WPC6 2?BJZECourier3|w#c PE37P#HP LaserJet 4 lpt 2ional)HPLA4ADD.PRSx  @\)tX@ xP-#c PE37P#2qXFCourierCG Times"i~'K2^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoYi{xxxl888SS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS>A.SSxSSJJSJS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxIxSxIqIqIrSrS{dgIiSiSgIxSxSxSxSxS{S{S8.SSSS8Sz]SSuSg/gfx6X@`7X@x/c81,c PE37Pd@X:mPXxHXx@Xx@Xx@Xx@X@XxHX$x@XBd@XVd@X`d@X:mPX:2 E Z% / 3|w Y-#Xw PE37=!XP#HP LaserJet 4 lpt 2ional)HPLA4ADD.PRSx  @\)tX@CourierCG TimesCG Times BoldCG Times Italic2 f v p"i~'K2^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoYi{xxxl888SS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS>A.SSxSSJJSJS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxIxSxIqIqIrSrS{dgIiSiSgIxSxSxSxSxS{S{S8.SSSS8Sz]SSuSg/g2?Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g/F    ׃  Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g0&!"  . Technical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g1&#$  . Technical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g2*%&    2-B3?4d@5@6ATechnical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g3''(   Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g4&)*   Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g54+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g6&-.  . 2HP7_B8v B9oZO:OTechnical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g7&/0  . MACNormal8;     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#Footnote9Íčfootnote tex#:'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#2]U;izP<Q=~vR>iSheader;Ax 4 <D  #FxX  Pg9CXP# reference<;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1=&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2>I ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# 2 Z?^U@OVA a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheadingE0\ E A.  HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and BoldldeddF+. 2`G\H]I1g^J1_DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and DateG X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style offH@@    LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5I 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5Jf 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   2LdK1`L1,bMn]cNcLETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11KL 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14L 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a DocumentMK\ * ăBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedNN X 2hOd~dPjdQLeREkgHIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold LargeOB*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and UnderscoredP V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/marginsQu 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 InvoiceR ,, $0$0  2 nS-hT8jU8GkVlMEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatSD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math InvoiceT:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math MacroUz 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math InvoiceV+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX 2oWXRnX[nY[oZ[`oNORMALReturn to Normal TypestyleWSMALLSmall TypestyleXFINEFine TypestyleYLARGELarge TypestyleZ2~r[[o\[Hp]p^X&rEXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle[VERY LARGEVery Large Typestyle\ENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header]+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   1^df2;z_r`PsasblxStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Margins_$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5`$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIaJ )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/Tabsb )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !2|cmzd {e|{f|Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginscDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Fontd4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5e$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Pointf$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO 21g|h}i#~j*Style 7Swiss 11.5g$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Pointh$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for Advancedi 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 Beginninggji )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 2kclhm}~nStyle 9Initial Codes for Intermediatek )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 Modulel )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 a1Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fm$ a2Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fn/ 2CopHqra3Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fo: a4Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FpE a5Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FqP   a6Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fr[   2sut4ulvja7Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fsf  a8Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Ftq Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Fontu toc 1toc 1v` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#22wx؜yztoc 2toc 2w` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3x` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4y` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5z` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#24{d|v}~toc 6toc 6{` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7| toc 8toc 8}` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9~` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#26fvindex 1index 1` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toatoa` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaption 2lhԱS}_Equation Caption_Equation Caption head1 #'d#2p}wC@ #para numnumbered indented paragraphs' Y- 1.