WPCX= 2?BJZECourier3|w#c PE37P#HP LaserJet 4 Add lpt2al)HPLA4ADD.PRSx  @\!(kX@ 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 PE37P\ @^.$h'j;U7G;A7 ier<?xxx,>fx6X@`7X@2  ZE: v 3|wHP LaserJet 4 Add lpt2al)HPLA4ADD.PRSx  @\!(kX@ X-#Xj\  P6G;3XP#a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` 2 p' k k m a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  2kvD t .  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` 2d  D  a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h 2^.a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical29 a1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   2Da3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 2 3Dwe{ a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheading+0\ E A.  FOOTNOTEFootnote - Appearance,PHIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd-+. 2..n+/,0X-11s-DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date. X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style off/@@    HEADERHeader A - Appearance0LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.51 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   2221.31041815ni2LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.52f 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 113L 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 144 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a Document5K\ * ă246X 37a38i39dK4FOOTERFooter A - Appearanced6BLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indented7N X HEADING 33rd Heading Level8| XHIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold Large9B*d. 29:j4;K5<Ej7=-8HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored: V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/margins;u H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math Invoice< ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page Format=D.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   2w>>8:?8F;@~<AX>INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice>:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macro?z 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice@+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal TypestyleA2@B[>C[?D[_?E[?SMALLSmall TypestyleBFINEFine TypestyleCLARGELarge TypestyleDEXTRA LARGEExtra Large TypestyleE2CF[G@G@Hp%BIqBVERY LARGEVery Large TypestyleFENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with HeaderG+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O gH` ` ` Document[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gI  . 2EJe8CKeCLDMpDDocument[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gJ  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gK  Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gL*    Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gM  ` ` ` 2GN7EOEPdFQFRight Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gN8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gOA@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gP0     Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gQJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` 2JRGS|HT2IUIRight Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gRS` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gS\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gTe` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gUn` ` `  hhh@  2MVJWKXvLYLRight Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gVw` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gWF    ׃  Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gX&!"  . Technical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gY&#$  . 2'PZM[NN\N]wOTechnical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gZ*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g[''(   Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g\&)*   Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g]4+$,     21S^YP_P` cQapRTechnical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g^&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g_&/0  . CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output File`W r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded Documentaiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#2ibbv cSc_dX`e~`MACNormalb;     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#footnote tex#c'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#referenced;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1e&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#2efibg}dhdi eheader2fI ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# a1Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fg$ a2Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fh/ a3Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fi: 2hjeklflgmga4Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FjE a5Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FkP   a6Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fl[   a7Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fmf  2knhoXipiq|ja8Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fnq 1odfStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Marginsp$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5q$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO 2rrNksl-ptqu5rStyle 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIrJ )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/Tabss )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginstDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Fontu4h )a [ PfQO  dddn 2Ouv|rwosxtytStyle 2Dutch Italic 11.5v$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Pointw$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5x$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Pointy$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO 2zu{z|}Style 10oInitial Codes for Advancedz 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 Beginningg{i )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9Initial Codes for Intermediate| )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 Њ [ e )^ `> XifQ ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   3 )^ `> XifQ Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jf )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`+ >Page  jX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 UpdateInitial Codes for Update Module} )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`7 CPage  jN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2~l܉HfDefault Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font~ toc 1toc 1` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#toc 2toc 2` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#2Ԑv.toc 4toc 4` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#toc 6toc 6` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7 2N֗0toc 8toc 8` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#index 1index 1` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#2vlvtoatoa` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaption _Equation Caption_Equation Caption 2x(}shead1 #'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$ab Paragraph[2]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B/cd` ` ` 28=ۨParagraph[3]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B:ef` ` `  Paragraph[4]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BEgh` ` `  Paragraph[5]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BPij` ` ` hhh Paragraph[6]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B[kl 2?j)Paragraph[7]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bfmn Paragraph[8]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bqop endnote referenceendnote reference44#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#footnote referencefootnote reference4#XP\  P6QXP#2?qqeeG2S&C6C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )s t . 3S&C7C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct ) uv 4S&C8C^fDocument StyleNF2CC! -2( -Ct ) wx 5S&C9C^fDocument StyleNF2CC/ -2( -Ct )*yz   2pqs6S&C:C^fDocument StyleNF2CC= -2( -Ct ){|` ` ` 7S&C;C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK -2( -Ct )8}~@  8S&C<C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersY -2( -Ct )A@` ` `  ` ` ` 9S&C=C^fDocument StyleNF2CCg -2( -Ct )0    2ձy&ܳ10S&C>C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersu -2( -Ct )J` ` ` @  ` ` ` 11S&C?C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )S` ` `  @  12S&C@C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )\` ` `  @hhh hhh 13S&CAC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )e` ` `  hhh@ hhh 2ʹf 14S&CBC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )n` ` `  hhh@  15S&CCC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )w` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 16S&CDC^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )F   ׃  17S&CEC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&  . 2!׷\18S&CFC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&  . 19S&CGC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )*    20S&CHC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )'   21S&CIC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&   2S} 22S&CJC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )4$     23S&CKC^fTechnical Document StyleCC+ -2( -Ct )&  . 24S&CLC^fTechnical Document StyleCC9 -2( -Ct )&  . 