1E9Ct5D

244C H A P T E R X I Vers from their lands to the city. Other examples are, to mention just a few, the State controlof telecommunications, of a large portion of secondary and basic petrochemicals, ofthe banks, etc.—sectors that today, fortunately, are in the private sector (except in partbasic petrochemicals).Also included on the list of economic agents of the LFCE are “charters,” “trusts,” andfinally “any other form of participation in economic activity.” Charters have clearly beenincluded to prevent their members from using them to set prices for services, which happensfrequently all over the world.In compliance with the commitments made in Chapter XV of NAFTA, the LFCE alludesto the limitation of State monopolies. It states that “the functions that the State exercisesexclusively in strategic areas [...] do not constitute monopolies.” The strategic areasare those considered by Article 28 of the Constitution as areas in which only the Statecan be involved. Through a process taking place in Mexico over the last 15 years, especiallysince 1989, the Mexican State has abandoned areas in which it previously actedexclusively and that it now has handed over to the private sector, such as satellite communications,telecommunications, railways, and large sectors of the petrochemical andtelephone industries.However, the limitation of the presence of the State in strategic areas, and especiallyin those that are vital for the economy, continues to be a challenge. The continued presenceof the State in certain vital economic areas and its exercise of monopolistic activitiesin those areas also have affected non-strategic areas and can result in the distortionof markets. In recognition of this, early on the CFC limited the activities of the State oilcompany, Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX), by a ruling in which it clearly defined the extensionof the “strategic area” in the sale of gasoline. This question of the demarcation ofstrategic areas for purposes of competition has appeared with regularity. A similar phenomenonhas also occurred with the state governments that have become accustomedto federal government interference in the market and which the CFC has had to eliminate.5 Given present conditions, it should become more and more difficult for such attitudesto exist in the federal government or in the state governments.Having given a general description of questions regarding the scope and applicationof the LFCE, the regulation of monopolistic practices is explained below.3. Monopolistic PracticesAs mentioned, there are two types of monopolistic practices: absolute monopolisticpractices (per se) and relative monopolistic practices (rule of reason).__________5Examples include, among others, practices that were denounced before the CFC or that the latter has investigatedin representation of the states of Sinaloa, Oaxaca, or Chihuahua.