  X-proceedings, grant of the waiver request would be premature and illadvised.6=u O(<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# STV Comments at 7. Finally, STV",**G" claims that ACI fails to demonstrate that grant of the requested relief would be in the public  X-interest.=u Ob<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# Id. at 4.  X-  10. AT&T Wireless, Inc. ("AT&T") opposes ACI's request unless the waiver is limited to the territories that are the subject of a trial of local exchange competition proposed by the Department of Justice ("DOJ") in order to ensure that actual competition to provide  Xv-local exchange service exists.Xvh=u O <ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# AT&T Comments at 1, 4. DOJ moved the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for modification of Section II(D)(1) of the Modification of Final Judgment ("MFJ") to permit ACI to provide  {O/ -interexchange service subject to several conditions. See United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc., Civil Action No. 820192, slip op. (D.D.C. Apr. 3, 1995). All pending motions before the MFJ court were dismissed  {O -as moot when the consent decree was terminated, nunc pro tunc, as of February 8, 1996, the date of enactment  {O -of the 1996 Act. United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc., Civil Action No. 820192, slip op. (D.D.C. Apr. 11, 1996). ACI's entry into interexchange service is now governed by the new Part III of Title II of the  {O-Communications Act. See 47 U.S.C.  271 et seq. AT&T claims that the fact that ACI is structurally separated from Ameritech's operating companies is irrelevant because ACI has the ability to stand in Ameritech's shoes as the local exchange bottleneck. Thus, AT&T reasons, ACI's integration of cellular and landline service would provide Ameritech with significant incentives and  X -opportunities to crosssubsidize and discriminate against its cellular competitors. =u OS<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# AT&T Comments at 6.  X - 11. Cincinnati Bell Telephone ("CBT") argues that the ACI waiver request should be denied to the extent that granting the waiver would permit ACI to bundle cellular service with  X -local exchange service in the Cincinnati market.: ( =u O<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# CBT Comments at 2, 3. CBT claims that, "ACI will bundle cellular service with local exchange service in the Cincinnati market and compete directly with CBT's landline local exchange business." : CBT submits that the potential for anticompetitive behavior exists when a BOC attempts to use its cellular facilities to expand into  X-new local exchange markets. =u O<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# Id. at 2. CBT argues that a waiver of Section 22.903 would be unfair because it would give ACI the ability to inappropriately shift costs between its cellular and  Xb-local exchange operations.b0=u OC!<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# Id. at 3. In addition, CBT argues that ACI's petition is distinct from the SBMS waiver because, although the Cincinnati market is outofregion for Ameritech's landline local exchange operations, it is contiguous with Ameritech's Dayton and Columbus  X-local exchange operations.=u O%<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# Id. at 4. In addition, CBT asserts, Southwestern Bell was not in partnership for the provision of cellular service with any of the local exchange carriers providing landline local exchange service in its outofregion cellular areas. In contrast, CBT notes, Ameritech, the provider of landline local exchange in Dayton and Columbus, and Cincinnati Bell, the provider of landline local exchange service in Cincinnati, are partners in the Cincinnati Partnership which provides cellular service in Cincinnati, Dayton and Columbus. Thus, CBT claims, ACI's requested waiver with respect to southwestern Ohio falls outside the SBMS ruling. Moreover, CBT"),**)" contends it would be grossly unfair to permit ACI to utilize the Cincinnati Partnership assets to leverage Ameritech's entry into the Cincinnati local exchange market. Moreover, CBT claims that the Commission limited its ruling in" ,**)" SBMS to allow SBMS to offer local exchange service only outofregion and through its independent cellular company. ACI, however, seeks a waiver of Section 22.903 to offer both local exchange service and cellular service through the same entity, both within and outside its  X-region.  =u O<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# Id. at 6. CBT argues that such farreaching relief should not be granted without a rule  X-making proceeding.!=u O <ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# Id.  Xv- 12. SBC Communications, Inc. ("SBC") supports ACI's petition for waiver and notes that the underlying purpose of the structural separation rule will not be served by denying  XH-ACI's petition for waiver."H`=u OY<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# SBC Comments at 2. SBC contends that ACI, a startup carrier, should not be the  X1-target of the separate subsidiary rules.