25S&CMC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CG -2( -Ct )$ 2D׽u26S&CNC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CU -2( -Ct )/` ` ` 27S&COC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cc -2( -Ct ):` ` `  28S&CPC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cq -2( -Ct )E` ` `  29S&CQC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )P` ` ` hhh 2[P30S&CRC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )[ 31S&CSC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )f 32S&CTC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )q Default ParaC^fDefault Paragraph Font2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#2;[/v_Equation CaC^f_Equation CaptionF2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#endnote refeC^fendnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>>#PP##PP#footnote refC^ffootnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>#PP#heading 4heading 4 2EvmvvYvheading 5heading 5 heading 6heading 6 heading 7heading 7 heading 8heading 8 2vwvcZendnote textendnote text footnote textfootnote text toa headingtoa heading` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#1, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.E1.2d pqqeRA, B,t ?@65Uppercase Letters1 ?*1÷$t ?.E .33`O5hT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5h.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 34`O5iT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5i.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  . 35`O5jT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5j.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  2eNpQ36`O5kT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5k.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  37`O5lT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5l.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>*   38`O5mT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5m.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 39`O5nT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>8@   2E40`O5oT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>A@` `  ` ` ` 41`O5pT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5p.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>0    42`O5qT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>J` ` @  ` `  43`O5rT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>S` `  @  2~=44`O5sT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>\` `  @hh# hhh 45`O5tT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>e` `  hh#@( hh# 46`O5uT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>n` `  hh#(@- ( 47`O5vT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2hG48`O5wT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5w.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>F *  ׃  49`O5xT(G2PTechnical Document Stylex.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 50`O5yT(G2PTechnical Document Styley.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 51`O5zT(G2PTechnical Document Stylez.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>*    2/s52`O5{T(G2PTechnical Document Style{.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>'   53`O5|T(G2PTechnical Document Style|.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&   54`O5}T(G2PTechnical Document Style}.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>4$     55`O5~T(G2PTechnical Document Style~.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 2G*},56`O5T(G2PTechnical Document Style.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 57`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>$ 58`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>/` ` ` 59`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>:` ` `  23yt60`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>E` ` `  61`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>P` ` ` hhh 62`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>[ 63`O5T(G2P1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a).K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>f 2e/%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+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>OO#PP##PP#67`O5T(G2Pendnote reference^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>RR#PP##PP#2Ipqe68`O5T(G2Pfootnote reference^aO5.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>R#PP#69 _5(_>7footnote text _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tZP70 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t` ` ` 71 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  . 2eempe72 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  73 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t  74 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t*   75 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t` ` ` 2m476 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+t8@   77 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tA@` `  ` ` ` 78 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+t0     79 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tJ` ` @  ` `  2L80 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tS` `  @  81 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+t\  ` `  @hh# hhh 82 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+te  ` `  hh#@( hh# 83 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tn ` `  hh#(@- ( 2PF84 _5(_>7Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+b70t _5xŗ+tw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 85 _5(_>7Document Style _5dK+b70t _5xŗ+tF *  ׃  86 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&  . 87 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t&  . 2Kf i88 _5(_>7Technical Document StyledK+b70t _5xŗ+t*    "i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L"i~'K2^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxA.SSxSSJJSJS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxIxSxIqIqIrSrS{dgIiSiSgIxSxSxSxSxS{S{S8.SSSS8Sz]SSuSg/g8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d"",?2?2>,H2H2H2H2H2J2J2!2222!2I822F2>>$?2@>J2:J2J2H2H2YHB$B$C26&6&6&62>$>?2J2J2J2J2J2J2^HH2@,@,@,J2?2J262?2H2<!22!!!WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHHH222!,))22X222YY2#2222Y#!!442Ydd22==Ld2d2H2;SS88Y!42^x#"ddddHHddd2Hdd4HHYYddd2YYddd Y2!!dddddH=dYHHHHHHHHHH!d2H282YdHdC2!2H,29HNAddHHHHHHHHHHddddd.dHHHHdddddddddddddddddddHHddddddSC=NdHddd+;HHHHddddddHHH2HHdHHdddHHH,HHHH,HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!HHH!HHH!HHH!HHHHHHHHHHHHHH=?8=8C,?'A,J2H,!F,C8[8J,C2H,H=92=22?,H,C=H8N===H?J!2HHH=,====I!!2222HJ222HHH=!92,!ddhrZz.lZrrvvnFFZ8^x6X@`7X@ )7jC:,3Xj\  P6G;XP*8wC;,=!Xw PE37XPD+7zC;,!ZXz_ pi7X,V"G($,hG PE37hP<R&HHH,|,H6X@`7h@ ?xxx,/Nx6Nhez7XH-6uC;,>fXu&_ x7XX.x/c81,c PE37P /z-b81,>b&_ x7XD0y.f81,!uf_ pi7?xxx,Nx `7X2H<!,m,< PE37,P5y.X80,IX\  P6G;PH5!,,5\  P6G;,P   X- #Xw PE37=!XP# #c PE37P#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#Xw PE37=!XP# `*(#DA 962183 2(Before the W FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  X-Washington D.C. 20554 TP  Y-In the Matter of hh@) x` `  hh@)  Y_-Communications TeleSystemshh@)hFile No. ITC95444  YH-International` `  hh@) x` `  hh@)  Y -Application for Authorityhh@)  Y -pursuant to Section 214 of the hh@)  Y -Communications Act of 1934, ashh@)  Y -amended, to operate as anhh@)  Y -international private line carrierhh@)  Y-  MEMORANDUM OPINION, ORDER AND CERTIFICATION ă  Yc-xAdopted: December 17, 1996@hReleased: December 31, 1996 By the Chief, International Bureau:  Y- Table of Contents ă  Y-`(#Paragraph Nos.ă I. INTRODUCTIONp"(#Q WITH1 ׃ II. BACKGROUNDp"(#F CTS2 ש IN7 ׃ III. DISCUSSIONp!(#? THE 8 ש AS 44 ׃ xA. ECO Analysisp!(#? THE 8 ש IN 38 ׃ XxX` ` 1. Resale Entry (#` p!(#? THE 8 ש AT&T 12 ׃ XxX` ` 2. Interconnection(#` pU!(#8 THE13 ש WE23 ׃ XxX` ` 3. Competitive Safeguards (#` pU!(#8 THE24 ש IN30 ׃ XxX` ` 4. Regulatory Framework(#` pU!(#8 THE31 ש IN38 ׃ XxB. Additional Public Interest Factors(#pU!(#8 THE39 ש THE40 ׃ xC. Other Matters pU!(#8 BY41 ש AS44 ׃ IV. CONCLUSIONp`"(#J WE45 ׃ V. ORDERING CLAUSESpU!(#8 UPON46 ש THIS51 ׃" 0*0*0*!"  X-   cI. INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION׃  Y- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)x1.` ` With WITH  this order, we increase competition in international telecommunications markets by granting Communications TeleSystems International (CTS) authority to resell private lines for the provision of switched services between the United States and New Zealand. In doing so, we conclude that New Zealand offers U.S. carriers opportunities to resell private lines to provide switched services which are equivalent to those offered in the United States. In a companion order adopted today, we find also that New Zealand satisfies the effective competitive opportunities ("ECO") test for facilitiesbased entry by Telecom  Y1-New Zealand Limited ("TNZL").QZ1 zP -ԍXxSee Telecom New Zealand International Limited Application for Section 214 Authority to Acquire and Operate Facilities to Provide International Services between the United States and New Zealand, ITC96097, DA 962182 (rel. Dec. 31, 1996) ("TNZL File No. ITC96097"). (#Q x  Y -x` ` ] II. BACKGROUND ă  Y -x2. ` ` CTSCTS is an authorized U.S. international facilitiesbased and resale carrier.X  xPq-ԍXxCTS Application for Authority pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to operate as an international private line carrier, File No. ITC95444, at 2 ("CTS Application").