WPC? 2MBERKZ3|j X-#Xj\  P6G;9XP#"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN! 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 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2#p!!"L#a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2%'$$$l%3%a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg2,W'e[++@,PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:;>Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g8&)*   Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g94+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g:&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g;&/0  . 2#N<v V?=oK>;L?iLMACNormal<;     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=Íčfootnote tex#>'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#header?Ax 4 <D  #FxX  Pg9CXP# 2-S@UNA~NBifPC^Qreference@;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1A&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2BI ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# heading 3CF` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# 2VDO_SE TFUGr|Vfooter!D!!#d\  PCP#CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileEW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded DocumentFiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#a2AgendaG2vYH WIrWJ$XKXa1AgendaAgenda ItemsH7D yP ) I. a3AgendaIHeadingChapter HeadingJJ d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK>a݅@  I.   X(# 2O\LYMd>ZNZO[SubheadingSubheadingL0\ E A.  HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and BoldldeddM+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and DateN X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style offO@@    2EaP1\Q1]R1^S1`LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5P 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5Qf 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11RL 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14S 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   24cTnwaUaVdfbWjbTITLETitle of a DocumentTK\ * ăBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedUN X HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold LargeVB*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and UnderscoredW V -q2/iXfcYEeZ-f[8gLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/marginsXu 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 InvoiceY ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatZD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice[:A ,p, $0$002l\8ai]j^X:l_[lINVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macro\z 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice]+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle^SMALLSmall Typestyle_2n`[ma[zmb[mc[0nFINEFine Typestyle`LARGELarge TypestyleaEXTRA LARGEExtra Large TypestylebVERY LARGEVery Large Typestylec2qdneX@pfpg8qENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Headerd+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   1edfStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Marginsf$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5g$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO 2}yh rilvjUxkxStyle 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIhJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabsi )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsjDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Fontk4h )a [ PfQO  dddn 2 |l|ym+znzok{Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5l$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Pointm$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5n$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Pointo$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO 2fp=|qDrKsPStyle 10oInitial Codes for Advancedp 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 Beginninggqi )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 Intermediater )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 Modules )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 2KZ="i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""_X {Oh -ԍ Id. at  3. >  X1-4. ` ` On August 8, 1995, RSI filed a Section 214 application to resell the space segment to DISA for private network voice and data communications, not interconnected to the public switched network. RSI asserted that granting the Section 214 application would meet a public need by permitting RSI to support the federal government's national securityrelated CSCI program at DISA. RSI stated it would observe strictly the Commission's  X -structural separation regulations between CWS and its corporate affiliates.=  {OY-ԍ Id. at  5.=  X-5. ` ` AT&T and PanAmSat opposed RSI's Section 214 application. AT&T argued that granting RSI's application would be inconsistent with the public interest because COMSAT's pricing scheme was anticompetitive and predatory. AT&T also argued that grant of the application would violate the structural separation requirements applicable to  X4-COMSAT.D4| {Oa-ԍ Id. at  810.D PanAmSat urged the Commission to deny, or, at a minimum, defer RSI's application until the Commission had investigated CWS' tariff filing and determined whether  X-it violated Section 202 by offering belowcost and predatory rates.E {O-ԍ Id. at  1113.E  X-6. ` ` On October 1, 1995, the Tariff (now Competitive Pricing) Division of the Common Carrier Bureau concluded that the parties did not present "compelling arguments" that the tariff rates were "patently unlawful" so as to require rejection or investigation, and  X-allowed the tariff to become effective.= {O"-ԍ Id. at  4.=  Xe-7. ` ` On October 17, 1995, the Bureau issued an order granting RSI's application. The Bureau concluded that PanAmSat's argument that CWS' tariff violated Section 202 was moot because the Tariff (now Competitive Pricing ) Division had concluded that the tariff was not "unlawful" and permitted the tariff to become effective. Next, the Bureau determined that" 2 0*((" granting RSI's application would not be anticompetitive, because CWS' tariffed rates would have been available to any bidder (not just RSI) who won the contract from DISA. The  X-Bureau also noted that RSI's competitors could offer similarly priced space segment services, using COMSAT, competing satellite systems, or new facilities. Finally, the Bureau rejected AT&T's claim that COMSAT and RSI violated the Commission's structural separation requirements. Accordingly, the Bureau decided that granting RSI's Section 214 application would serve the public interest by providing DoD with additional capacity to meet its growing  X_-needs for satellite services.A_ {O-ԍ Id. at  1823.A  XH-  X1-x8. ` ` On November 20, 1995, AT&T and PanAmSat filed applications for review. 1Z yO< - AT&T Application for Review, File No. ITC95457 (filed November 20, 1995) ("AT&T application"); PanAmSat Application for Review, File No. ITC95457 (filed November 20, 1995) ("PanAmSat application"). AT&T argues that the Bureau did not address its claim that COMSAT violated the Commission's structural safeguards by permitting "ratefunded COMSAT World personnel" to  X -assist in RSI's bid to obtain the contract from DoD.8  {OO-ԍ Id. at 9.8 PanAmSat argues that the Bureau erred  X -as a matter of law in declaring as moot its claim that CWS' tariff violates Section 202.C D yO-ԍ PanAmSat application at 3.C RSI  X -filed an opposition to AT&T's and PanAmSat's applications,y  yOC-ԍ RSI Opposition, File No. ITC95457 (filed December 5, 1995) ("RSI opposition").y and AT&T and PanAmSat  X -filed replies.  d  yO-ԍ AT&T Reply, File No. ITC95457 (filed December 15, 1995) ("AT&T reply"); PanAmSat Reply, File No. ITC95457 (filed December 15, 1995) ("PanAmSat reply").  Xy-x9. ` ` PanAmSat also filed a Section 208 complaint on February 21, 1996, alleging that CWS' tariff offerings violate Sections 201 and 202 of the Communications Act of 1934,  XK-as amended.K  {O-ԍ PanAmSat Corporation v. COMSAT Corporation COMSAT World Systems, 12 FCC Rcd 6952 (1997) ("PanAmSat order"). On May 20, 1997, in the PanAmSat Order, we denied PanAmSat's complaint  X4-that CWS' tariff violated Sections 201 and 202.F4 {O!-ԍ Id. at  22, 36.F We concluded that PanAmSat had failed to establish the essential elements of a predatory pricing charge: that CWS' tariffed rates were below its average variable cost and there is a substantial prospect that CWS would be able to  X-recoup its losses from profits earned later through its predatory scheme.> {OH&-ԍ Id. at  22.> We also concluded  X-":0*((&"Ԍthat CWS did not violate Section 202 by making its tariff available only to the federal  X-government.> {Ob-ԍ Id. at  36.> x /DISCUSSION  X-  X-x 10. ` ` Structural separation. AT&T argues that the Bureau should have investigated whether RSI violated the Commission's structural separation requirements for COMSAT by using ratepayerfunded personnel from CWS (hereafter "jurisdictional personnel") to bid and  XH-perform the CSCI contract.?HZ yOS -ԍ AT&T application at 9.? To support its claim that an investigation is warranted, AT&T asserts that RSI was a former antenna manufacturing company that could not have had the  X -expertise inhouse to win the contract without receiving technical assistance from CWS'  X -jurisdictional personnel.:  {O-ԍ Id. at 57.: AT&T notes that DISA's request for proposals specified that bids would be evaluated, among other factors, on the bidder's prior experience with contracts of  X -comparable size and complexity and RSI had no such prior experience.: | {O-ԍ Id. at 57.: AT&T concludes, accordingly, that RSI "necessarily must have relied on experience, personnel and facilities that had been shuffled between and among various COMSAT affiliates" in violation of the  X-structural separation rules.8 {OO-ԍ Id. at 6.8 AT&T also points out that RSI, in its pleadings, did not specifically deny that it had used jurisdictional personnel in bidding on the contract or  Xb-performing the contract after it was awarded.8b {O-ԍ Id. at 7.8  X4-x 11. ` ` On March 24, 1997, the Bureau's Telecommunications Division requested RSI to state whether CWS jurisdictional personnel had bid or performed the CSCI contract, and, if  X-any individuals had done so, to identify them.2  {O-ԍ See Letter from Diane Cornell, Chief, Telecommunications Division, International Bureau, to Harold Siegel, VicePresident Legal Affairs, COMSAT RSI, dated March 24, 1997. In response, RSI flatly states that it "did not use any employees of COMSAT's ratepayerfunded operations to prepare its bid for the CSCI  X-Contract [.]" or "perform the CSCI Contract."  {O$-ԍ See Letter from Harold Siegel, VicePresident Legal Affairs, COMSAT RSI, to Diane Cornell, Chief, Telecommunications Division, International Bureau, dated April 11, 1997, ("RSI letter") at 1,2. RSI also states that while its bids included the resumes of three individuals who had previously worked for COMSAT's ratepayerfunded"0*(("  X-operations, none of the three had done so since 1988.9 yOy-ԍ RSI letter at 2.9 RSI further notes that no COMSAT employees from its ratepayerfunded operations were transferred to RSI at the time RSI was formed in 1994, and none of the 10 employees transferred from COMSAT's ratepayerfunded  X-operations to RSI since 1994 "had any role in bidding on, or performing, the CSCI  X-Contract.":X {O-ԍ Id. at 2. :  Xv-x 12. ` ` In light of RSI's response to the Bureau's inquiry, and the lack of any contrary  X_-evidence,_ yO -ԍAT&T was given a copy of RSI's response, but has not responded further on this matter.  we are satisfied that COMSAT did not violate its structural separation rules by permitting any CWS jurisdictional employees to bid or perform the CSCI contract for RSI.  X1-  X -x 13. ` ` Mootness. PanAmSat urges us to rescind the Bureau's order granting Section 214 authority to RSI because the Bureau had not ruled on the merits of its allegation that  X -CWS' tariff to provide service to DISA was unlawful.C z yO-ԍ PanAmSat application at 3.C PanAmSat argues that the Bureau erred in finding that this was a moot issue, because the Tariff Division's decision to permit the tariff to go into effect "in no way reflects a final decision on the merits of PanAmSat's  X -challenge to the [CWS] tariff."=  yOb-ԍ PanAmSat reply at 1.=  Xy-x 14. ` ` As we stated in our order on PanAmSat's Section 208 complaint, even if a tariff is permitted to go into effect because it is not "patently unlawful" under Section 203, a complaining party is not precluded from asserting in a Section 208 action that the tariff is  X4-predatory and discriminatory.C4 yO-ԍ PanAmSat order at  21.C Because we have decided the merits of PanAmSat's Section 208 complaint in the intervening time since the Bureau's order, we find that PanAmSat's claim is now moot. h,CONCLUSION  X-x15. ` ` For the foregoing reasons, we deny the applications for review by AT&T and PanAmSat which urge us to rescind the International Bureau's order granting RSI's Section 214 application. "e* 0*((1" x ORDERING CLAUSES  X-x16. ` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.115(g) of our rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.115(g), the abovecaptioned applications for review are DENIED. x x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhWilliam F. Caton x` `  hhActing Secretary