#1=u O<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# Id. at 7. In addition, SBC maintains that the perceived concerns about crosssubsidization and interconnection abuses are not warranted because of  X -the limited nature of ACI's request.$ =u OT<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# Id. at 9. SBC notes that ACI has met the Section 22.119 public interest criteria for granting a waiver because ACI will provide onestop shopping, which the  X -Commission has previously determined to benefit the consumer.l%h @ =u O<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P#  Id. at 10, citing In Re Applications of Craig O. McCaw, Transferor and American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Transferee, for Consent to the Transfer of Control of McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 5836, 5904 (1994).l Moreover, SBC argues that the Commission should grant similar relief to other Bell Companies, such as itself, who may wish to implement LEC operations similar to those of ACI and thus SBC requests similar  X-relief.&p=u O<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# SBC Comments at 11.  Xb- 13. In its reply comments, ACI asserts that CBT's sole agenda is to prevent ACI from providing competition in the Cincinnati market. ACI notes that CBT is claiming that it should not be required, through a partnership in which CBT maintains a 45 percent interest, to resell cellular services to a new wireless provider and thereby facilitate competitive entry into  X-its own markets.'=u O%<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# CBT, a whollyowned subsidiary of Cincinnati Bell, Inc., is the local exchange carrier in the Greater Cincinnati area. Cincinnati Bell Cellular Systems, Inc., ("CBCS"), also a whollyowned subsidiary of Cincinnati Bell Inc., holds an approximately 45 percent limited partnership in the Cincinnati SMSA Limited Partnership ("Cincinnati Partnership"). The Cincinnati Partnership provides cellular service in southwestern Ohio, including Cincinnati, Columbus, and Dayton. Ameritech Mobile Phone Systems, Inc., ("AMPS"), a corporation whollyowned by Ameritech Cellular Services, owns a 53 percent interest in the partnership. CBT states that it has no")&,**)" ability under the partnership agreement to resell cellular services in Dayton or Columbus in competition with the Cincinnati Partnership.  ACI claims that CBT's argument that grant of the waiver would in effect" ',**(" repeal Section 22.903 is frivolous because ACI demonstrates in its petition that it will comply  X-with Section 22.903 in all material respects (e.g., it will be structurally separated from  X-Ameritech's local exchange operations).( =u O<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# ACI Reply Comments at 3. ACI also disputes AT&T's contention that "[t]he fact that ACI is structurally separated from Ameritech's operating companies is irrelevant  X-because ACI has the ability to stand in Ameritech's shoes as the local exchange bottleneck.")=u O <ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# Id. at 4. ACI reiterates that, to the extent ACI resells Ameritech landline local exchange service, it may obtain such services for resale only under the same tariffed, nondiscriminatory terms and conditions as are available to any other party. ACI argues that contrary to STV's contention,  XJ-it does demonstrate that a waiver would serve the public interest.*J`=u O[<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P#  Id. at 5. ACI reiterates that grant of a waiver would further the Commission's goal of fostering a more competitive telecommunications environment by enabling ACI to offer integrated packages similar to those that ACI's competitors already may offer. ACI also argues that a waiver will enable it to  X -better serve customers.+ =u M<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# Id.ā ACI maintains that STV's assertion that the waiver request cannot be fully assessed without evaluating ACI's other regulatory initiatives is absurd because the initiatives have to do with the provision of landline services only. ACI claims that, similar to SBMS, its waiver request is narrow in scope and fully consistent with the underlying purposes  X-of the cellular separation rules., =u O<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# Id. at 8. ACI notes the November 9, 1995, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decision in urging the Commission to prevent further delay of  Xd-the requested relief.-d> =u OS<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# Id. at 89, citing, Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co. v. FCC, 69 F.3d 752 (6th Cir. 1995).  