(#  Y -CTS certifies that it is not affiliated with any foreign carrier in New Zealand.nZ  xPz-ԍXxCTS Application at 23, 14. CTS states that it has a foreign carrier affiliation with WorldxChange Ltd  zPB-("WorldxChange"), a registered international operator in New Zealand. See Letter from Robert E. Conn, Attorney for CTS, to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC (Nov. 7, 1995).(#n CTS seeks  Y -authorization, pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amendedS ,  xP-ԍXx47 U.S.C.  214 (1995).(#S to resell international private lines ("IPLs") that are connected to the public switched network ("PSN") at both the U.S. and New Zealand end, or at one end, for the provision of switched  Yc-services on the U.S.New Zealand route.Pc  xP-ԍXxCTS Application at 1. (#P As required by the Commission's rules, CTS submits information and documentation to demonstrate that New Zealand offers U.S.based  Y5-carriers equivalent resale opportunities in New Zealand.J^5L  zP2!-ԍXx47 C.F.R.  63.18(e)(3). See Market Entry and Regulation of Foreignaffiliated Entities, Report and  zP!-Order, 11 FCC Rcd 3873 at  133138 and App. B (1995) ("Foreign Carrier Entry Order"), recon.  zP"-pending. (#J "r0*(( "  Y-x3.` ` We placed CTS's application on public notice on July 28, 1995.c xPy-ԍXxPub. Not. Rep. No. I8079 (July 28, 1995).(#c AT&T filed  Y-a petition to deny.fX xP-ԍXxAT&T Petition to Deny (filed Aug. 28, 1995). (#f CTS filed an opposition to AT&T's petition to denyy  xP-ԍXxCTS Opposition to AT&T Petition to Deny (filed Sept. 11, 1995). (#y and AT&T  Y-replied.n x xP-ԍXxAT&T Reply to CTS Opposition (filed Sept. 21, 1995). (#n Because the issues raised by CTS's application are substantially similar to those raised by TNZL's facilitiesbased application, we incorporate by reference the record in that proceeding. AT&T, MCI and Sprint filed petitions to deny TNZL's application.  Yv-x4. ` ` In the International Resale Order, the Commission found that encouraging the resale of international telecommunications services would further the dual public interest in costbased prices for international telecommunications services and more efficient use of  Y3-international facilities.: (3 zP-ԍXx#c PE37P#Regulation of International Accounting Rates, Phase II, First Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 559 (1992)  zP-(International Resale Order); see also Regulation of International Accounting Rates, Phase II, Order on  zP-Reconsideration and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 7 FCC Rcd 7927 (1992), Third  zPJ-Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 96160 (rel. May 20, 1996). (#: Specifically, the Commission concluded that promoting the resale of IPLs to provide switched services would foster new entry into the international telecommunications market and exert downward pressure on abovecost international accounting rates and foreign collection rates through the diversion of switched traffic to  Y -resold private lines.%   xP-ԍXxThe term "accounting rate" refers to a rate negotiated between two correspondent carriers on a particular international route which is intended to allow each carrier to recover the costs of the facilities provided for originating and terminating an international telex, telegraph or telephone call. Most operating agreements provide for the two carriers to split the accounting rate 50/50. The term "collection rates" refers to tariffed rates charged by carriers to customers, or end users.(#%  Y -x5. ` ` The Commission further concluded, however, that permitting "oneway"  Y-resale, i.e., resale only from the overseas point inbound to the United States, would undermine the benefits of IPL resale. The Commission recognized that "oneway" resale could enable foreign carriers unilaterally to divert U.S. inbound switched traffic to private lines, for which U.S. carriers normally receive settlements payments under our International  Y8-Settlements Policy, $8 zP#-ԍXxSee International Resale Order, 7 FCC Rcd at 561. The International Settlements Policy requires: (1) the equal division of accounting rates; (2) nondiscriminatory treatment of U.S. carriers; and (3)  zP#%-proportionate return of inbound traffic. See Policy Statement on International Accounting Rate Reform, 11 FCC Rcd 3146 at  11 (1996). (#ƴ thereby evading the settlements process for that traffic. "! 0*(( "Ԍ Y-x6.` ` Permitting the unilateral evasion of the settlements process would not only exacerbate the U.S. net settlements deficit, it would also fail to exert downward pressure on international accounting rates, frustrating the Commission's IPL resale policy goals. Accordingly, the Commission concluded that it would authorize the resale of IPLs interconnected to the PSN only to countries that allow such resale to occur in both directions. The Commission required each applicant seeking to resell U.S. IPLs for the provision of switched services to demonstrate that the destination foreign country affords resale  Y_-opportunities equivalent to those available under U.S. law._ xP-ԍXxTo date, the Commission has found that Canada, the United Kingdom and Sweden offer U.S.based  zP -carriers equivalent opportunities for the resale of IPLs for the provision of switched services. See  zPj -fONOROLA/EMI, 7 FCC Rcd 7312 (1992), on recon., 9 FCC Rcd 4066 (1994); ACC Global/Alanna,  xP4 -9 FCC Rcd 6240 (1994); Cable & Wireless Inc., et al., 11 FCC Rcd 1766 (1996). Applications for equivalency determinations for Australia, Denmark, Hong Kong, Chile, Mexico and Finland are  xP -pending. (#Ɛ  YH- x  Y1-x7.` ` InIN the Foreign Carrier Entry Order, the Commission amended the rules  Y -adopted in the International Resale Order. It restated the equivalency criteria in the same manner as its effective competitive opportunities ("ECO") criteria, which govern entry by  Y -foreign carriers that control foreign bottleneck facilities.$ D zP-ԍXxForeign Carrier Entry Order at  133138. In changing this rule, the Commission noted that its restatement of the equivalency criteria did not represent a substantive change. The Commission stated that a "finding of equivalent resale opportunities" is a finding of "effective competitive opportunities" to  zP?-resell IPLs for the provision of switched services. Id. at  137. (# The Commission's rules thus require that applicants seeking to provide switched service over resold private lines demonstrate that the foreign country at the other end of the private line provides U.S. carriers with: (1) the legal right to resell IPLs, interconnected at both ends, for the provision of switched services; (2) reasonable and nondiscriminatory charges, terms and conditions for interconnection to foreign carrier domestic facilities for termination and origination of international services, with adequate means of enforcement; (3) competitive safeguards to protect against anticompetitive and discriminatory practices affecting private line resale; and (4) fair and transparent regulatory procedures, including separation between the regulator and the operator of international facilitiesbased services. These four principles must be satisfied  Y -at the time we make an equivalency determination. 0  zP-ԍXxId. at  138. This is in contrast to the ECO standard, which permits these four principles to be satisfied in the "near future." (# Additionally, we examine other public  Y-interest factors that may warrant grant or denial of the application.\  zP.#-ԍXxId. at  136. (#\ x"0*(("  Y-x` `  III. DISCUSSION ă  X-  X-A. ECO Analysis  X-x` ` 1. Resale Entry hh x  Yw-x8. ` ` The THE  THE THE THE  first factor examined to determine if there are equivalent resale opportunities for U.S.based IPL carriers in New Zealand is whether they have the legal right to resell IPLs, interconnected to the PSN at both ends, for the provision of switched  Y2-services.C2 zP -ԍXxId. (#C  Y -x9. ` ` Operators seeking to interconnect IPLs to the PSN at one end or both the New Zealand and foreign end are required to register with the Communications Division of the  Y -Ministry of Commerce ("Ministry"). Z xP-ԍXxCTS Application at 56; Telefax from Scott Wilson, Advisor, International Communications Policy,  zP-Ministry of Commerce, New Zealand to Helene Schrier Nankin, Attorney, FCC (Dec. 13, 1996). See  zPs-also CTS Application at Exhibit B, Telecommunications (International Services) Regulations 1994 at  3(a), 5(1) ("Telecommunications International Regulations 1994"); Compliance Statement: Telecommunications (International Services) Regulations 1994 at 3, 7 ("Compliance Statement"); Ministry Letter from Cristine Stevenson, Senior Advisor, Ministry of Commerce, New Zealand to Helene Schrier, Attorney, International Bureau, FCC at 1 (May 9, 1996) ("Ministry Letter"). The registration letter should: (1) describe the reseller, current and proposed services to be offered; and (2) list proposed and existing traffic routes and agreements with nonNew Zealand operators. IPLs are  xP-referred to in New Zealand as "leased circuits." The record indicates that no registration is necessary for New Zealand or overseasbased applicants that seek to provide international leased circuits that are not interconnected to the PSN at either end. Telefax from Scott Wilson, Advisor, International Communications Policy, Ministry of Commerce, New Zealand to Helene Schrier Nankin, Attorney, International Bureau, FCC (Dec. 13, 1996). (#Ư CTS states that applicants register to provide these services by submitting a brief letter and a $1000 (NZ) application filing fee. CTS indicates  Y -that an additional $10,000 (N.Z.) fee is due upon registration and each year thereafter.