(i) 1) 1.#Xw P7[hXP# 1. 1.ҲParagraph[1]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B$ab 20δVParagraph[2]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B/cd` ` ` Paragraph[3]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B:ef` ` `  Paragraph[4]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BEgh` ` `  Paragraph[5]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BPij` ` ` hhh 2_bոParagraph[6]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B[kl Paragraph[7]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bfmn Paragraph[8]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bqop endnote referenceendnote reference44#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#2Xqeefootnote referencefootnote reference4#XP\  P6QXP#2S&C6C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )s t . 3S&C7C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct ) uv 4S&C8C^fDocument StyleNF2CC! -2( -Ct ) wx 2p5S&C9C^fDocument StyleNF2CC/ -2( -Ct )*yz   6S&C:C^fDocument StyleNF2CC= -2( -Ct ){|` ` ` 7S&C;C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK -2( -Ct )8}~@  8S&C<C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersY -2( -Ct )A@` ` `  ` ` ` 2%9S&C=C^fDocument StyleNF2CCg -2( -Ct )0    10S&C>C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersu -2( -Ct )J` ` ` @  ` ` ` 11S&C?C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )S` ` `  @  12S&C@C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )\` ` `  @hhh hhh 2yA13S&CAC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )e` ` `  hhh@ hhh 14S&CBC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )n` ` `  hhh@  15S&CCC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )w` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 16S&CDC^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )F   ׃  2917S&CEC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&  . 18S&CFC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&  . 19S&CGC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )*    20S&CHC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )'   2k421S&CIC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&   22S&CJC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )4$     23S&CKC^fTechnical Document StyleCC+ -2( -Ct )&  . 24S&CLC^fTechnical Document StyleCC9 -2( -Ct )&  . 2!}h25S&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` ` `  29So29S&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 2qk9Default 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#2{vvvvheading 4heading 4 heading 5heading 5 heading 6heading 6 heading 7heading 7 2-vv#vheading 8heading 8 endnote textendnote text footnote textfootnote text toa headingtoa heading` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#2Z_dpq1, 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+&>  . 2e0ep35`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+&>` ` ` 2/\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` ` @  ` `  2t*43`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#(@- ( 2xn47`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+&>&  . 2Fo51`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$     2`Q}[55`O5~T(G2PTechnical Document Style~.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 56`O5T(G2PTechnical Document Style.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 57`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>$ 58`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>/` ` ` 2 %l59`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`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+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>[ 2R63`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`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+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>OO#PP##PP#2p67`O5T(G2Pendnote reference^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>RR#PP##PP#68`O5T(G2Pfootnote reference^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>R#PP#69 _5(_>7footnote text _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tZP70 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t` ` ` 2qCee~71 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  . 72 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  73 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  74 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t*   2upCE75 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t` ` ` 76 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+t8@   77 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tA@` `  ` ` ` 78 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t0     2mK79 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tJ` ` @  ` `  80 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tS` `  @  81 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+t\  ` `  @hh# hhh 82 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+te  ` `  hh#@( hh# 2wg883 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tn ` `  hh#(@- ( 84 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 85 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tF *  ׃  86 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&  . 