X6-3 !xIV. DISCUSSION l lU 14. We find, based on the record before us in this proceeding and uncontroverted  X-information supplied in a related submission by ACI that was placed on public notice,. =u O#<ԍ #X\  P6G; P# Ameritech Communications, Inc. Petition for Nondominant Status (filed July 21, 1995) ("ACI  {OX$-Nondominance Petition"); see also Public Notice, supra at note 23. that the relationship of ACI to Ameritech and its other affiliates is one of structural separation. Specifically, ACI maintains separate financial, accounting and other records, is a separate corporate entity with separate officers and personnel, is prohibited from pledging the assets of Ameritech's local exchange operations as security for debts and other obligations, and engages in the sharing of facilities with Ameritech's local exchange operations only to the extent that  Xg-such sharing is consistent with the Commission's Computer II rules, subject to nonstructural"gH.,**O"  X-cost accounting procedures.x/=u Oy<ԍ#X\  P6G; P# ACI Nondominance Petition at 13 & n.29.x Based on this finding, we hold that ACI's relationship with Ameritech's telephone operating companies and holding company parent complies with the basic requirement of Section 22.903 that BOCs provide cellular services through structurally separate subsidiaries. Our further analysis is thus confined to the issues posed by the requested waiver of the particular restrictions on access to landline facilities (Section 22.903(a)) and on joint sales and promotions (Section 22.903(e)). 15. The Commission may exercise its discretion to waive a rule where there is "good cause" to do so, because the particular facts would make strict compliance with the rule!x  XM-inconsistent with the public interest.0M=u O<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1027 (1972).   Requests for waivers of the cellular rules must comply with the Commission's rule which allows the Commission to grant a waiver if the underlying purpose of the rule would not be served or would be frustrated by application to the instant case and a grant of the waiver would be in the public interest, or if, in view of unique or unusual factual circumstances, application of the rule would be inequitable, unduly burdensome or contrary to the public interest, or that the applicant has no reasonable  X-alternative.1r=u O<ԍ#c P7 MP## C\  P6Q P# 47 CFR 22.119(a). Waiver thus is appropriate if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and such a deviation will better serve the public interest than adherence to the  X-general rule.2=u OX"<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990); WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1157. Further, the Commission's grant of a waiver must be based on articulated, reasonable standards that are predictable, workable, and not susceptible to discriminatory  Xg-application.3gz =u O&<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166. We believe that the relief requested by ACI would not undermine competition or otherwise violate the Communications Act. For the reasons stated below, we find that ACI"P  3,**"  X-has made the required showing, pursuant to Section 22.119, for waiver of Section 22.903(a).42=u Oy<ԍ#X\  P6G; P# Section 22.903 states that the BOCs "may engage in the provision of cellular service only in  {OQ-accordance with the conditions in this section, unless otherwise authorized by the FCC." 47 C.F.R.  22.903 (emphasis added). For purposes of granting ACI's petition, we interpret this phrase not to create any different standard than the one set forth in Section 22.119.  We also find that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides us with a statutory basis to grant ACI declaratory relief from Section 22.903(e).  X-16. Two developments have transpired in the period since ACI filed its petition for  X-waiver of Section 22.903. First, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was enacted.5=u O <ԍ#c P7 MP## C\  P6Q P# Pub. L. No. 104104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996), amending the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,  {O -47 U.S.C.  151, et seq. Section 601(d) of the 1996 Act provides: XNotwithstanding Section 22.903 of the Commission's regulations (47 C.F.R. 22.903) or any other Commission regulation, a Bell operating company or any other company may, except as provided in sections 271(e)(1) and 272 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended by this Act as they related to  X -wireline service,6 ,=u O<ԍ#c P7 MP## C\  P6Q P# The crossreferenced sections,  271(e)(1) and 272, govern, respectively, limitations on joint marketing of local and long distance services by certain large national telecommunications carriers seeking to provide local exchange service in competition with the BOC in the BOC's service area until that BOC is authorized pursuant to Section 271(d) to provide inregion interLATA services, and BOC provision of certain services, including inregion interLATA service, through separate corporate affiliates. Section 272 describes structural and transactional requirements for the BOC separate affiliates. jointly market and sell commercial mobile services in conjunction with telephone exchange service, exchange access, intraLATA telecommunications service, interLATA telecommunications service, and  X -information services."70 =u O <ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# Representative Burr's statement at the introduction of the "Manager's Amendment" containing Section 601(d) to proposed H.R. 1555 indicates that Section 601(d) was "designed to permit the Bell operating  yO-telephone companies to resell the cellular services of their cellular affiliates." 