$  xPo-ԍXxAccording to CTS, the $1,000 (NZ) filing fee is equivalent to the $705 (U.S.) Section 214 fee, given the currency exchange rate. CTS Application at 5 n.3. We note that at the current exchange rate of  zP-one New Zealand dollar to $.7116 (U.S.), $1000 (NZ) is equivalent to $711.6 (U.S.). See TNZL IT zP-C96097, ex parte letter (filed Nov. 21, 1996). (#  Yz-x 10. ` ` According to CTS, the Ministry will grant registration to prospective IPL resellers when the country to which the prospective reseller seeks to provide service has  YL-regulatory conditions "broadly equivalent" to those in New Zealand.!L zP$-ԍXxCTS Application at 6 (citing Compliance Statement at 3). CTS also explains that the Ministry attempts  zP%-to answer applications within six weeks. CTS Application at 5 (citing Compliance Statement at 4).(#! In assessing whether a country is "broadly equivalent," the Ministry will consider: the conditions, including interconnection conditions, that the country places on resellers and the potential for harm"^0*(("  Y-from the reseller terminating traffic in New Zealand. zPy-ԍXxCTS Application at 6 (citing Telecommunications International Regulations 1994  5). (#Ɨ Although New Zealand does not formally designate countries as "equivalent," the Ministry states that it will consider favorably applications to provide leased circuit services interconnected to the PSN at both the  Y-New Zealand and the U.S. end and a U.S. company could expect to be registered.Z zP-ԍXxCTS Application at 6 (citing Compliance Statement at 34). See also Ministry Letter at 11. (#Ƣ To  Y-date, no operators have requested registration to interconnect IPLs to the PSN at both ends. tB xPA -ԍXxTelephone Conversation between Helene Schrier Nankin, Attorney, International Bureau, FCC and Scott Wilson, Advisor, International Communications Policy, Ministry of Commerce, New Zealand (Dec. 9, 1996). Section 7 of the Telecommunications International Regulations 1994 enables the Secretary to impose two conditions on any registered international operator on a casebycase basis.  zPa -The conditions appear to address, inter alia, concerns over "oneway" resale of private lines into New Zealand. The conditions are reserve powers, which have never been imposed, and which would be exercised only when there was a situation that could cause substantial harm to consumers of  xP-international services in New Zealand. Compliance Statement at 56; Ministry Letter at 13. (#t  Yv-x 11. ` ` Registration requirements are the same for foreignbased and New Zealand applicants, and there are no foreign ownership restrictions. The one exception is that no single foreign investor may own more than 49.9 percent of Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Ltd. ("TCNZ"), which the Ministry recognizes as the dominant telecommunications  Y -provider in New Zealand.5  xP-ԍXxCTS Application at 6; Ministry Letter at 1. TCNZ is authorized to provide international and domestic telecommunications services in New Zealand. Telecom New Zealand Limited (TNZL), a whollyowned subsidiary of TCNZ, is the wireline telecommunications operating company for TCNZ. TCNZ negotiates the interconnection agreements for TNZL. Bell Atlantic Corporation and Ameritech Corporation own minority interests in TCNZ (24.82% each). According to the Ministry, the Government's "Kiwi Share" in TCNZ requires that no single foreign entity own more than 49.9 percent of the shareholding in TCNZ and Government permission is required for any single foreign shareholder to own more than 10 percent of TCNZ. The Government has not rejected any foreign investment of greater than 10 percent in TCNZ, and it is possible for TCNZ to be 100 percent foreignowned as long as foreignowned shares in excess of 49.9 percent are held by more than one owner. Ministry Letter at  zP-14. See infra note 66. (#5  Y -x 12.` ` AT&T AT&T  does not dispute the legal right to provide interconnected IPL services in New Zealand. Because no operators have requested registration to interconnect IPLs to the PSN at both ends, there is no concrete evidence that New Zealand will grant U.S.based applicants registration to resell IPLs for the provision of switched services. The record, however, does not reflect, and we have no reason to believe, that New Zealand will deny U.S. carrier applications for such services. Consequently, we conclude that New Zealand affords U.S.based carriers the legal right to provide switched services via resold private lines interconnected to the PSN at both the U.S. and the New Zealand ends. Nevertheless, because U.S.based carriers' actual ability to enter the resale market is a crucial part of our equivalency determination, we will promptly revisit this equivalency determination in the"X0*(("  Y-event the Ministry denies U.S.based applications for interconnected private line resale.  X-x` ` 2 . Interconnection  Y-x 13. ` ` TheTHE second factor examined to determine whether there are equivalent resale opportunities in New Zealand is whether there are reasonable and nondiscriminatory charges, terms and conditions for interconnection to a foreign carrier's domestic facilities for the  Y_-termination and origination of international services in New Zealand.g_ zP-ԍXxForeign Carrier Entry Order at  49. (#g In addition, there must be adequate means to monitor and enforce these conditions (e.g., published charges). We also consider relevant the availability of reasonable and nondiscriminatory arrangements for the underlying IPLs needed by U.S.based resellers. x` `  Y -x 14.` ` Parties did not comment on the reasonableness of the prices for the New Zealand half of an IPL. The record indicates that there are four carriers that offer IPLs on a  Y -facilities basis. Z zP-ԍXxClear, TNZL, Sprint (NZ) and Telstra. See Ministry Letter at 12. (#Ƃ The record also indicates that TCNZ and TNZL are required to publish the prices, terms and conditions for certain prescribed services including private lines, pursuant to the Telecommunications (Disclosure) Regulations 1990. We have reviewed TNZL's international leased line tariff and note that there are no restrictions on reselling these lines. We also find that TNZL's rates for IPLs are not out of line with AT&T's rates for  YK-comparable halfcircuits.K zP-ԍXxSee TNZL File No. ITC96097, TNZL ex parte letter at 2 & Attachments 1, 2 (filed Nov. 14, 1996). (#ƪ  Y-x15. ` ` AT&T argues that New Zealand does not offer equivalent resale opportunities  Y-because it does not require standard, published, costjustified interconnection agreements.VF xP-ԍXxAT&T Petition to Deny at 24.(#V AT&T explains that resellers must negotiate interconnection arrangements privately with  Y-TCNZ , which presents opportunities for abuse and delay. AT&T notes that an interconnection dispute between TCNZ and Clear took four years to settle, primarily because of TCNZ's level of interconnection charges and its failure to offer technically equal trunk Y-side interconnection.|" zP"-ԍXxId. at 7; AT&T Reply to Opposition at 3. AT&T contends that resellers must incur additional costs to replicate the functions that would be available through trunkside interconnection, such as identifying users of their networks and monitoring the connection and disconnection of calls. AT&T Petition to Deny at 7. (#|  Ye-x16.` ` While the New Zealand interconnection regime may not be designed as we prefer, it appears at the present time that based on existing laws and regulations, the"N 0*((k" existence of multiple international facilitiesbased carriers (including one with 23 percent market share), and most importantly on favorable toll interconnection rates U.S. carriers have the opportunity to obtain interconnection on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms for the provision of interconnected IPL resale. We are concerned that New Zealand does not have standard rates for toll interconnection accompanied by a pricing methodology that enables carriers seeking such interconnection to determine whether prices are costbased. Other aspects of New Zealand's market performance, however, weigh in favor of finding that New Zealand satisfies this aspect of our equivalency test.  Y1-x17. ` ` As an initial matter, we take this opportunity to review the basic legal and regulatory framework governing the telecommunications market in New Zealand. New Zealand relies primarily on the Commerce Act 1986 its general competition law to regulate telecommunications. In particular, Section 36 of the statute prohibits entities with a  Y -dominant position in a market from using their position to restrict or eliminate competition. !  yPN-#X\  P6G; IP#эXx# c PE37P#Section 36 of the Commerce Act 1986 provides that "[n]o person who has a dominant position in a market shall use that position for the purpose of: (a) restricting the entry of any person into that or any other market, or; (b) preventing or deterring any person from engaging in competitive conduct in that or any other market, or; (c) eliminating any person from that or any other market."