2._87 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&  . 88 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t*    89 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t'   90 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _52% 91 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t4$     92 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&   . 93 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&!"  . 2}>Y94 _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:'(` ` `  97 _5(_>71. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)dK+b70t _5xŗ+tE)*` ` `  2s)f \S"i~'K2^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88SxoxxodAPoxdx]oxxxxo888SS8S]J]J;S].8].]S]]JA8]SxSSJSSSS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSS].xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSd]xSxSxSxIxIxSxSxqnIoSoSnISSSSS]]?.S]SSA]_SS]n/nCoSoAo.x]x]x]SS{xIxIxS]?]A]?]SnCn9oSx]x]x]x]x]x]xxSnIoJnIx]oSx]]SoSxSq8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8SGGSSSSSS;SSSS;88``S++SSffSSxSi]]8`S;"xxSx`xxS唔0S88xfxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xrxxxxxxxxxxPxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxSxxxxSxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfo]f]oJoAoJJxJA.Jo]]xJoSJxffSfSSoJxJofx]fffxoASxxfJffffz88SSSSxSSSxxxf8fSJ8Muu]daqqZZnn{{xu{{M{aZZ5M5M҅P?k",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxN`xoCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddd4dddddCddddddddo8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddpddddxodddXXddXddXdddddooL8doddNorddo8PdN8ppoddXXdpLoNpLodPDdopoopodXYXodoodddCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"dsd9dCCzCddoddCdYds`zUvdddCCCCzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L<?xxx,>^x6X@`7X@8wC;,=!Xw PE37XPx/c81,c PE37PDy.f81,uf_ pi7D7zC;,ZXz_ pi7X V"G($,hG PE37hP!H<!,m,< PE37,P"6uC;,fXu&_ x7XXz-b81,b&_ x7Xn~>  , "i~'K2^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx,?2?2>,H2H2H2H2H2J2J2!2222!2I822F2>>$?2@>J2:J2J2H2H2YHB$B$C26&6&6&62>$>?2J2J2J2J2J2J2^HH2@,@,@,J2?2J262?2H2<!22!!!WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHHH222!,))22X222YY2#2222Y#!!442Ydd22==Ld2d2H2;SS88Y!42^x#"ddddHHddd2Hdd4HHYYddd2YYddd Y2!!dddddH=dYHHHHHHHHHH!d2H282YdHdC2!2H,29HNAddHHHHHHHHHHddddd.dHHHHdddddddddddddddddddHHddddddSC=NdHddd+;HHHHddddddHHH2HHdHHdddHHH,HHHH,HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!HHH!HHH!HHH!HHHHHHHHHHHHHH=?8=8C,?'A,J2H,!F,C8[8J,C2H,H=92=22?,H,C=H8N===H?J!2HHH=,====I!!2222HJ222HHH=!92,!ddhrZz.lZrrvvnFFZ8X xPb-ԍXxPursuant to the Telecom Law Art. 7, all telecommunications carriers, including Type I and Special Type II international carriers, shall not discriminate unfairly in providing telecommunications service. KDD Supplement at 15. (#" x  Y-x 33. ` ` AT&T states that, beyond a minimum requirement for nondiscrimination, other competitive safeguards are absent and Japan does not have fair and transparent  Y-regulatory procedures.W? xP& -ԍXxAT&T Partial Opposition at 9. (#W AT&T contends that MPT's requirements do not prevent KDDJapan from underpricing resellers by giving discriminatory discounts on its facilitiesbased  Y_-services.L@_x zP -ԍXxId. at 89. (#L AT&T argues that this requirement is necessary to prevent KDDJapan from  YH-misusing its control of facilitiesbased IPL to impede resale competition.A\H  zP-ԍXxId. AT&T states that nondiscrimination should require the offering of facilitiesbased IPL services at wholesale rates reflecting all avoided costs of resellers' bulk purchases. Otherwise, AT&T contends  zP-that resellers in Japan will be unfairly impeded in competing against facilitiesbased carriers. Id.  (#Ǝ TEST  AT&T also contends that Japan does not maintain regulatory protections against discriminatory pricing by  Y -KDDJapan. B .  xP-ԍXxType I operators are not obligated to provide interconnection but must be specifically ordered to provide interconnection on a casebycase basis by the regulator. AT&T Petition to Deny at 1517.  TEST (#   Y -x!34. ` ` We believe that AT&T has raised some valid concerns, but on the whole, find that there is insufficient information to conclude that KDDJapan could crosssubsidize its affiliates to the point of being anticompetitive. We find it important that KDD TELESERVE, Inc. and KDD are separate corporations from KDDJapan, and they take service from KDDJapan pursuant to nontariffbased contracts at the same rates as other Special Type II carriers or end user customers who subscribe to service under tariff. Furthermore, we note that MPT has promulgated costallocation rules and other regulations  YK-that require KDDJapan to provide services to recover fully distributed costs.uCZK  xP-ԍXxKDD Supplement at 16. KDD explains that these rules are designed to prevent crosssubsidization by ensuring that the rate for each service is "computed on the basis of the inclusive cost which is a  zP!-reasonable cost under an efficient management plus a reasonable remuneration." Id.  (#u And, the record indicates that all Type I carriers must keep accounts in accordance with prescribed  Y-procedures.oD xPv$-ԍXxKDD Supplement at 16 (citing to Telecom Law Art. 33). (#o Finally, we note the general provisions in the Telecom Law prohibit unreasonable rates and discrimination; these provisions establish a legal framework for preventing crosssubsidization. We nonetheless remain concerned that there may not be adequate safeguards to prevent KDDJapan from offering KDD TELESERVE or KDD"8D0*((" discriminatory pricing. This concern is tempered by: (1) KDDJapan having less than one percent of the Special Type II international market through AT&T JENS Corp. and KDD TELESERVE and (2) the lack of evidence suggesting that existing protections have been ineffective in preventing crosssubsidization between KDDJapan and KDD TELESERVE. If we receive information contradicting this conclusion, we will revisit the issue. x  Yv-x"35. ` ` Disclosure of Network Information. While KDD does not point to any MPT regulations imposing technical disclosure rules specifically on KDDJapan, KDD explains that the regulations that address NTT's use and disclosure of customer information (as detailed below) ensure that competing Type II carriers have equal access to network information and that NTT takes the necessary measures to make planned network services and functions available to all Type II carriers simultaneously.  Y -x#36. ` ` AT&T states that Type I carriers in Japan are not obligated to provide disclosure of network information except on a casebycase basis pursuant to the regulator's  Y -request.YE  xP -ԍXxAT&T Petition to Deny at 1517. (#Y Additionally, according to AT&T, Japan's regime is not transparent because it  Y-lacks specific rules protecting Type II noninterconnected IPL resale carriers.YFX xP-ԍXxAT&T Partial Opposition at 17. (#Y AT&T argues that the absence of necessary safeguards should be dispositive in this proceeding.  YK-x$37. ` ` Disclosure of network information is the dissemination of information needed to use or interconnect with a carrier's facilities, such as information about signalling systems  Y-or number portability.fG zP-ԍXxForeign Carrier Entry Order at  51.(#f We note that Japan imposes disclosure of network information regulations on NTT, which as stated above, is a Type I facilitiesbased provider that controls the underlying local access facilities. Here, KDD asserts that regulations applicable to NTT ensure that all competing Type II carriers have equal access to network information and that NTT takes the necessary measures to make planned network services and functions available to all Type II carriers. AT&T does not provide evidence that Japan's network disclosure rules governing NTT have frustrated carrier efforts to obtain timely interconnection to NTT's facilities. We do not find that the lack of special technical disclosure regulations imposed on KDDJapan undermines a finding of ECO for the noninterconnected international resale market in Japan. Access to technical network information is more important generally to the underlying facilitiesbased carrier which owns and controls the network, as compared to the resale carrier, which does not get involved in the network's operations. We further note that there is no evidence in the record that the current regulations governing NTT are inadequate.  Y-x%38. ` ` CPNI Safeguards. KDD states that Japan's civil and criminal laws, including the Telecom Law, regard customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") as protected" zG0*((!"  Y-proprietary information.H xPy-ԍXxKDD Supplement at 1518. Telecom Law Art. 4 requires all telecommunications carriers to preserve  zPA-"[t]he secrecy of communications being handled by a telecommunications carrier." Id. at 17. Further, Article 21 of the Constitution in Japan provides that "the secrecy of any means of communications [shall not] be violated." Both provisions extend to CPNI as well as to the contents of individual transmissions. Criminal penalties for violating the secrecy of communications are spelled out in Telecom Law Articles 104 and 112. Lastly administrative regulations provide for MPT enforcement of  zP+-Article 4 and for damage awards against Type I carriers who violate its provisions. Id. at 1, n.27. MPT has under consideration whether Type I international carriers should be subject to similar CPNI  zP-requirements as apply now to NTT. Id. at 17 n.28. (# Moreover, because KDDJapan does not have market power over the originating or terminating domestic circuits, KDD asserts that CPNI rules for KDDJapan are unnecessary. KDD states that MPT established CPNI regulations governing NTT, which controls intercity and local access facilities in Japan. KDD explains that the CPNI regulations require NTT to establish internal procedures, including the creation of a separate division within the company for CPNI matters, to ensure the appropriate use of CPNI. Those regulations impose controls also upon the dissemination of CPNI within NTT and to the public. KDD explains that NTT takes the necessary measures to make planned network services and functions available to all Type II carriers simultaneously and that MPT is fully empowered to address any problems regarding discrimination or crosssubsidy that might  Y -arise.SI  zPi-ԍXxId. at 1618. (#S In addition, MPT has under consideration whether Type I international carriers  Y -should be subject to similar CPNI requirements as apply now to NTT.aJZ 0  zP-ԍXxKDD Supplement at 17, n.28. KDD also submits an unofficial Special White Paper to illustrate that MPT relied on the rules applicable to NTT to ensure that CPNI is not disclosed or abused to the detriment of Special Type II international carriers providing valueadded services. Id at 29. (#a  Y -x&39. ` ` AT&T states that KDD admits that MPT does not maintain CPNI rules governing KDDJapan. AT&T contends also that KDD fails to address whether Japan  Y -maintains safeguards to prevent KDDJapan from misusing carrier proprietary information.