141 Cong. Rec . H8456 (daily ed. Aug. 4, 1995) (Statement of Representative Burr).   Xy-17. Section 601(d) of the 1996 Act permits ACI to engage in joint marketing and resale of cellular services together with landline services on the terms set forth in ACI's  XK-waiver petition. In our CMRS Safeguards NPRM,8lK=u O#<ԍ#C\  P6Q P# Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Competitive Service Safeguards for Local  {O$-Exchange Carrier Provision of Commercial Mobile Radio Services, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ,WT Docket  {OJ%-No. 96162, FCC 96 319 (released Aug. 13, 1996) ("CMRS Safeguards NPRM"). we are currently examining what safeguards, if any, we should impose with regard to resale and joint marketing. As we tentatively concluded in that Notice, we believe that Section 601(d) does not necessarily  X-undermine the remainder of our current structural separation requirement.f9=u O)<ԍ#X\  P6G; P# Id. at  68.f Because this issue" 9,**" has not been resolved, in the interim, we will continue to apply fully the other requirements of Section 22.903 to ACI (except Section 22.903(a), which we discuss below) as a condition of the relief we grant here. In addition, "joint sales" or resale by ACI of Ameritech's cellular services together with landline services must involve services acquired on an arm's length basis from ACI's affiliates, consistent with our affiliate transaction accounting rules and with the basic structural separation requirement of Section 22.903. We observe that, because ACI is already established as a structurally separate affiliate, this requirement conforms not only with Section 601(d) but also with ACI's business plan. We thus grant declaratory relief from Section 22.903(e), subject to the conditions discussed above and subject to the outcome of the  X1-CMRS Safeguards proceeding.  X -18. The second development since ACI filed its petition is that the Commission has commenced a comprehensive review of competitive safeguards as they apply to local exchange carrier ("LEC") provision of commercial mobile radio services ("CMRS"), including  X -BOC provision of cellular service. In the CMRS Safeguards Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we have tentatively concluded that Section 22.903(a) should be amended to permit a BOC cellular affiliate to own landline facilities for the provision of competitive landline local exchange ("CLLE"), but that we should retain the prohibition on ownership of any landline facilities that the incumbent affiliated LEC uses in the provision of landline local exchange  XO-services.:O=u O<ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# Id. at  59, 118.  X!-19. On the issue of access to landline facilities, CBT argues that, because ACI seeks a waiver of Section 22.903 to offer CLLE through the same entity both within and outside  X-Ameritech's region, the requested relief falls outside the scope of the SBMS Order.d;h=u O <ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# See Motion of Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc., for a Declaratory Ruling that Section 22.903 and other Sections of the Commission's Rules Permit the Cellular Affiliate of a Bell Operating Company to Provide Competitive Landline Local Exchange Service Outside the Region in which the Bell Operating Company  {Ot-is the Local Exchange Carrier, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 95436, CWD 955 (released Oct. 25,  {O>-1995) ("SBMS Order").d We agree. We note however that, unlike SBMS, ACI is not an established cellular subsidiary of its BOC parent, but is instead a newlyformed separate affiliate created for the purpose of  X-providing CLLE and interexchange services.X<,=u O <ԍ#X\  P6G; P## C\  P6Q P# SBMS and ACI thus differ significantly in their relationships to their affiliated BOCs. Unlike ACI, SBMS did not propose to offer CLLE in the same region as SBC's incumbent local exchange operations. We thus did not consider inregion operations in concluding that "requiring SBMS to create a structurally separate entity to provide CLLE would impose a significant and unnecessary regulatory burden on a potentially valuable  {O#-service." Id. at  19.X ACI is structurally separate not only from Ameritech's incumbent local exchange activities, but also from ACS (Ameritech's cellular affiliate). Thus, just as we have already waived Section 22.903(a) for ACI's and other BOCs'  Xk-outofregion operations for the reasons that we stated in the CMRS Safeguards NPRM,=k =u O (<ԍ#X\  P6G; P# CMRS Safeguards NPRM at  57. This aspect of the relief requested in the ACI Petition has thus already been granted. we find that ACI's separation from Ameritech's other affiliates provides a substantial basis for"V V=,**" extending this waiver to ACI's inregion operations as well. ACI's separation both from incumbent cellular operations and from incumbent local exchange operations lessens considerably our concerns about the potential for improper crosssubsidization or discriminatory interconnection practices. Therefore, we will permit ACI to provide cellular service with access to ACI's landline facilities used for CLLE (or any facilities not used to provide incumbent local exchange service), on terms that may vary from those dictated by Section 22.903(a), both inside and outside of Ameritech's region, on condition that ACI remain structurally separate from Ameritech's telephone local exchange operating companies  XH-and its cellular affiliate.