(#  However, New Zealand has issued some sectorspecific legislation. The primary sectorspecific statute is the Telecommunications Act 1987, which, along with subsequent amendments, liberalized the provision of telecommunications services, authorized the government to regulate international services and required TCNZ to disclose financial and interconnection information. The New Zealand government, in turn, has published several sets of regulations, the most important of which for purposes of our equivalency analysis are: (1) the Telecommunications (Disclosure) Regulations 1990 which requires TCNZ to disclose the full text of all interconnection agreements, certain financial information for itself and TNZL, and prices, terms and conditions for certain prescribed services including access to the public switched network, leased circuits and national and international toll services; and (2) the Telecommunications (International Services) Regulations 1994 which requires the  Y-registration of certain international service operators.  yP#-#X\  P6G; IP#эXx# c PE37P#Ministry Letter at 12, 10.(#Ƣ  Y-x18.` ` Interconnection arrangements in New Zealand are negotiated on a private contractual basis. However, several factors help protect against discriminatory conduct, including: (1) the legal requirement that TCNZ provide interconnection on terms that are not  YN-unreasonably discriminatory;"!NB zPA#-ԍXx#c PE37P#See TNZL File No. ITC96097, TNZL ex parte letter at 4 (filed Nov. 14, 1996); TNZL Opposition at 12. The Ministry of Commerce confirms that "[TCNZ], as the dominant operator, is legally required to offer interconnection to other operators." Ministry Letter at 1. The Ministry also states that TCNZ must, and does, provide equal trunkside interconnection and that a failure by TCNZ to provide interconnection, or the seeking of unreasonable or discriminatory terms (including unreasonable delays in negotiating an agreement) could provide grounds for legal action against TCNZ by a"+' 0*((='"  zP-negotiating party. Id. at 12, 9.(#" (2) public and private remedies for anticompetitive conduct,"NZ!0*((>" and the apparent willingness of the New Zealand government to utilize such public  Y-remedies;l"Z xP-ԍXxThe Ministry recently stated that "the Government would be very concerned to see a firm delaying negotiations, offering restricted terms and conditions or charging high access prices to its competitors  zP-for the purpose of restricting competition." Media Release, Government Signals Future Directions for  zPN-Regulation of Telecommunications, Electricity and Gas, Office of the Minister of Commerce, New Zealand, dated June 26, 1996. The Ministry also indicated that: "Where [it] is not satisfied that both parties are negotiating in good faith, . . . the Government will take additional regulatory action such as initiating a Commerce Commission price control inquiry or, if circumstances warrant, directly imposing  zPp -price control." Id. at 2. See also "Telecom, Clear settle despite the politicians," The Independent, Sept. 8, 1995 (noting the efforts of New Zealand's Prime Minister and Communications Minister in assisting TCNZ and Clear to settle their local interconnection dispute). (#l (3) the requirement that relevant prescribed services and all TCNZ interconnection agreements be published on a quarterly basis; and (4) emerging competition in the New Zealand local exchange market. TCNZ has reached interconnection agreements with Clear, Telstra (NZ) Ltd., Sprint Telecommunications (NZ) Ltd., CTS affiliate WorldxChange, and BellSouth NZ for international and domestic toll services, and presently  Yv-competes with these carriers in both markets.#"v  zP-ԍXxSee TNZL File No. ITC 96097 ex parte presentation (dated Oct. 10, 1996) as clarified by Kevin McGilly, Director, Strategic Analysis, Freedom Technologies Incorporated, in a telephone conversation  xP-with Bob Calaff, Attorney, International Bureau, FCC (Dec. 13, 1996). Sprint NZ is now part of the Global One alliance in New Zealand.(#ư  X_-x  YH- x19.` ` We believe that competition in the New Zealand telecommunications market would be better served if the government played a more direct role in overseeing interconnection arrangements. Indeed, while the relevant issue in this proceeding is the  Y -availability of interconnection for the provision of international services and not local exchange services, the protracted interconnection dispute between TCNZ and Clear for the provision of local service raises the serious concern that other competing carriers could encounter similar difficulties in negotiating toll interconnection arrangements. We also are concerned with the apparent lack of a transparent pricing methodology for TCNZ's toll  Y-interconnection arrangements.Q$ zP#-ԍXxSee supra  16.(#Q  Yb-x20.` ` We nevertheless observe that the growth of international and domestic service competition to TNZL and TCNZ provides some evidence that New Zealand today affords U.S.based resellers the opportunity to obtain interconnection arrangements at rates that permit commercially viable operations, including access to necessary intercity facilities and services. As noted above, TCNZ has concluded interconnection agreements with five carriers for international and domestic toll services, and presently competes with these carriers in both toll markets. TNZL has also submitted information from TCNZ's principal interconnection contract (with Clear), which establishes that rates for interconnection of all" t$0*((" toll traffic to TNZL's local network are approximately 2 cents (U.S.) peak, and 1 cent (U.S.)  Y-offpeak.^% zPb-ԍXxSee TNZL File No. ITC96097 ex parte letter at 1 (filed Nov. 21, 1996). These local interconnection rates are identical for the origination and termination of domestic and international toll traffic. The TCNZClear interconnection agreement also specifies a discounted shorthaul toll rate for calls that originate or terminate in a local calling area outside one of Clear's points of interconnection  zP-to TNZL's local network. The discount is 30 percent off TNZL's applicable retail toll rates. Id. at 2. (#^ We also note that Sprint NZ's toll interconnection rate with TCNZ is  Y-approximately 2.5 cents (U.S.).&| zP-ԍXxSee Sprint Petition to Deny in TNZL File No. ITC96097, at 11 n.8.(#Ƅ We further note that Clear may, without restriction, resell its toll interconnection arrangement with TCNZ and the discounted shorthaul toll service that TCNZ provides to Clear. While MCI contends that TCNZ can offer interconnection at a price that Clear cannot match, Clear's ability to resell its toll access to TNZL's network has the beneficial effect of reducing TCNZ's ability to charge other carriers a higher rate for toll access than it charges Clear. x  Y1-x21. ` ` Most importantly, there is no indication in the record that the interconnection rates TCNZ provides Clear, Sprint NZ, or the rates offered to other international service  Y -competitors are precluding entry.['Z  zP-ԍXxSee TNZL File No. ITC96097 ex parte letter at 2 (filed Nov. 21, 1996). See also TNZL ex parte letter at 3 (filed Nov. 14, 1996) ("There are no restrictions whatsoever on the resale of . . . any . . . telecommunications services" in New Zealand). (#[ We note that TCNZ's toll interconnection rates compare  Y -favorably with rates in the United States for similar services.r(" 0  zP-ԍXxSee Monitoring Report, CC Docket No. 87339, Table 5.11 (May 1996) (noting that on average interstate access charges for originating (sum of columns A, C, and D) and terminating (sum of columns B, C, and D) traffic for the period July 1, 1996 June 30, 1997 are in the 23 cents (U.S.) per minute range). (#r Further, recent developments in New Zealand's telecommunications market suggest that New Zealand's interconnection regime is conducive to entry. In addition to Clear and Sprint, Telstra recently completed  Y -interconnection agreements with TCNZ (and also with Clear), and Telstra has initiated  Y-facilitiesbased service from New Zealand.) zP[-ԍXxSee TNZL File No. ITC96097, TNZL ex parte presentation (dated Oct. 10, 1996).(#Ɩ Our finding that New Zealand satisfies the interconnection factor of our equivalency test is based in significant measure on the availability of favorable toll interconnection rates as well as the actual entry of multiple facilitiesbased international carriers into the New Zealand market, including one (Clear) which has achieved 23 percent market share.  Y-x22.` ` Finally, we note that IPL resellers in New Zealand may, without restriction, interconnect their resold IPLs to the PSN in New Zealand by any lawful means, including through the use of business lines at standard, tariffed rates. IPL resellers that interconnect using business line services are free to do so on either an interim basis pending negotiation of an interconnection agreement (e.g., to obtain trunkside interconnection) or on a permanent" )0*((" basis. According to TNZL, it is both technically and operationally feasible for an IPL reseller in New Zealand to provide international services using resold IPLs that are interconnected to the PSN via business lines. It may be necessary for IPL resellers that operate in this manner to deploy switching and other equipment in order to record their  Y-customers' usage and perform other functions.