\K R  xP-ԍXxAT&T Partial Opposition at 1516. (#\  Y-Moreover, AT&T points out that, in the Foreign Carrier Entry Order, the Commission states that a foreign carrier such as KDDJapan has much less incentive to support its government's implementation of effective competitive safeguards once its affiliate has gained U.S. market entry. KDD replies that KDDJapan cannot misuse carrier proprietary information without sanction, for Japan's civil and criminal laws, including the Telecom Law, regard CPNI as protected proprietary information.  Y-x'40. ` ` We agree with AT&T that CPNI rules are important in the noninterconnected private line resale service to prevent KDDJapan from providing confidential customer"K0*(("  Y-information to KDD.L  xPy-ԍXxWe note that in the United States, CPNI rules apply to all carriers. Section 222(f)(1) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 defines CPNI as "information that relates to the quantity, technical configuration, type, destination, and amount of use of a telecommunications service subscribed to by any customer of a telecommunications carrier, and that is made available to the carrier by the customer solely by virtue of the carriercustomer relationship." And, the Act states that CPNI shall only be  zPa-disclosed if required by law, with the approval of the customer. Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Telecommunications Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary Network  zP-Information and Other Customer Information, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking FCC 96221 (May 17, 1996). (#Ɖ KDD states that the Telecom Law regards CPNI as protected proprietary information and therefore KDDJapan cannot misuse carrier proprietary information. Additionally, the CPNI rules for NTT apply indirectly to KDDJapan by virtue of KDDJapan using NTT's network for its domestic terminating facilities. Considering AT&T has not provided evidence that the current CPNI rules governing NTT or those in the Telecom Law are inadequate to prevent NTT or KDDJapan from misusing customer proprietary information to benefit KDD, we find that the CPNI rules are sufficient to safeguard against KDDJapan from providing confidential customer information to KDD. If we receive information contradicting this conclusion, we will revisit the issue.  Y -x(41.` ` While the record indicates Japan's competitive safeguards continue to suffer from significant shortcomings, we conclude that these safeguards are, on balance, sufficient to prevent KDDJapan from discriminating against unaffiliated IPL resale carriers. The record indicates that several important safeguards relevant to this application are already in place, and MPT is empowered to address problems regarding discrimination or crosssubsidy that might arise. If we receive information contradicting this conclusion, we will revisit the issue. Based on the record, however, we find that Japan's rules are sufficient to satisfy this element of the ECO test in the context of the noninterconnected IPL resale market.  XK-x` ` 4. Regulatory framework  Y-x)42. ` ` The fourth factor of the ECO analysis is whether there is an effective regulatory framework in the destination country to develop, implement and enforce legal  Y-requirements, interconnection arrangements and other competitive safeguards.gM zP<-ԍXxForeign Carrier Entry Order at  54. (#g There must be sufficient separation between the operator and the regulator to ensure that the regulator is independent, empowered, and does not have a conflict of interest in regulating the operator. Absent sufficient separation, there is little reason to believe that such favoritism will not occur. Transparent procedures are important also to allow competitors to know precisely what obligations are required of the incumbent dominant carrier and what rights they have to seek enforcement of such obligations. Fair and transparent procedures that allow public input into the decisionmaking process help ensure that the resulting rules are effective and nondiscriminatory. " . M0*(("Ԍ Y-x*43. ` ` KDD contends that MPT is an independent regulatory authority that is  Y-completely separate from Type I and Special Type II international carriers.ON xPb-ԍXxKDD Supplement at 18. (#O KDD contends that the government's five percent attributable indirect ownership interest in KDDJapan is insignificant. KDD explains that MPT may hold hearings in numerous specified cases, including complaints that a Type I carrier has engaged in improper discrimination against a  Y-Special Type II carrier.OxX xP-ԍXxKDD Reply at 10 n.8 (citing to Telecom Law Articles 36(2) 95 and 96). Telecom Law Article 95 and 96 provide for hearings by MPT in numerous specified cases, including complaints that a Type I carrier has engaged in improper discrimination against a Special Type II carrier pursuant to Telecom Law Article 35(2). For important policy issues, Telecom Law Article 94 provides for the establishment of a council consisting of industry representatives, consumer advocates, scholars, and other persons. Also, MPT often establishes informal consultation groups to seek input from interested parties on policy issues. KDD Reply at 10 n. 8.