>H=u O <ԍ#X\  P6G; P# We note that any provision by ACI of interLATA interexchange service would be subject to the  {O -statutory provisions of the 1996 Act governing BOC entry into and provision of interLATA services, e.g.,  {Oc -47U.S.C.  27172, and Commission rules adopted following passage of the 1996 Act. See generally supra at  yO- -note 23. Moreover, the modified structural separation requirements we impose in this waiver order on ACI's provision of cellular service are subject to our decisions in WT Docket No. 96162 as to whether and when to eliminate structural separation entirely.  We note that this decision is consistent with our observation in the  X1-CMRS Safeguards NPRM that "such relief would benefit the public by enabling a new entrant to the local exchange market, such as ACI, to provide a package of services without the risk  X -of LEC monopoly crosssubsidization or interconnection discrimination."w? T=u O <ԍ#C\  P6Q P# CMRS Safeguards NPRM at  59.w ACI has thus demonstrated that the underlying purpose of Section 22.903(a) would not be served by its application in this case to ACI's operations, and the grant of the waiver requested by ACI would be in the public interest.  X-20. We believe that CBT's argument that ACI's Petition should be denied because it would permit ACI to bundle cellular and local landline service in the Cincinnati market is without merit. CBT claims that, because Ameritech is a partner in the Cincinnati Partnership, which provides cellular service in Cincinnati, Dayton and Columbus, ACI should not be permitted to provide CLLE in these areas. In addition, CBT maintains that because Cincinnati is contiguous to Ameritech's inregion service areas the Petition can be  X-distinguished from the SBMS Order. We disagree with both of these assertions. Presumably ACI will engage in the resale of cellular service provided by the Cincinnati Partnership, together with CLLE, that will enable ACI to provide onestop shopping opportunities to customers. CBT has not demonstrated how Ameritech's role in the Cincinnati Partnership creates any potential for anticompetitive abuse springing from such resale arrangements. In addition, we do not believe that the location of the service areas where ACI wishes to provide service has any bearing on our decision on this waiver request because ACI is a newlyformed, structurally separate market entrant and neither an established local exchange carrier nor a facilitiesbased cellular service provider.  X$-21. Finally, we decline to treat SBC's comments as a waiver request in order to grant SBC identical relief. As previously noted, the nature of a waiver request necessarily includes a description of the special circumstances justifying relief. ACI has presented such a description; SBC has not. We also do not discount the comments of those who urge us to undertake a broader inquiry into the structural safeguards applicable to BOCs, the relationship between our regulation of cellular service and our regulation of PCS, and other similar"! ?,** " regulatory issues. These issues and the issue of broader relief for the BOCs from the requirements of Section 22.903 will be addressed in the comprehensive review of competitive safeguards for LECprovided CMRS which we have recently initiated. We do not agree, however, that granting relief to ACI is premature until all such issues have been resolved. Two primary goals of the Commission are to promote competition in the provision of communications services and to make possible the provision to the public of quality services that they desire at affordable rates. We believe that ACI's provision of services under the terms of the waiver and declaratory relief we grant here will promote those goals in a manner that will not compromise the important policy goals underlying our structural safeguards rules or our review of the safeguards rules we have recently undertaken.  X -6 V. ORDERING CLAUSES l lU22. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority of Sections 4 and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154 and 303, and Sections 1.3 and 22.119 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.3 and 22.119, a waiver of Section 22.903(a), 47 C.F.R.  22.903(a), is GRANTED to Ameritech Communications, Incorporated.  XK- 22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority of Sections 4 and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154 and 303, and Section 1.2 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.2, Ameritech Communications, Inc., IS DECLARED not subject to Section 22.903(e), 47 C.F.R.  22.903(e), subject to the conditions discussed herein. ` `  hh,FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh,William F. Caton  ` `  hh,Acting Secretary