* zP-ԍXxSee TNZL File No. ITC96097, ex parte letter (filed Dec. 17, 1996). (#ƌ The lack of any restrictions on the use of business lines at standard rates by IPL resellers, also supports a finding that New Zealand satisfies the interconnection factor of our equivalency test.  YH-x23.` ` WeWE are concerned about the ability of similarly situated competing carriers to obtain interconnection on the same basis as TCNZ has provided Clear. We have made TNZL's and TCNZ's prompt provision of reasonable and nondiscriminatory interconnection  Y -for international carriers a specific condition of our facilitiesbased authorization to TNZL.+ Z zP-ԍXxSee Order, Authorization and Certificate, supra note 1 at  23. (#Ɩ If market conditions develop in New Zealand such that interconnected IPL resale is not commercially viable, we will revisit our equivalency determination. x  X -x ` ` 3. Competitive Safeguards x  Yy-x24. ` ` TheTHE third factor that we examine is whether competitive safeguards exist in the foreign country to protect against anticompetitive practices affecting interconnected private line resale. The safeguards we consider important include: (1) the existence of costallocation rules to prevent crosssubsidization; (2) timely and nondiscriminatory disclosure of technical information needed to use, or interconnect with, carriers' facilities; and (3)  Y-protection of carrier and customer proprietary information.p, zP-ԍXxForeign Carrier Entry Order at  51, 136. (#p  Y-x25. ` ` Neither CTS nor AT&T address the adequacy of the competitive safeguards that exist in New Zealand. We note, however, that the Ministry has submitted some information on this issue and that the issue is contested in TNZL's facilitiesbased application proceeding. Thus, we have referenced the Ministry's comments and restated our findings in the TNZL proceeding here.  YN-x26.` ` CrossSubsidization. Improper allocation of costs is of concern to the extent it could allow TNZL to recover costs from subscribers to its local exchange and exchange access services that were incurred by TNZL in providing international services. Such a practice can distort price signals in the New Zealand international services market and may give TNZL an unfair advantage over its competitors. New Zealand does not have specific cost allocation rules to address this concern. It relies instead on competition to restrain prices and on Section 36 of the Commerce Act 1986, which prohibits entities with a" ~,0*((!"  Y-dominant position in a market from using their position to restrict or eliminate competition.P- xPy-ԍXxMinistry Letter at 2. (#P  Y-The Act prohibits exclusionary practices, price fixing, and resale price maintenance..X xP-ԍXxCTS Application at Exhibit A, New Zealand Regulatory Environment for Telecommunications at 23.(#Ƙ The Commerce Act 1986 also provides the Commerce Commission with the ability to initiate a  Y-price control inquiry or, if circumstances warrant, to impose price controls directly.q/ zPT-ԍXxSee Media Release at 2, supra note 34.(#q The  Y-Ministry considers TCNZ and TNZL to be dominant and therefore subject to these rules.Q0z xP -ԍXxMinistry Letter at 12. (#Q  Yv-x27.` ` Although generally we believe cost allocation rules are important, we do not find the absence of such rules to preclude an equivalency finding in this case. First, the record suggests the Government has the ability and the apparent intent to monitor and enforce its procompetitive policies. Second, the Government's "Kiwi Share" in TCNZ ensures that standard residential rates for phone line rentals do not increase faster than movements in the Consumer Price Index, unless the profits of TCNZ are unreasonably  Y -impaired.Q1  zP-ԍXxSee infra note 66.(#Q This service pledge provides some protection against the potential for TCNZ improperly to shift international service costs to local customers. Third, with respect to potential misallocation of costs to TNZL's toll service competitors, who purchase exchange access, and in some cases, domestic toll services from TCNZ or TNZL, the record supports a finding that U.S. carriers today have the opportunity to obtain interconnection to TNZL's domestic facilities at reasonable rates. Finally, no party has argued that TNZL's private line  Yb-rates are unreasonable. F acilitiesbased competition in the international and intercity markets, and the absence of resale restrictions in New Zealand, should help ensure that rates for international private lines and intercity services remain reasonable. While it has been our experience that cost allocation rules are a necessary safeguard for the development of an effectively competitive market in countries where one carrier is dominant, competition has developed in the context of New Zealand market conditions without such rules. We conclude on the basis of these findings that the absence of cost allocation rules does not preclude an equivalency finding for New Zealand. We note that we have made TCNZ's and ! qor TNZL's prompt provision of reasonable and nondiscriminatory interconnection for international carriers a specific condition of TNZL's facilitiesbased authorization. We also will revisit this equivalency finding if market conditions develop such that interconnected IPL resale is not commercially viable.  Y7-x28.` ` Disclosure of Network Information. The record suggests that carriers are receiving the technical network information necessary to interconnect with TNZL through their interconnection agreements. The publication of TCNZ's interconnection agreements provides at least some technical information needed to use or interconnect with TNZL's" 10*((+ "  Y-facilities.52Z zPy-ԍXxSee TNZL File No. ITC96097, TNZL Opposition at 15. We note that Clear has achieved a significant share of New Zealand's international and domestic toll markets, which suggests that Clear has obtained sufficient information to interconnect. (#5 Furthermore, no party has offered specific evidence that any carrier has been denied the technical information needed to operate a telecommunications network service in New Zealand. The record indicates that withholding essential technical information by TCNZ or TNZL also is actionable under the Commerce Act as anticompetitive conduct.  Y-x29.` ` CPNI Safeguards. With regard to carrier and customer proprietary information, there is no information in the record suggesting that TNZL cannot use the customer proprietary network information ("CPNI") of TNZL's local service customers to  YH-market international services.3H xP -ԍXxThe Commission currently is considering the extent to which new Section 222 of the Act permits a telecommunications carrier in the United States to use CPNI received by virtue of its provision of a  zPs-telecommunications service. See Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Telecommunications Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary Network Information and Other Customer  zP-Information, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 96115, 11 FCC Rcd 12513 (1996). The Commission's rules do not at this time specify particular CPNI requirements for local exchange carriers  xP-("LECs") other than the Bell Operating Companies ("BOCs") and the General Telephone Operating Companies (GTE). The new Section 222 requirements regarding telecommunications carriers' use of CPNI apply to, among other telecommunications carriers, all LECs including the BOCs and GTE. The BOCs are prohibited from providing "inregion" interstate, interLATA services except upon a Commission finding that they have met the requirements of new Section 271 of the Act. (#ơ However, it appears that TCNZ and TNZL have affirmative obligations under New Zealand law and individual interconnection agreements to protect  Y -carrier and customer proprietary information.4 N  zP-ԍXxSee TNZL File No. ITC 96097, Opposition at 15. See also Ministry Letter at 8. (#Ɵ While the adequacy of the safeguards protecting proprietary information in the New Zealand market is not contested in this proceeding, the Ministry has informed us that New Zealand carriers are currently finalizing a privacy code that will, among other things, protect customer information held by one entity  Y -from being sold to another entity for marketing purposes without the customer's permission.N5  xPO-ԍXxMinistry Letter at 9.(#N Our expectation is that specific safeguards in this area will be developed, as necessary, initially by the carriers themselves. We also find no basis to question TNZL's claim, in connection with its facilitiesbased application, that TCNZ's interconnection agreements safeguard proprietary information.  Y4-x30.` ` InIN sum, given the extent of competition in the New Zealand facilitiesbased market and the availability of favorable interconnection rates, New Zealand's general competition laws and regulations appear to be providing sufficient protection against anticompetitive practices, including crosssubsidization and the unauthorized disclosure of proprietary information. Also, New Zealand regulatory institutions have sufficient authority to intervene (as explained in the next section) to protect competition. Further, the record" p50*((" suggests that TCNZ provides carriers with the technical information necessary to interconnect, and that its interconnection agreements protect against the unauthorized disclosure of proprietary information. The number of international operators that have entered into interconnection agreements with TCNZ and that are operating in New Zealand today suggests that the New Zealand regulatory environment, including its competitive safeguards, is conducive to competitive entry by U.S. carriers. x  X_-x` ` 4 . Regulatory Framework  Y1-x31.` ` TheTHE fourth factor of the equivalency 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.p6  zP| -ԍXxForeign Carrier Entry Order at  54, 136. (#p Our focus is whether there is sufficient separation between the regulator and the operator of international facilitiesbased services, and whether there are fair and transparent regulatory procedures in New Zealand. x  Y-x32. ` ` AT&T contends that the absence of a regulator empowered to resolve disputes prevents New Zealand from being an equivalent country. According to AT&T, the lack of a regulator has stymied competition in New Zealand and has been a principal factor in the four year interconnection dispute between TCNZ and Clear. AT&T also cites to an article which  Y4-states that TCNZ has become the de facto regulator simply because of its overall market dominance and ownership of the major part of the country's telecommunications network  Y-infrastructure.]7Z xP-ԍXxAT&T Petition to Deny at 2, 6, 8, 9.(#]  Y-x 33.` ` CTS claims that the competitiveness of the New Zealand market should be judged by results, not organizational structure. According to CTS, New Zealand's approach of nonintrusive government regulation and promotion of competition is consistent with the  Y-current deregulatory trend in the United States. CTS states that New Zealand's highest level of government promotes competition. CTS points to efforts by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Communications to settle the TCNZClear dispute, although CTS asserts the  YP-dispute is irrelevant because it relates to local exchange service.8P xP -ԍXxCTS Application at 89, 8 n.16; CTS Opposition to Petition to Deny at 68. (#Ƅ  Y"-x!34.` ` AT&T acknowledges that TCNZ and Clear have settled their dispute, and that the dispute centered on access for the provision of local exchange service. It contends, however, that the delay attests to the problems that occur when a new entrant must rely on the good will of its primary competitor who has a vested interest in delaying competitive entry and protracted court appeals as a surrogate for an independent, impartial and" z80*((!"  Y-engaged regulator.^9 xPy-ԍXxAT&T Reply to Opposition at 2 & n.2. (#^ AT&T claims that the TCNZClear agreement was reached only when the government was ready to abandon the "lighthanded approach" and instead, threatened  Y-direct regulatory intervention.I:X zP-ԍXxId. at 4. (#I x  Y-x"35. ` ` Although we have concerns about the effectiveness of the New Zealand regulatory regime, we nevertheless conclude that on balance there is sufficient regulatory oversight to protect and promote competition in the New Zealand telecommunications market. As an initial matter, we note that the Commission's equivalency test does not require a regulatory regime exactly patterned on that which exists in the United States. While New Zealand does not have an industryspecific regulator for telecommunications, three institutions oversee the industry: the Commerce Commission, the Ministry of Commerce, and the courts. The Commerce Commission, an independent statutory body, is responsible for the public enforcement of the Commerce Act 1986 (as amended by the  Y -Commerce Amendment Act 1990).O;  xPp-ԍXxMinistry Letter at 3. (#O The Commerce Act is the general law of competition in New Zealand and is the primary statutory instrument to establish conditions of effective  Y -competition in the telecommunications sector.< z zP-ԍXxId.  See supra 17. See also New Zealand Regulatory Environment for Telecommunications at 23. New Zealand chose not to establish a regulatory body with enforcement power over the telecommunications industry, as it considered that general competition law can control the specific competition issues which might arise. Honorable Maurice Williamson, Minister of Communications on Recent Developments in New Zealand Communications Industries (1994). (# The Commerce Commission investigates possible breaches of the Act, takes legal action as appropriate, and makes recommendations  Yy-to the Government on competition and price control issues.O=y,  xPV-ԍXxMinistry Letter at 3. (#O The Communications Division  Yb-of the Ministry administers the Telecommunications Act and various regulations,>b  xP-ԍXxDespite New Zealand's reliance on general competition law, it has passed some industryspecific laws  zP-and regulations. See supra  17.(# as well as  YK-provides policy advice to the New Zealand Government.u? K xP!-ԍXxCTS Application at 45. The Communications Division is headed by a Minister of Communications, who reports directly to Parliament. Memorandum from Graeme Quigley & Bridget Fahy to Robert Conn, appended to Letter from Robert Conn, Attorney for CTS, to Scott B. Harris, Chief, International Bureau (Dec. 11, 1993). (#u Finally, the court system  Y4-adjudicates disputes dealing with anticompetitive behavior.^@X4 xP%-ԍXxThe final recourse for the resolution of disputes is through the court system under Section 36 of the Commerce Act 1986. In June 1996, the Government reviewed its regulatory environment and decided to continue with the present regulatory regime based on the Commerce Act. The Government also"s'?0*(('" stated that officials will continue to monitor developments closely and continue to evaluate any potential  zPX-means of improving on the present regime. See Media Release supra note 34. (#^"4"@0*(()"Ԍx  Y-x#36. ` ` We recognize that reliance on private negotiations and the courts may be problematic, as the courts may not have the expertise to make accurate, predictable, efficient declarations consistently. However, parties may request intervention from the Ministry and from the Commerce Commission before going to the courts. Further, the New Zealand government has demonstrated its willingness to intervene in disputes between competing  Yv-carriers.QAv" zPI -ԍXxSee supra note 34.(#Q Thus, there are alternative complaint procedures. While we believe competition would be better assured if the Ministry took a more active regulatory approach, we conclude there is adequate regulatory oversight in New Zealand, particularly when considered in combination with the expanding list of competitors and their ability to capture market share in the New Zealand international telecommunications market.  Y -x$37. ` ` Further, we note that the New Zealand regulatory regime is legally distinct from TCNZ and TNZL, and the record indicates that it operates impartially. In this regard, the Kiwi Share the New Zealand government's specialized interest in TCNZ does not present concerns to us regarding the government's independence. The Kiwi Share grants the government special voting rights to control the maximum shareholding of any single foreign  Yy-party in TCNZ, and to ensure TCNZ's compliance with certain residential service pledges.B y zP-ԍXxCTS Application at 6 (citing New Zealand Regulatory Environment for Telecommunications at 6); Aff. of Geoffrey Richard McCormick at  4, in Letter from Robert E. Conn, Attorney for CTS, to Scott B. Harris, Chief, International Bureau (Jan. 11, 1996). The residential service pledges require that: (1) local free calling remain a tariff option to residential customers; (2) standard residential rental for a phone line may not increase faster than movements in the Consumer Price Index unless the profit of TCNZ is unreasonably impaired; and (3) phone line rentals for residential customers in rural areas may not be higher than in the cities, and the residential service must remain as widely available as it is at present. New Zealand Regulatory Environment for Telecommunications at 56; Ministry Letter at 13.  zP -See also supra note 25,  27. (#ƿ The New Zealand government does not receive the financial benefits normally accruing to equity ownership as a result of the Kiwi Share, nor does TCNZ possess any special influence in relation to New Zealand regulatory and policy matters due to the Kiwi Share. Finally, as detailed previously, the record indicates that sufficient regulatory transparency exists in New Zealand to allow competitors to know what mechanisms exist to redress perceived violations  Y-of the law by TCNZ or TNZL.uC  zP(#-ԍXxSee supra  1718, 2829, & 3536. (#u Xx(#  Y-x%38. ` ` InININ IN  summary, we find that New Zealand offers equivalent opportunities to U.S.based carriers to resell IPLs for the provision of switched services. If in the future we are presented with evidence that legal or regulatory conditions in New Zealand are frustrating the commercial viability of resale by U.S.based carriers in that country, we will review this"|C0*((m" equivalency finding. Thus, our finding is subject to New Zealand continuing to offer equivalent resale opportunities to U.S.based carriers.  