(#Ʒ Furthermore, KDD states that MPT is fully empowered to address problems regarding discrimination or crosssubsidization because it oversees contracts  Y_-between Type I and Special Type II international carriers,JP_ xP-ԍXxKDD Reply at 9. (#J actively reviews cost support materials and maintains rules governing the allocation of costs among services, and the  Y1-derivation of rates for specific services.NQ1(  xP -ԍXxKDD Supplement at 16.(#N  Y -x+44. ` ` AT&T argues that MPT is not independent. AT&T considers MPT's five percent ownership of KDDJapan significant, based on the Commission's telcocable cross Y -ownership rules.cR  xP>-ԍXxAT&T Partial Opposition at 1112. 0(#c Second, AT&T explains that the Japanese government the same entity responsible for regulatory oversight of KDDJapan owns a majority of NTT and NTT  Y -owns 13 percent of KDDJapan.]S H  xP-ԍXxAT&T Petition to Deny at 18. (#] Third, AT&T states that the regulatory authorities are not  Y-required to seek public comment in their regulatory making decisions.[T xP-ԍXxAT&T Partial Opposition at 1617. (#[ And fourth, AT&T questions the right of competitors to seek enforcement of the provisions and whether the  Yb-Japanese regulator would be likely to respond positively to such complaints.JUbh zP{"-ԍXxId. at 11. (#J  Y4-x,45. ` ` The record indicates that MPT has the power to address problems through tariff review, arbitration and other complaint process, yet MPT does not appear to be bound to respond within a particular time period. While the record indicates that an advisory council may advise MPT on public policy issues, it is unclear whether the council is"U0*((" comprised of disinterested parties or how the council reaches its decisions, i.e., whether the  Y-documentation is released at the MPT's discretion.V xPb-ԍXxFor important policy issues, Telecom Law Article 94 provides for the establishment of a council consisting of industry representatives, consumer advocates, scholars, and other persons. (# We are concerned also about MPT's 5 percent ownership of KDDJapan and NTT's 13 percent ownership of KDDJapan, as the MPT owns 2/3 of NTT. We would like to see further separation of the regulator and  Y-operator in Japan. As we stated in the Foreign Carrier Entry Order, absent sufficient separation between the operator and the regulator to ensure that the regulator is independent, empowered, and does not have a conflict of interest in regulating the operator, there is little  Ya-reason to believe that the regulator will not favor the operator.fWa  zP2 -ԍXxForeign Carrier Entry Order at  54.(#f We note, however, that AT&T has not provided any evidence in the record that MPT has granted preferential treatment towards KDDJapan. Furthermore, given that the competitiveness of the IPL resale market and the safeguards MPT has already implemented, we conclude that MPT is likely to be sufficiently effective in its enforcement and regulatory activities affecting IPL resale. We will, however, continue to monitor whether MPT does in fact take adequate  Y -action to remedy any anticompetitive conduct that might occur. 0 x  X - x` ` 5. Summary  Y{-x-46. ` ` On balance, we find that Japan satisfies the ECO test for the limited field of resale of noninterconnected IPLs. First, we note the absence of legal, regulatory or other restrictions on foreign or U.S. companies entering this market. Second, we find that, despite certain shortcomings, Japan affords nondiscriminatory terms and conditions for the domestic market for terminating private lines. Third, it appears that there are sufficient safeguards in place to protect against anticompetitive practices and discriminatory practices affecting noninterconnected IPL resellers. And fourth, we conclude that MPT is sufficiently separate from KDDJapan to address any problems that U.S. carriers or others may encounter with respect to the Japanese telecommunications IPL resale market. Although we agree with some of AT&T's concerns, we do not believe that these concerns will have a sufficiently direct effect on competing noninterconnected IPL resellers to prevent them from competing effectively in the Japanese market. Thus, we conclude that Japan offers ECO to noninterconnected IPL resale carriers, which would compete with KDD. We emphasize our right, however, to revisit this decision if there are significant changes in NTT's or KDDJapan's status that negatively influence resellers' ability to terminate their private lines in Japan. For example, we may revisit the issue if evidence emerges that as a result of MPT permitting KDDJapan to provide domestic service or NTT to provide international service, that the effectiveness of the competitive opportunities available to IPL resellers is called into serious doubt. "W0*(( "  X-x C. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC INTEREST FACTORS  Y-x.47. ` ` The additional public interest factors that we consider include the general significance of the proposed entry to the promotion of competition in the U.S. communications market and any national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade concerns raised by the Executive Branch. Also, we consider the relationship of accounting  Yv-rates to relevant cost benchmarks as a factor under our general public interest analysis.lXv zP-ԍXxForeign Carrier Entry Order at  62 & 66. (#l x  YH-x/48. ` ` According to AT&T, there are other countervailing public interest reasons to  Y1-deny KDD's application.