Y- x B . Additional Public Interest Factors  Y-x&39. ` ` TheTHE additional public interest factors that we consider in assessing CTS's application 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,  YI-foreign policy, and trade concerns raised by the Executive Branch.oDI zP -ԍXxForeign Carrier Entry Order at  62, 66. (#o x  Y -x'40. ` ` TheTHETHE Executive Branch has not raised any national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, or trade concerns with this application. We believe that this authorization will benefit U.S. consumers calling New Zealand by increasing competition to that country. Moreover, it will put additional pressure on New Zealand collection rates, thereby stimulating inbound U.S. traffic from this country, and ultimately put additional pressure on New Zealand accounting rates. We accordingly find it in the public interest to permit CTS to enter the IPL resale market for the provision of switched services on the U.S.New Zealand route. x  XL- xC. Other Matters  Y-x(41. ` ` ByBY adding New Zealand to the Commission's list of equivalent countries, authorized U.S. private line resellers may now carry U.S. inbound or outbound switched traffic via private lines extending between the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden  Y-and New Zealand.E Z zP-ԍXxSee Cable & Wireless, Inc., et al., 11 FCC Rcd 1766 at  36 ("We reiterate here the Commission's general view that the international resale policy is not undermined by the routing of switched traffic via endtoend private lines extending from the United States through one equivalent country to a third equivalent country.") and at  36 n.64 (noting that the Commission has made an exception to this approach in the case of Canada because of Canada's unique routing restrictions). We note that our rules automatically expand the Section 214 authority of carriers authorized to resell interconnected private lines to include all countries at the time they are designated equivalent. This rule is subject to one exception: if the carrier is affiliated with a facilitiesbased foreign carrier in the equivalent country, we must have already made a determination that the affiliated foreign carrier does not possess market power in that country before the carrier can resell interconnected private lines to its affiliated,  zP!-equivalent country. See Streamlining the International Section 214 Authorization Process and Tariff  zP"-Requirements, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 12884 (1996). The rules also permit an authorized U.S. facilitiesbased IPL carrier to use private lines to provide switched basic services to equivalent countries except in circumstances where the applicant is affiliated with a facilitiesbased carrier in the country at the foreign end of the private line, and the Commission has not determined that the foreign  xP%-carrier does not possess market power in that market. 47 C.F.R.  63.18(e)(4). (# Pursuant to Section 63.17 of the rules, our equivalency finding also permits authorized U.S. carriers to engage in "switched hubbing" through New Zealand in"E0*(("  Y-accordance with the provisions of that rule.F zPy-ԍXx47 C.F.R.  63.17. See also Foreign Carrier Entry Order at  16970. (#ƕ  Y-  Y-x)42. ` ` In order to assist us in monitoring for unanticipated consequences of our action here, for the first three years following our equivalency finding, we require that CTS and any other nondominant IPL resellers providing switched or interconnected IPL services between the United States and New Zealand file with the Commission semiannual traffic reports for that route. This report should be in the same form as the annual reporting of  Y_-"facilities resale" in the annual traffic reports specified in Section 43.61.kG_Z zPj -ԍXxSee 47 C.F.R.  43.61 (1994).(#k The Commission has previously imposed this requirement to provide a timely means of ensuring that its  Y1-international resale policy is having its intended effect.IH1 zP -ԍXxSee ACC Global/Alanna Order, 9 FCC Rcd 6240 at  51; fONOROLA Reconsideration Order, 9 FCC  zP-Rcd 4066 at  20; Cable & Wireless Inc., et al., 11 FCC Rcd 1766 at  34, 35. #Xw PE37=!XP#(#I Each such reseller shall file a semiannual traffic report with the Commission not later than September 30, for the prior January through June period (starting with the January through June 1997 reporting period) and not later than March 31 for the second sixmonth calendar period. After three years, the carriers  Y -will file annual traffic reports pursuant to Section 43.61 of the Commission's Rules.WI H xP-ԍXx47 C.F.R.  43.61 (1994). (#W The current traffic manual specifically requires that carriers engaged in "facilities resale," i.e., private line resellers, report U.S. outbound and inbound traffic originating or terminating over resold U.S. private lines. Private line resellers are required to report their outbound and inbound traffic according to the ultimate point of termination or origination.  YK-x*43. ` ` We find this reporting requirement sufficient to address AT&T's allegation that private line resellers could only provide oneway international resale into the United  Y-States.TJ xP-ԍxAT&T Petition to Deny at 7. T We recognize that these additional traffic reports may not detect subtle shifts in traffic patterns (or unauthorized bypass of the settlements process). They will assist our efforts, however, to monitor whether our international resale policy is resulting exclusively in oneway resale into the United States.  Y-x+44. AsASAS AS  a final matter, we conclude that CTS merits regulation as a nondominant  Y-carrier on the U.S. New Zealand route for the services authorized in this order.Kh  zP#-ԍXxSee Section 63.10(a) of the rules, 47 C.F.R.  63.10(a) (regulatory classification of U.S. international carriers with foreign carrier affiliates).(# CTS states that it is affiliated with WorldxChange, a registered international operator in New"| K0*(("  Y-Zealand.PL zPy-ԍXxSee supra note 3.(#P We find no evidence in the record, or the TNZL facilitiesbased proceeding, however, that suggests WorldxChange, a new competitor in New Zealand, has the ability to discriminate in favor of CTS.  Y-   IV. CONCLUSION x  Yw-x,45.` ` WeWE grant CTS's application because we find that New Zealand offers equivalent private line resale opportunities to U.S.based carriers for the provision of switched services. We believe that the interconnected IPL service between the United States and New Zealand will promote the introduction of new international telecommunications services at lower prices, including more costbased accounting rates. It also will promote new entry into the international telecommunications market and advance the goal of achieving a competitive global information infrastructure.  Y -N V. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  Y-x-46.` ` Upon UPON  consideration of the application and in view of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the present and future public convenience and necessity require the provision of resale of international private lines for the provision of switched services between the United States and New Zealand.  Y-x.47.` ` Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that application File No. ITC95444 IS GRANTED, and applicant is authorized to resell international private lines for the provision of switched services between the United States and New Zealand including voice, data, and facsimile. x  Y-x/48.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the authority granted herein to resell international private lines for the provision of switched services between the United States and New Zealand is limited to the provision of such services between the United States and New Zealand only that is, private lines which carry traffic that originates in the United States, and terminates in New Zealand, or traffic that originates in New Zealand and terminates in the United States. This restriction is subject to the following exceptions: (a) applicant may engage in "switched hubbing" through New Zealand consistent with the rules  Y -adopted in the Foreign Carrier Entry Order, 11 FCC Rcd 3873 at paras. 16970 (1995); and (b) applicant may provide U.S. inbound or outbound switched basic service over its authorized private lines extending between the United States and the United Kingdom, Sweden and New Zealand provided the applicant also is authorized to provide switched basic service using resold private lines between the United States and these countries. ""ZL0*((#"  Y-x049.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that applicant shall comply with Sections 63.21 and 63.15(b) of the rules, except that applicant shall also file the information required by Section 43.61 for "facilities resale" on the U.S.New Zealand route on a semiannual basis, not later than September 30 for the prior January through June period and March 31 for the second sixmonth calendar period, for the first three calendar years after this equivalency finding.  Y_-x150.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that grant of this authorization is conditioned upon New Zealand's continuing to afford resale opportunities to U.S.based carriers equivalent to those afforded under U.S. law.  Y -x251.` ` This THIS  Order is issued under Section 0.261 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.261 (1994), and is effective upon adoption. Petitions for reconsideration under Section 1.106, 47 C.F.R.  1.106 (1994), or applications for review under Section 1.115 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.115 (1994), may be filed within thirty days of the  Y -Public Notice of this Memorandum Opinion, Order and Certificate (see 47 C.F.R.  1.4(b)(2)). x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x x` `  hhDonald H. Gips x` `  hhChief, International Bureau