\Y1Z xP< -ԍXxAT&T Partial Opposition at 1819. (#\ AT&T contends that Japan's accounting rates are far above relevant cost benchmarks. Moreover, AT&T states that KDDJapan negotiates accounting rates on behalf of all three carriers, as IDC and ITJ are not permitted to negotiate separately  Y -with U.S. carriers for accounting rates.JZ  zP-ԍXxId. at 5. (#J AT&T believes that the United States will gain greater market access in Japan through the Group on Basic Telecom ("GBT") negotiations by continuing the status quo instead of permitting KDDJapan, the leading Japanese international  Y -carrier, to enter the U.S. IPL services market to provide services to its home market.[ | zP-ԍ XxId. at 19. The GBT is the successor to the Negotiating Group on Basic Telecommunications ("NGBT") in the World Trade Organization ("WTO"), which ended on April 30, 1996. The purpose of the GBT, like the NGBT, is to encourage members of the WTO to commit to allow foreign basic telecommunications companies to provide service in their countries. The GBT negotiations are scheduled to conclude on February 15, 1997. (# Finally, AT&T argues that KDD's entry into the U.S. market would have no general significance in promoting competition in the U.S. communications market, as there are a large number of carriers already providing resale and facilitiesbased IPL services in the  YK-U.S. market.Q\K.  zP*-ԍXxId. at 18. (#Q  Y-x049. ` ` KDD states that AT&T's criticism of the U.S.Japan accounting rate is inapposite, as KDD is not seeking authority to enter the U.S. international switched services market. Also, KDD states that all Type I international carriers have independent authority to negotiate accounting rate agreements with U.S. carriers, as KDDJapan does not have authority to negotiate accounting rate agreements that are binding on the other Type I  Y-international carriers.C]  zP%-ԍXxId. (#C KDD further states that using its application as a trade tactic is indefensible, as Japan has already fully opened its own international IPL resale market to United States and other nonJapanese carriers, and AT&T and other U.S. entities have"|R ]0*((" already entered that market segment in Japan. KDD emphasizes that AT&T is the only party to oppose KDD's application. Finally, KDD argues that AT&T's contention that an additional entrant into the noninterconnected IPL resale would not promote additional  Y-competition in the United States runs counter to the Commission's ECO policy.K^ xP4-ԍXxKDD Reply at 12. (#K  Y-x150. ` ` We find that there are no other countervailing public interest reasons to deny grant of KDD's application. The Executive Branch has not raised any national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, or trade concerns with this application. While we are concerned about Japan's high accounting rates and would like to see them decrease, we do not find that a reason to deny KDD's application to enter the noninterconnected IPL market,  Y -as proliferation of these services will help put pressure on the abovecost accounting rates._ X xP# -ԍXxJapan's settlement rate is three times greater than its publicly available tariff. (#ƌ We also believe that U.S. consumers will benefit by authorization of a new noninterconnected IPL resale carrier serving Japan. We accordingly find it in the public interest to permit KDD to enter the noninterconnected IPL resale market on the U.S.Japan route.  X - xD. REGULATORY STATUS OF KDD  Yy-x251. ` ` The final issue to determine is whether to regulate KDD as dominant on the  Yb-U.S.Japan route for noninterconnected IPL service.V`b xP-ԍXx47 C.F.R.  63.10 (1995). (#V Although we find in this order that Japan, on balance, offers ECO to resellers of noninterconnected IPLs, that finding does not necessarily dictate that the applicant lacks market power and should accordingly be regulated as nondominant. For this analysis, we must determine whether KDD's affiliate, KDDJapan, has bottleneck control over transmission facilities that U.S. applicants need in order to provide noninterconnected IPL resale service. If KDDJapan possesses such bottleneck control in the underlying facilities market, we would ordinarily regulate KDD as dominant in the IPL resale market, absent a showing by KDD that Japan's regulatory framework will prevent KDDJapan from discriminating against competing U.S. resellers of IPLs.  Y|-x352. ` ` We regulate U.S. carriers affiliated with a foreign carrier with market power in a destination country as dominant on that route in order to ensure that a U.S. carrier and its foreign affiliate are not routing traffic between the United States and an affiliated country in a manner that discriminates against other unaffiliated U.S. carriers. As stated in the market power analysis in paragraphs 1219, KDDJapan has significant market power over the underlying IPL transmission facilities which IPL resellers need to serve Japan. KDDJapan is the largest international carrier in Japan and it is one of only three facilitiesbased IPL providers in Japan. Due to the MPT requirement that restricts entry into the international facilitiesbased IPL market based on demand, new entry is uncertain. "!x`0*((""Ԍ Y-x453. ` ` Although we have concluded above that there are sufficient safeguards in place to enable competitors to compete effectively with KDD in the relatively open IPL resale market, we are not convinced that the Japanese regulatory regime is adequately empowered to effectively prevent KDD's affiliate, KDDJapan, from abusing its market power in the far less open underlying facilitiesbased IPL market. The record indicates persistent concerns with MPT's ability to prevent discrimination in the facilitiesbased IPL market despite the fact that MPT is generally empowered to address problems regarding discrimination through tariff review, arbitration and other complaint processes. For example, the agreements used to obtain the underlying facilitiesbased IPLs are negotiated by contract and are not published unless both parties agree. Although MPT reviews and approves such contracts, transparent procedures are important to indicate what obligations the incumbent carriers have and what rights competitors have to seek enforcement of such obligations.  Y -x554. ` ` Given the market power that KDDJapan has over the IPL facilities and the lack of transparency, we find that the potential exists for KDDJapan to favor KDD over U.S. resellers. Therefore, to safeguard against this possibility, we find that KDD should be regulated as dominant on the U.S.Japan route.  Yb-x655. ` ` As a dominant carrier, KDD is subject to several regulatory safeguards. KDD must: (1) obtain a Section 214 authorization prior to adding circuits; (2) file traffic reports on a quarterly basis; (3) file its international tariff on 14 days' notice; and (4) maintain complete records of the provisioning and maintenance of network facilities and services it procures  Y-from its foreign carrier affiliate.Ya xP-ԍXx47 C.F.R.  63.10(c) (1995). (#Y Through these regulations, the Commission monitors dominant carriers' facilities and capacity to ensure that they will not monopolize service on a particular route or engage in anticompetitive practices. If competition in the facilitiesbased IPL market increases and MPT takes steps that give us greater confidence that KDDJapan could not favor KDD over other IPL resellers, we would be willing to reexamine KDD's dominant status.  Ye-xt I V. CONCLUSION ă x  Y8-x756. ` ` We find that grant of authorization to KDD to resell seven T1 noninterconnected IPL circuits for service to Japan is in the public interest and consistent with Section 214 of the Communications Act. We find that KDD's affiliate, KDDJapan, has market power in the underlying facilitiesbased IPL market and thus KDD's application for noninterconnected IPL resale authority must satisfy our ECO test. Despite certain shortcomings in Japan's competitive safeguards, we are satisfied that ECO presently exists in the IPL resale market. Because KDDJapan has market power over IPL facilities in Japan, we classify KDD as dominant on the U.S.Japan route for providing IPL resale services. Authorizing KDD to provide noninterconnected IPL resale service to Japan will benefit consumers by adding an additional resale carrier on the U.S.Japan route. "i$Xa0*((%"Ԍ Y-řN V. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  Y-x857.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that application File ITC95481 IS GRANTED and KDD America, Inc. is authorized to resell seven T 1 international private line circuits not interconnected to the public switched network for the provision of international private line services between the United States and Japan.  Y`-x958. ` ` It is FURTHER ORDERED that KDD America, Inc. will be regulated as a dominant carrier pursuant to Section 63.10 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  63.10 (1995).  Y -x:59.` ` It is FURTHER ORDERED that KDD America, Inc. shall comply with Section 203 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  203, Part 61 and Sections 43.51 and 43.61 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 61 and  43.51 and 43.61, and shall file  Y -annual reports of circuit additions in accordance with the requirements set forth in Rules for  Y -Filing of International Circuit Status Reports, CC Docket No. 93157, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 8605 (1995).  Yg-x;60.` ` It is FURTHER ORDERED that this authorization of KDD America, Inc. to provide private lines as part of its authorized services is limited to the provision of noninterconnected private line service only between the United States and Japan, that is, private lines that originate in the United States and terminate in Japan, or that originate in Japan and terminate in the United States. In addition, KDD America may not and KDD America's tariffs must state that its customers may not connect private lines provided over these facilities to the public switched network at either the U.S. or foreign end or both, for the provision of international switched basic services, unless authorized to do so by the Commission upon finding that Japan affords resale opportunities equivalent to those available  Y-under U.S. law, in accordance with Regulation of International Accounting Rates, Phase II,  Y-First Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 559 (1991),  Order on Reconsideration and Third  Yn-Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 7 FCC Rcd 7927 (1992), Third Report and Order  YY-and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 96160, released May 20, 1996.  See also Foreign  YD-Carrier Entry Order at  133138.  Y-x<61.` ` This order is issued under Section 0.261 of the Commission's Rules and is 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  Y -public notice of this Order (see Section 1.4(b)(2)). X` %'0*,.8135@8: