NOTICE ********************************************************* NOTICE ********************************************************* This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect. If the original document contained-- * Footnotes * Boldface & Italics --this information is missing in this version The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) is changed too. If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect version. For information about downloading documents (FTP) see file how2ftp. File how2ftp (.txt & .wp) is in directory /pub/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/ ***************************************************************** ******** $//TRANSMITTED FOR FCC RECORD ONLY//$ $//R&O, Streamlining 214 Authorization Process, FCC 96-79//$ $/47 C.F.R.  1.767 Cable Landing Licenses/$ $/47 C.F.R. 61 Tariffs/$ Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC-96-79 Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Streamlining the International ) IB Docket No. 95-118 Section 214 Authorization Process and ) Tariff Requirements ) REPORT AND ORDER Adopted: February 29, 1996 Released: March 13, 1996 By the Commission: TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph Numbers I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-2 II. STREAMLINING INTERNATIONAL SECTION 214 AUTHORIZATIONS. . 3-62 1. Facilities-based carriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20 2. Resellers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21-27 3. Resale of private lines for switched services . . . . . .28-35 4. Non-common carrier satellite and cable systems. . . . . .36-39 5. Conveyance of cable capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40-45 6. Discontinuances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46-50 7. Cable landing license applications. . . . . . . . . . . .51-56 8. Contents of international Section 214 applications. . . .57-60 9. Conditions of international Section 214 authorizations. .61-63 III. PETITIONS TO DENY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64-70 IV. FORM OF INTERNATIONAL SECTION 214 APPLICATIONS . . . . .71-76 V. TARIFFING REQUIREMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77-84 VI. FORBEARANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85-86 VII. MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87-95 1. Growth-based accounting rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87-90 2. Correspondent Agreements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91-92 3. "Fresh-look" for long-term service arrangements . . . . .93-95 VIII. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 IX. PROCEDURAL MATTERS; ORDERING CLAUSES . . . . . . . . . 97-101 APPENDIX A - Final Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B - Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis . . . . . . . I. INTRODUCTION 1. On July 17, 1995, we proposed to streamline the international Section 214 authorization process and related regulatory procedures for international carriers. Many proposals contained in the Notice were developed from recommendations made by the public and by industry representatives at roundtable discussions with the International Bureau. This Order adopts the recommendations proposed in the Notice subject to modifications discussed below. Implementation of these proposals will benefit U.S. consumers because they eliminate unnecessary regulatory delay and enhance the competitiveness of U.S. service providers in the world market. 2. The new regulations adopted by this Order will facilitate entrance into the international telecommunications market and expansion of international services. Under the new rules, we will: (1) issue global international Section 214 authorizations to facilities-based carriers for the provision of international services, (2) reduce paperwork obligations, (3) streamline our tariff requirements on non-dominant international carriers, and (4) ensure that essential information is readily available to all carriers and users. Implementation of these proposals will significantly improve processing and operational efficiencies. Moreover, these streamlining proposals further our mandate under the recent Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Telecom Act") to eliminate unnecessary government regulation of the telecommunications industry. In the near future, we will be considering what further deregulatory steps we can take with our new authority to further reduce or eliminate unnecessary regulations and thereby increase competition in the marketplace. We invite the public to suggest more areas in which we may minimize or forbear from existing regulation. II. STREAMLINING INTERNATIONAL SECTION 214 AUTHORIZATIONS 1. Facilities-based carriers (a) The Notice 3. In our Notice, we proposed to amend Sections 63.01 and 63.15 of our Rules to enable U.S. facilities-based carriers regulated as non-dominant to obtain a global, rather than a country-specific, Section 214 authorization. Global authorizations would exclude certain countries that are specified in a Commission published "exclusion" list. This exclusion list may change from time to time as circumstances dictate. We proposed to grant broad authority for carriers to use half-circuits on all previously and subsequently authorized U.S. common carrier and non-common carrier facilities and any necessary foreign connecting facilities. We proposed to make applications for this type of authority eligible in most instances for our streamlined processing procedures. We also proposed to amend Section 63.05 of our Rules to remove the requirement that international common carriers commence operations within a specified period of time from the Section 214 authorization date. 4. We are mindful of our statutory obligations under the Communications Act of 1934 to guard against abuses of market power in situations where effective competition does not yet exist. We meet these obligations through our Section 214 authorization process and apply dominant carrier and other safeguards where circumstances warrant. In addition, we stated that the rules proposed in the Notice, which eliminate many filing and prior authorization requirements, should be read in conjunction with the Circuit Status Order. Pursuant to the rules adopted in the Circuit Status Order, the Commission will continue to collect and make public information from carriers identifying the countries that international carriers actually are serving through circuit status and addition reports. This information aids us in our efforts to foster a more open and competitive international telecommunications market. (b) Positions of the Parties 5. Support for a global Section 214 authorization was very favorable. Some commenters propose a few modifications to the mechanics of its application. Several commenters urge us to require specific Section 214 applications from a carrier affiliated with a foreign carrier that has market power in its home country when the applicant intends to provide service between the United States and that country. They also suggest that the unopposed applications of U.S. carriers with foreign affiliates that do not possess market power be granted automatically under the proposed streamlined processing procedures. 6. AT&T requests that we grant global Section 214 authority to all U.S.-based carriers without foreign affiliations, whether or not they are regulated as dominant. AT&T argues that there is no basis to treat dominant and non-dominant unaffiliated U.S. carriers differently under Section 214. AT&T states that, in the context of international facilities authorization, the conduct that dominant classification was meant to deter is more effectively handled through processes other than maintaining more burdensome Section 214 filing requirements for dominant unaffiliated U.S. carriers. In addition, AT&T states that the rationale for adopting certain streamlining proposals is equally applicable to dominant, unaffiliated U.S. carriers as to non-dominant U.S. carriers. MCI opposes AT&T's request stating that, with the array of economic and competitive advantages that are the product of AT&T's monopoly heritage, it is essential that the Commission continue to impose conditions on AT&T that are different from those imposed on non-dominant carriers in order to detect and prevent discriminatory and unlawful practices. 7. Sprint and MCI recommend that we modify the proposed rule on global Section 214 authorizations to specify that a dominant U.S. facilities-based carrier that has entered into a significant business relationship (e.g., a co-marketing or joint venture arrangement) with a dominant foreign carrier should not be granted global Section 214 authority to that foreign carrier's home market, but must await specific approval. 8. There are several other proposed modifications. MCI suggests that when an application is uncontested but requires further review, the International Bureau should inform the applicant of the delay by both correspondence and public notice and identify the staff person in charge of the review and the target date for completion of the review. ACTA urges the Commission to include countries on the exclusion list only in the most imperative of circumstances. WorldCom encourages us to expand our grant of global Section 214 authorizations to include the use of non-U.S. separate satellite systems, including, but not limited to, the Mexican/Solidaridad system, the Canadian ANIK system and various Russian satellite systems. WorldCom asserts that there is no reason to exclude these widely used non- U.S. satellite systems from a global Section 214 authorization and that the Commission can monitor use of these satellite systems through the Section 43.82 circuit status reports. AmericaTel states that we should define "affiliation" with a foreign carrier for purposes of Section 214 authorizations based on control of that carrier. Finally, ACC supports the elimination of the requirement in Section 63.05 of our Rules that common carriers commence operations within a specified time after obtaining Section 214 authority. ACC concurs with our reasoning in the Notice that obtaining operating agreements from foreign carriers takes time and can delay initiation of service to particular countries. (c) Discussion 9. We find that the public interest, convenience and necessity would be served by adopting, with some modifications, our proposed rules for global Section 214 authorizations for facilities-based carriers. Such global authorizations will enable carriers to enter new markets rapidly and use new facilities without the delays and costs associated with filing separate Section 214 applications for each new market or facility. These broader authorizations also will lessen the administrative burdens on applicants and Commission staff. WorldCom notes that to date it has filed over 500 Section 214 authorizations, but under the proposed new rules, it would require only one global Section 214 authorization and a handful of specialized authorizations. The benefits to industry and government in such reductions will be substantial. 10. We note that the Telecom Act, states that the Commission "shall permit any common carrier to be exempt from the requirements of Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934 for the extension of any line." We do not view this provision as applicable to our authority to require common carriers to obtain Section 214 authority to acquire, operate, or resell facilities or services to serve individual countries. When we grant a carrier initial authority to acquire and operate facilities to a particular country, we do not grant that carrier authority for an "extension of lines" within the meaning of Section 214 of the Communications Act and Section 402(b)(2) of the Telecom Act, but instead grant that carrier authority to acquire and operate new lines to a particular geographic market. To the extent there are any staff level decisions discussing extension of lines that could be interpreted as inconsistent with this view, they do not represent the views of the Commission. This leaves the necessity and the benefits of streamlining Section 214 authorizations intact. 11. Some modifications to our proposed rules are appropriate. First, the public interest would be served by expanding the types of global Section 214 applications eligible for streamlined processing to include those filed by U.S. carriers with foreign affiliations, as defined below, so long as the applications are tailored such that they do not request authority for service on routes where applicants have affiliations with foreign carriers and we have not made a determination that the affiliate lacks market power in the destination market. This expansion of streamlined processing will lessen the administrative burden on Commission staff. More importantly, this would make it possible for these foreign-affiliated carriers to enter the U.S. market faster, which would be in harmony with our recently completed Foreign Carrier Entry Order. In that Order, we defined affiliation as an ownership interest of greater than 25 percent, or a controlling interest at any level, by a U.S. carrier in a foreign carrier, or by a foreign carrier in a U.S. carrier. We found that it would be in the public interest to allow a foreign-affiliated carrier routine access to the U.S. international services market on routes where the foreign carrier does not have market power. We reached this conclusion after determining that, in conducting the Section 214 public interest analysis of an application by a foreign-affiliated carrier, we need only assess whether U.S. carriers have effective competitive opportunities to compete in a particular market if that carrier is applying for authority to serve a market where its foreign carrier affiliate has market power. We stated that foreign carriers that do not have market power lack the ability to discriminate against unaffiliated U.S. carriers. 12. Accordingly, we find here that a foreign-affiliated U.S. carrier applying for a global Section 214 authorization should be treated no differently than a U.S. carrier without foreign affiliations to the extent the affiliated carrier is seeking authority to serve routes where it is not affiliated with a foreign carrier with market power. We believe the public interest would be served by affording streamlined processing to that carrier's application. These applications should be specifically tailored, however, to ask for limited global authority to provide service to points where either the carrier does not have affiliations, or we have previously determined that its affiliate does not possess market power in that destination market. If a U.S. carrier desires to serve a market where it has an affiliation with a foreign carrier, and we have yet to determine whether that foreign carrier possesses market power there, then the U.S. carrier should file a separate application to serve that destination market. This will give us the opportunity to determine whether we need to conduct an effective competitive opportunities analysis and whether specific safeguards are necessary to prevent the foreign carrier from discriminating against competing U.S. carriers on that route. 13. We also adopt AT&T's proposal that U.S. carriers regulated as dominant for reasons other than having foreign affiliations be allowed global Section 214 authority. We find that in today's competitive and regulatory environment, there is no longer a need to exclude dominant carriers without foreign affiliations from enjoying the benefits of a global Section 214 authorization. We regulate U.S. carriers as dominant in order to help deter abuses of market power, such as acts of market exclusion, predatory pricing, unreasonable discrimination, and unreasonable termination or reduction of service to customers. As part of our international dominant carrier safeguards, we have required that dominant carriers obtain specific international Section 214 authority prior to acquiring and operating any circuits to provide international service on any route. This safeguard helps us monitor the facilities and capacity used by a dominant carrier in order to ensure that the carrier does not monopolize service on a particular route. This safeguard also helps limit the ability of a dominant rate- base carrier to overbuild its facilities at ratepayers expense in order to enlarge its earnings. The implementation of price cap regulation, however, has diminished the incentive for dominant carriers subject to price cap regulation to invest in facilities for which they have no immediate need because the carriers do not add the cost of the facilities to their rate base. And, with the large growth and variety of available facilities for international service, the opportunity to monopolize facilities on a route has nearly vanished. These regulatory and market changes have reduced the need to use the Section 214 authorization process to guard against abuses of a dominant carrier's market power. We believe the examination of accounting rate and service agreements between a carrier and its correspondent is a much better tool for preventing market exclusion. We also believe there are better methods of detecting possible unlawful exploitation of U.S. domestic bottleneck facilities, such as the complaint process. We note that U.S. carriers, currently found dominant for reasons other than having foreign affiliations or alliances, will still be subject to the restrictions on obtaining global Section 214 authority if they have affiliations with foreign carriers for which we have yet to make a market power determination. 14. We accordingly adopt the following steps for the application and processing of global Section 214 authority for facilities-based carriers. We amend Section 63.01 to make it applicable only to domestic authorizations, create a new Section 63.18 for international Section 214 authorizations, and revise Section 63.15 to facilitate applications for broad international Section 214 authority. Both new carrier applicants, as well as any carriers operating under international Section 214 authority granted prior to this rulemaking, may obtain global Section 214 authority by submitting a new Section 214 application to operate as a facilities-based carrier pursuant to terms and conditions of Section 63.18(e)(1). Subject to the exceptions outlined below, these applications will be processed using the same streamlined procedures used for resale applications. That is, once we have reviewed the applications to determine eligibility for streamlined processing, we will place them on public notice as accepted for filing, and state whether they will be streamlined or not. Petitions to deny streamlined applications must be filed within 21 days. If streamlined applications are unopposed, they will be deemed granted 35 days after the date of the initial public notice of acceptance for filing, and the applicants may commence operations on the 36th day. Shortly after the streamlined application has been granted, we will issue a second public notice that will be published in the FCC Record and will serve as the applicants' Section 214 authorization. The second public notice will list the applications granted and restrictions, if any, on providing service to particular countries and on the use of certain facilities. The restrictions listed will consist of both general restrictions that apply to all carriers receiving global Section 214 authority, as well as specific restrictions to particular carriers, such as those with affiliations in destination markets. It also will state that, as a condition of the Section 214 authorization, the carrier will be subject to any future modifications made to the exclusion list described below. The notice also will state that, in cases where a carrier becomes affiliated with a foreign carrier after authorization is granted, it must notify the International Bureau promptly of the details of every such affiliation, pursuant to the provisions of Section 63.11. The carrier would then be subject to possible reclassification as a dominant carrier on an affiliated route pursuant to the provisions of Section 63.10. 15. Applications that are contested or require the International Bureau either to conduct an effective competitive opportunities analysis or make a determination as to the degree of market power possessed by a foreign carrier affiliate will not be eligible for streamlined processing. If we remove an application from streamlined processing, after originally giving public notice that it will be streamlined, the International Bureau will issue a public notice stating the change in processing status, and inform the applicant by sending it a copy of the public notice and by identifying the name of a staff contact person and date for a status conference. This notification will be done within 28 days from the date of the initial public notice listing the application as being subject to streamlined processing (i.e., one week after the due date for petitions to deny). Non-streamlined applications will be acted upon by written order, instead of public notice. 16. Under these global Section 214 authorizations, authority will be given to use half-circuits on all U.S. common carrier and non-common carrier facilities previously and subsequently authorized by the Commission and on any necessary foreign connecting facilities. This includes both common carrier and non-common carrier submarine cables landing in the United States, INTELSAT satellites, U.S. separate system satellites and the U.S. earth stations licensed by the Commission to communicate with these satellites. If an applicant requests to use facilities not yet authorized then the applicant will have to file a separate Section 214 application. For instance, we still require that proposed owners of new common carrier submarine cable systems obtain separate Section 214 authority to construct and operate the cable. 17. The International Bureau will maintain an exclusion list that identifies any restrictions on providing service to particular countries or using particular facilities, and whether separate Section 214 authority is needed for these countries and/or facilities. The International Bureau will include the exclusion list as part of each public notice listing granted streamlined applications, or in the case of non-streamlined grants, in the granting order. A copy will be maintained in the International Bureau's Reference Center. The general exclusion list included with the most recent public notice listing streamline granted applications will apply to all carriers that have previously received global Section 214 authority under this rule, whether by streamlined grant or specific written order. 18. For situations where the public interest requires us to amend the exclusion list either to remove or impose restrictions on service to a particular country or use of specific facilities previously permitted under an existing global Section 214 authorization, we will first issue a public notice giving affected parties opportunity for comment and hearing on the proposed changes. We will then release an order amending our exclusion list. In response to ACTA, we envision such exclusions only taking place in the most imperative of circumstances. If the President issues an Executive Order to prohibit or restrict service to a particular country or use of specific facilities, however, we will amend our exclusion list and issue a public notice to that effect without opportunity for comment or hearing. In all such circumstances, carriers will be prohibited from providing service to countries or using facilities appearing on the exclusion list. 19. We do not adopt at this time WorldCom's proposal to include the use of non- U.S. licensed satellite systems, including affiliates of INTELSAT and Inmarsat, in this global authorization. The use of these systems is the subject of another proceeding. If at a future date we determine the routine authorization of particular non-U.S. satellite systems is in the public interest, we will remove them from the exclusion list. 20. We also amend Section 63.05 which requires carriers to commence operation within a specified time after the Section 214 authorization date. International carriers need to obtain operating agreements from foreign carriers. Obtaining such agreements may be delayed by events outside U.S. carriers' control. Consequently, we amend Section 63.05 so that international common carriers need not commence providing service within a specified time after the Section 214 authorization date. Carriers' traffic reports will advise the Commission of the year that carriers actually initiate service to individual countries. Consolidated traffic reports will relate such information annually to industry. 2. Resellers (a) The Notice 21. In the Notice, we proposed to expand the authority of resale carriers. Currently, Section 63.01(k)(6)(ii) requires applicants that propose to provide service through the resale of international switched or private line services of another U.S. carrier to specify the names of the U.S. carriers and their specific tariffs to be resold. Consequently, when resellers want to resell services of carriers that are not listed in their initial Section 214 applications, resellers file new Section 214 applications to obtain the requisite authority. In the Notice, we proposed to enable resellers to provide international resale services via any authorized U.S. carrier, except those affiliated with the reseller. Under the proposal, applicants would obtain an initial Section 214 authorization for resale services and, then, would be able to add new unaffiliated underlying carriers without further Section 214 authority. We tentatively concluded that our prior authorization requirement was no longer needed because we receive sufficient information regarding resellers' activities from Section 43.82 circuit addition reports and from Section 43.61 traffic reports. (b) Positions of the Parties 22. No party opposes our proposal or our rationale. Three commenters, however, suggest modifications to our proposal. TTH recommends that the Commission expand the category of carriers that a reseller may use under a blanket Section 214 authorization to include non-dominant, U.S. facilities-based carriers affiliated with the reseller. 23. MFSI proposes that the Commission permit non-dominant, U.S. facilities-based carriers to provide service in correspondence with affiliated foreign resellers that lack market power, subject to applicable tariff and contract filing requirements and common carrier non- discrimination obligations. MFSI states that, under the Commission's current policy, a U.S. carrier (dominant or non-dominant) that seeks to connect a U.S. half-circuit (owned, indefeasible right-of-user (IRU), or leased) with a leased, foreign private line half-circuit to provide a switched basic service must obtain country-by-country Section 214 authority and make an "equivalency showing." MFSI states that this advances the interests of the largest carriers by reducing the level of effective competition in the marketplace without any countervailing public benefits. Similarly, SPPT suggests streamlined processing for U.S. non- dominant carrier applicants that propose to use their own U.S. half-circuits in connection with leased foreign half-circuits to provide service between the United States and the foreign country where the leased half-circuits terminate. (c) Discussion 24. We find that the public interest would be served by adopting our proposed rule, as modified below, to allow resellers to provide international resale of switched or private line services via any authorized carrier, except U.S. facilities-based affiliates that are regulated as dominant on routes the carrier seeks to serve. We agree with TTH that applicants that propose to resell services of an affiliated U.S. facilities-based carrier on routes where the affiliate is regulated as non-dominant do not raise discrimination or other anticompetitive concerns and can be subject to streamlined procedures. First, if we have already determined that a carrier is non-dominant on a route, then by definition we have found that carrier to lack sufficient market power to engage in anticompetitive conduct. Second, a reseller, whether affiliated with the underlying carrier or not, is purchasing services pursuant to a tariff or contract filed with the Commission, which means that any competing reseller may purchase the affiliated facilities-based carrier's services on the same terms and conditions as the affiliated reseller. Last, the rule as originally proposed would create an inconsistency with another change we are making because the affiliated non-dominant facilities-based carrier would receive streamlined processing of its Section 214 application, but the affiliated reseller would be ineligible for streamlined processing. 25. Accordingly, we here amend existing Section 214 resale authorizations to allow carriers to resell international switched or private line services via any authorized carrier, except U.S. facilities-based affiliates that are regulated as dominant on routes the reseller seeks to serve. Thus, existing resellers no longer need to obtain additional authorizations to resell services of carriers not identified in their initial authorization. This change also will apply to all future Section 214 resale authorizations we issue. Specific Section 214 authority is needed, however, to resell an affiliated dominant carriers' services. In particular, if a reseller desires to resell service of an affiliated underlying carrier that is regulated as dominant on some routes and not on others, the reseller is now authorized to resell that carrier's services on those routes on which the underlying carrier is non-dominant. The reseller should file a separate Section 214 application, however, to provide resale service on routes where the underlying carrier is deemed dominant. In addition, we will not streamline process any application for Section 214 resale authority if the applicant has an affiliation with a foreign carrier in a destination market, and we have yet to make a determination whether that foreign carrier possesses market power in that market. 26. This flexible approach will give resellers a greater selection of underlying carriers which will stimulate more competition in price and quality. Also, resellers will be able to reduce their operating costs by using the most efficient resale arrangements available. Reducing the administrative burdens of filing supplemental applications and regulatory time delays in implementing service should facilitate carriers' ability to provide competitive international services at lower prices. 27. We addressed MFSI's and SPPT's concerns in our Foreign Carrier Entry Order where we adopted their proposals in part. In that Order, we clarified that a carrier will be considered facilities-based if it holds an ownership, indefeasible-right-of-user or leasehold interest in an international facility, regardless of whether the underlying facility is a common or non-common carrier submarine cable, or an INTELSAT or separate satellite system. We stated that our definition of a facilities-based carrier focuses solely on the U.S. half-circuit. We do not consider the nature of a U.S. carrier's interest, if any, in the corresponding foreign half-circuit. We also stated that we would allow a U.S. facilities-based carrier to provide switched services over its private lines without a demonstration of equivalency, subject to two exceptions. First, the U.S. carrier may not correspond with a carrier that directly or indirectly owns the foreign half-circuit in a market that we have not found to offer equivalent resale opportunities. Second, the switched traffic carried over facilities-based private lines may only be interconnected to the public switched network on one end. Where the U.S. carrier connects its facilities-based private line half-circuit with a foreign half-circuit in correspondence with a foreign carrier that owns the underlying half-circuit, we will require that it obtain additional Section 214 authority and demonstrate that equivalency exists. Likewise, where a U.S. carrier seeks to interconnect its facilities-based private line to the public switched network on both ends, we will also require that it obtain additional Section 214 authority and demonstrate equivalency. 3. Resale of private lines for switched services (a) The Notice 28. In the Notice, we proposed to allow private line resale carriers to resell switched services via interconnected private lines to all countries that the Commission designated as offering equivalent resale opportunities to U.S. carriers. Under the proposal, carriers would need only obtain an initial Section 214 authorization to resell interconnected private lines to provide switched service. This authorization would cover all countries that are designated equivalent at the time the application is granted and extend automatically to countries later found to be equivalent. We proposed two exceptions: (1) where the U.S. carrier has an affiliation with the U.S. facilities-based carrier whose international private line services it desires to resell (either directly or indirectly through the resale of another reseller's services) and (2) where the carrier seeks authority to resell international private line services to a country in which the foreign carrier with which it has an affiliation owns or controls telecommunications facilities. When these exceptions pertain, applications would be acted upon only by formal written order. (b) Positions of the Parties 29. All of those commenting support authorizing private line resellers to resell interconnected private line service to provide switched services to any country deemed equivalent. AT&T and Sprint, however, propose some modifications. AT&T suggests that, in lieu of the Section 214 applications that would be eliminated by implementation of the proposal, we impose a notification requirement for international private line resellers on routes already found "equivalent." AT&T proposes that private line resellers notify the Commission when they initiate service to an equivalent country and that the notifications be placed on public notice. AT&T believes this notification requirement is necessary to monitor: (1) the effect of private line resale on the U.S. net settlements outpayment, (2) progress towards the Commission's objective to place downward pressure on accounting rates through private line resale activity, and (3) international private line resellers that allegedly are not complying with the traffic and circuit addition reporting requirements. 30. Sprint requests a modification to the exception that a carrier previously authorized to resell interconnected private lines would not automatically be able to provide such resold services to newly designated equivalent countries if the carrier has an affiliation in the equivalent country. Sprint asks that the exception be modified to ensure that it applies only in cases where the foreign carrier affiliate possesses market power in the equivalent country. (c) Discussion 31. We find that the public interest would be served by adopting, with modification, our proposed rules to enable carriers to resell private lines for switched services to certain new locations more rapidly and thus serve their customers more efficiently. The proposal will increase competition in the international telecommunications market. It also will further reduce administrative burdens and associated regulatory costs incurred by carriers and the Commission. We thus conclude that, subject to the exceptions below, carriers no longer need to obtain separate Section 214 authority to resell private lines to provide switched service to additional countries that are determined by the International Bureau, currently or subsequently, to provide equivalent resale opportunities for U.S.-based carriers, as defined in the Foreign Carrier Entry Order. 32. We do not find a need to adopt AT&T's proposed reporting requirements. The Commission already imposes a reporting requirement on non-dominant international private line resellers that provide switched services. For the first three years following an equivalency finding, we have required non-dominant international private line resellers providing switched or interconnected international private line services between the United States and a destination country to file with the Commission semi-annual traffic reports that contain the same information filed in the annual traffic reports. After three years, the carriers file only the annual traffic reports pursuant to Section 43.61 of the Commission's Rules. The current Section 43.61 traffic manual specifically requires that "facilities resale carriers," 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 traffic according to the ultimate point of termination or origination. The Commission publishes this information annually. 33. We generally agree, however, with Sprint's proposed modification. We believe the public interest, convenience and necessity would be served by authorizing U.S. interconnected private line resellers with foreign affiliations to be able to provide interconnected private line services to all countries found in the future to offer equivalent resale opportunities, subject to one caveat. If such a carrier is affiliated with a 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. In the absence of such a determination, the U.S. carrier shall file a Section 214 application for interconnected private line service to that country so that we may examine the foreign carrier's market power position in the equivalent country. We believe that this approach will allow the Commission to weigh the potential for anticompetitive behavior by the foreign carrier, while at the same time fulfill the goal of this rulemaking of easing regulatory burdens. 34. Accordingly, we adopt our proposed rule that allows automatic expansion of existing Section 214 authority for carriers to resell interconnected private lines to provide switched services to all countries designated equivalent. We find that separate Section 214 authority is no longer needed because we will receive information identifying the countries that individual international private line resellers are serving through traffic reports filed under Section 43.61 of the Commission's Rules and circuit addition reports filed under Section 43.82 of the Commission's Rules. Traffic reports will be filed on a semi-annual basis for the first three years following an equivalency finding. Streamlined processing will not, however, be available to applicants with foreign carrier affiliates that are dominant in the destination market. 35. We additionally modify our rules in Section 63.18(e)(4) to permit the same automatic expansion of existing Section 214 authorities for facilities-based private line carriers to provide switched service to countries designated as equivalent. Although we did not specifically propose automatic expansion of authority for facilities-based private line carriers in the Notice, we had not at that time adopted rules for the provision of switched basic services over facilities-based private lines. Now that the Foreign Carrier Entry Order has established such rules, we see no reason not to extend to facilities-based private line carriers the same automatic expansion policy that we proposed and have adopted for interconnected private line resellers. 4. Non-common carrier satellite and cable systems (a) The Notice 36. Currently, we require all carriers to obtain Section 214 authority to acquire or lease capacity on non-common carrier facilities and additional Section 214 authority to add circuits on these facilities. In the Notice, we proposed that once a non-dominant, facilities- based carrier obtains an initial Section 214 authorization, which may be for global or specific capacity on a non-common carrier system, it would not have to file additional Section 214 applications to add circuits on previously authorized non-common carrier facilities. This authorization would be subject to the provisions of the exclusion list identifying facilities on which the Commission has placed restrictions. (b) Positions of the Parties 37. Generally, parties support our proposal. AT&T believes, however, that U.S. carriers regulated as dominant, for reasons other than having foreign affiliations, should not be required to file individual Section 214 applications whenever they seek to acquire capacity on a non-common carrier cable or satellite system. AT&T suggests that, if the Commission needs to monitor such purchases by these carriers, after-the-fact reporting of such capacity purchases would be adequate even if intervention was necessary. WorldCom asks the Commission to clarify that this proposal applies equally to all non-common carrier facilities, whether U.S.- or foreign-authorized. (c) Discussion 38. We find that the public interest will be served by adopting our proposal to eliminate the Section 214 authorization requirement to add circuits on U.S. licensed non- common carrier facilities. As we stated in the Notice, Section 214 authorization was needed for our long-range facilities planning responsibilities as well as to assure compliance with Commission conditions placed on non-common carrier systems. But, we discontinued the North American, Pacific and Caribbean facilities planning processes in 1988. Additionally, necessary conditions on the non-common carrier facilities are normally placed on the original authorization for construction and operation of those facilities and not on the subsequent Section 214 facilities authorizations for acquiring capacity on them. If, as in Optel, there is a need to place restrictions on the use of a non-common carrier system, we will place those restrictions in both our exclusion list and any specific Section 214 authorization to use the facility. In light of these changes, there is no longer a need to maintain the individual Section 214 applications for carriers seeking to acquire additional capacity on U.S. non-common carrier systems. 39. We adopt in part AT&T's proposal that U.S. carriers regulated as dominant, for reasons other than having foreign affiliations, also be allowed to add circuits on non-common carrier facilities without seeking additional authorization. As stated in our discussion about granting global Section 214 authorities to such carriers, there is no longer a regulatory need to treat these types of dominant carriers differently than non-dominant carriers when it comes to adding circuits on a facility. These carriers, however, will still need to file a Section 214 application if they seek to add circuits on a non-common carrier system to a point where they have an affiliate that possesses market power. 5. Conveyance of cable capacity (a) The Notice 40. In our Notice, we proposed to no longer require dominant carriers to obtain Section 214 authority prior to conveying transmission capacity in submarine cables. In the past, we required dominant carriers to obtain such authority in order to monitor the identity of non-dominant carriers acquiring such transmission capacity and to monitor dominant carriers' activities and ability to influence and control the use of the submarine cables. Collecting such information and making the dominant carrier's activities public was appropriate when there was limited submarine cable transmission capacity. Given the large increase in submarine cable transmission capacity to all major markets and the entrance of many new competitors in these markets, however, we tentatively concluded that the requirement was no longer necessary. (b) Positions of the Parties 41. Several parties support the proposal. MCI, however, submits that the existing Section 214 authorization requirement for the conveyance of cable capacity by dominant carriers is valuable because it affords an opportunity for public notice and comment in response to proposed transactions. While MCI recognizes that the Communications Act does not require prior Commission authorization, MCI believes that the public interest, at least for the time being, requires that conveyance of capacity from a dominant U.S. carrier to another U.S. carrier be subject to such authorization. MCI asserts that, even though terms and conditions relating to submarine cable conveyances are mutually derived and the amount of available capacity and the number of new users has increased in recent years, there is still incentive for dominant carriers to frustrate their non-dominant carrier competitors' ability to negotiate reasonable rates for purchase of submarine cable capacity. 42. MCI recommends that the Commission require dominant carriers like AT&T to provide the following information in connection with the conveyance of transmission capacity to other U.S. carriers: (1) name of the party to whom the capacity is to be conveyed; (2) name of the facility in which capacity is to be conveyed; (3) description of the amount of capacity to be conveyed, and (4) the price of the capacity to be conveyed. MCI asserts that its proposal allows the Commission and interested members of the public to remain aware of these transactions. 43. While ACTA supports the Commission's proposal, it agrees with MCI's concerns. ACTA believes that the Commission should be ready to eliminate any discrimination or unreasonable practices in the negotiations for transmission capacity in submarine cables. (c) Discussion 44. We find that the public interest will be served by adopting a modification of the proposal set forth in the Notice. We find that the best approach would be to replace the Section 214 authorization requirement with a notification requirement for dominant carriers seeking to dispose of transmission capacity in submarine cables. These carriers will notify the Commission of their conveyances under Section 63.21(e). The International Bureau will issue a public notice of these conveyances. Dominant carriers should provide the following information in connection with the conveyance of transmission capacity to other U.S. carriers: (1) name of the party to whom the capacity is to be conveyed; (2) name of the facility in which capacity is to be conveyed; (3) description of the amount of capacity to be conveyed, and (4) the price of the capacity to be conveyed. This notification shall be filed with us within thirty days after the conveyance. 45. Replacing the Section 214 requirement with a notification requirement reduces the regulatory burdens imposed on dominant carriers. As a result, dominant carriers will be able to act more quickly to upgrade their facilities which, in turn, will enable higher quality service for their customers. At the same time, the minimal burden of a notification requirement will enhance competition by providing price and terms to non-dominant carriers, enabling them to negotiate reasonable prices for conveyance of cable capacity in submarine cables. 6. Discontinuances (a) The Notice 46. In the Notice, we proposed to clarify and to modify several sections of the Commission's Rules that prescribe procedures for carriers to follow when retiring, discontinuing, reducing or impairing service to a geographic market. Currently, Section 63.15(c) states that "[a]ny party certified to provide non-dominant international communications services to a particular geographic market is required to give one hundred and twenty days' notice prior to discontinuing service to that geographic market." We have received many inquiries from the industry as to whether carriers should follow this simple notification requirement or the more extensive notification requirement in Section 63.71, which specifies to whom non-dominant international carriers should provide notification, what the contents of the notification should be, and whether and what notice should be given when the carrier's service is being discontinued, reduced or impaired but when overall service to the geographic market is not. 47. To address this situation, we proposed to clarify that non-dominant international carriers should follow the less burdensome of our notification rules, Section 63.15(c), and not Section 63.71. We also proposed to modify Section 63.15(c) to require non-dominant international carriers that seek to discontinue, reduce, or impair service to a community to: (1) notify their customers in writing at least sixty days in advance of their action, as opposed to the current one hundred and twenty days and (2) send a copy of this notification to the Commission. Additionally, we proposed to simplify the requirements that carriers follow when they retire international facilities, but overall service to a geographic market is not being discontinued, reduced or impaired. (b) Positions of the Parties 48. Commenters support simplifying the process and reducing the notification period for discontinuances. For example, AT&T states that a letter of notification to the Commission sixty days in advance when carriers retire international facilities where service to the geographic market is not being discontinued, reduced or impaired is sufficient. TTH states that sufficient (sixty-day) notice to the Commission and customers is the only necessary restriction on retiring, discontinuing, reducing or impairing service. (c) Discussion 49. We find that the public interest will be served by adopting the proposals set forth in the Notice. The increase in the number of international carriers and competition in international services means that customers can switch to another international carrier if service is discontinued by their current carrier. We believe it is necessary to have a sixty-day notification requirement so that customers will have sufficient time to secure an alternative service provider before their service is discontinued. To avoid confusion, we will delete Section 63.15(c) and add a new subpart in Section 63.19 that clearly details the notification requirements for discontinuing, reducing or impairing service. This new rule requires non- dominant international carriers that seek to discontinue, reduce, or impair service to a community to: (1) notify their customers in writing sixty days in advance as opposed to the current one hundred and twenty days and (2) send a copy of this notification at least sixty days in advance of their action to the Commission. Where competition has increased both in the number of available facilities and the number of carriers providing common carrier and non-common carrier services, we conclude that impairment of service is unlikely and customers will be able to obtain alternative service within sixty days. 50. Sections 63.62(a) and 63.500 are modified to state specifically that Section 214 authority is not needed for dominant and non-dominant carriers retiring submarine cables where service to the geographic market is not being discontinued, reduced or impaired. Customers' service is rarely impaired because carriers typically move their customers over to new facilities before retiring a cable. Instead, international carriers that are retiring submarine cables that do not impair service to a community will follow the same notification requirement in Section 63.19 as non-dominant international carriers that are discontinuing service to a community. Dominant carriers that seek to retire facilities that will impair or reduce service to a community, however, shall still file applications pursuant to Sections 63.62(a) and 63.500. 7. Cable landing license applications (a) The Notice 51. In the Notice, we proposed to simplify the application process for carriers to obtain submarine cable landing licenses and the associated international Section 214 authorizations by reducing the information carriers submit. We proposed to eliminate the requirement in Section 1.767 that applicants specify the proposed use, need and desirability of the cable. Additionally, we proposed to allow applicants to provide a general geographic description of the landing points in their initial applications as long as the precise landing points are provided at least ninety days prior to construction. (b) Positions of the Parties 52. Most commenters support simplifying the cable landing license application process. MCI, however, believes that the Commission's proposal goes too far. MCI is concerned that the relaxed requirements will spawn speculative applications from applicants that are not ready to build cable systems and intimidate others that may be more likely to build systems. Also, MCI asserts that the proposal will diminish a company's ability to assess the future availability of cable capacity on any given route if applications are granted that do not identify precise landing points. Thus, MCI recommends, at a minimum, that the Commission require applicants to: (1) file semi-annual or annual updates that include a projected date when the precise landing points will be identified, with the date always being no less than ninety days before the construction is to begin and/or (2) disclose to an interested party, upon written request, information concerning the location and timing for the construction of the cable facility. MCI recommends that the Commission reserve the right to review any licenses, and, where appropriate, revoke them if their continuing pendency would be contrary to the public interest, subject to prior public notice and an attendant comment period. 53. In contrast, AT&T agrees with the Notice's proposed rule that reduces the amount of information required in cable landing license applications. AT&T suggests that the Commission go further. AT&T recommends eliminating the same information, with one exception, from the cable landing license application for non-common carrier submarine systems as the Notice proposed to do for international Section 214 applications for new common carrier cable systems. AT&T states that the Commission should retain the requirement that cable landing license applicants for non-common carrier submarine systems submit information relating to international comity, as federal law requires the Commission to consider international comity in determining whether to grant a submarine cable landing license. AT&T contends that the market, and not the Commission, should determine whether and where there are current or anticipated needs for submarine cable systems, regardless of whether they are built on a non-common carrier or common carrier basis. (c) Discussion 54. We find that the public interest is served by reducing the amount of information submitted in cable landing license applications as proposed in the Notice with some modifications. As proposed in the Notice, we no longer will require applicants to specify the proposed use, need and desirability of the cable in their cable landing license applications. Additionally, applicants will have the option to provide a general geographic description of the landing points in their initial applications. Grant of the application will be conditioned, however, on our final approval of a more specific description of the landing points to be filed by the applicant no later than ninety days prior to construction. We will give public notice of the filing of this description, and grant of the license will be considered final unless we issue a public notice to the contrary no later than sixty days after receipt of the specific description of the landing points. In addition, we will continue to require cable landing license applicants to give detailed ownership information, a description of the submarine cable, including the type, number of channels, capacity, information as to whether the cable will be operated on a common carrier or non-common carrier basis, and other information as necessary for us to act on the application. 55. We will modify our proposal, however, as we find merit to AT&T's and MCI's suggestions. In regard to AT&T's comments, our past practice has not differentiated between the ownership information required for common carrier and non-common carrier cable licenses, and we retain that approach in our new rules. Although our current rules require more detailed ownership information from common carrier applicants because they must respond to the additional ownership questions in the Section 214 application accompanying their submarine cable landing license application, it has been our practice to elicit this same information from non-common carrier applicants on an informal basis. In light of AT&T's comments, however, we believe it will make things easier and clearer for non-common carrier applicants if we place in our new rules the type of ownership information needed to act on their applications. This will save both non-common carrier applicants and the International Bureau staff the additional time needed to respond to post-filing requests for additional ownership information. 56. We also adopt in part MCI's recommended changes to our proposal. We will require applicants promptly to disclose to any interested party, upon written request, accurate information concerning the location and timing for the construction of the cable facility. We believe that this is the least intrusive way of meeting the need for industry to know for planning purposes what cable capacity is available now and in the near future, and this requirement should meet that need. We do not believe the additional burden of filing updates with the Commission is necessary to meet this need. We believe this revised proposal allows carriers to monitor the availability of future capacity but also accommodates the financial realities of the companies that lay the cables. 8. Contents of international Section 214 applications (a) The Notice 57. In the Notice, we proposed to simplify the application process for obtaining international Section 214 authorizations. We proposed to eliminate much of the information required in an international Section 214 application, create a new rule specific to the information needed to process an international Section 214 application, and clarify our definition of a foreign carrier in the new rule. (b) Positions of the Parties 58. Commenters support reducing the amount of information filed in international Section 214 applications. TTH and AT&T support the Commission's view that U.S. international carriers' investment in submarine cable facilities are business decisions taken at their own risk and as such need not require extensive review. Additionally, TTH states that requiring carriers to disclose confidential financial information may inhibit them from constructing new facilities. ACTA supports in particular our clarification to the definition of a foreign carrier. (c) Discussion 59. We adopt the rules proposed in the Notice. International Section 214 applicants now will file applications under the new Section 63.18 which focuses exclusively on the contents of Section 214 applications for international carriers. This rule eliminates the requirement to file much information previously required under the old Section 63.01. For example, international Section 214 applicants seeking authority to construct and operate submarine cable facilities will no longer submit information on demand, cost, service quality, media and route diversity, restoration, intramodal and intermodal competition, and technological innovations. By clarifying and reducing the information carriers must submit in an international Section 214 authorization, we will serve the public interest by significantly lessening the burden on existing carriers and new entrants. 60. Finally, our new rule clarifies the definition of a foreign carrier for purposes of Section 214 applications to include specifically entities authorized within a foreign country to engage in the provision of domestic telecommunications services if such carriers have the ability to originate or terminate telecommunications services to or from points outside of their country. This definition is consistent with the International Telecommunication Regulations, as well as our recent Foreign Carrier Entry Order. In that Order, we focused on the ability of a non-U.S. entity seeking U.S. carrier status to discriminate against other U.S. carriers in the origination and termination of traffic in a destination market. A foreign domestic carrier that terminates international traffic could have such an ability if it was the dominant carrier in that market. 9. Conditions of international Section 214 authorizations (a) The Notice 61. In the Notice, we proposed to create a new section of the rules that would list the conditions we routinely include as part of an international Section 214 authorization. We believed that having these conditions listed in one section of the rules would make it easier for carriers to determine the terms of their authorizations and for us to facilitate implementation of our proposed streamlined procedures. (b) Position of the Parties 62. No party opposes this proposal. MCI suggests, however, that the Commission include a requirement that dominant carriers file cable capacity conveyances that contain the information described in Paragraphs 40-45 of this Order. (c) Discussion 63. We find that the public interest will be served by adopting our proposal and listing the standard conditions applicable to international Section 214 authorizations in a new Section 63.21. We also will include the notification requirement requested by MCI. Our new rule will identify and clarify standard conditions placed in international Section 214 authorizations to facilitate implementation of our proposed streamlined procedures. The new rule will consist of: (1) the prohibition on the resale of private lines for the provision of international switched services unless the country has been designated as providing equivalent resale opportunities for U.S.-based carriers; (2) the requirement to file copies of operating agreements entered into with foreign correspondents and all other agreements specified under Section 43.51; (3) the requirement to file applicable tariffs; (4) the requirement to file annual reports of overseas telecommunications traffic; (5) the requirement to file annual circuit status and addition reports, and (6) the requirement for dominant carriers to file a notification of conveyances of submarine cable circuits to other carriers. We will reference this rule in the public notice or order that serves as an applicant's international Section 214 authorization. III. PETITIONS TO DENY (a) The Notice 64. In the Notice, we proposed to shorten the comment period for Section 214 applications. We stated that our proposal would both accelerate the application process and make it easier for both applicants and the Commission to calculate due dates, which we proposed to be in multiples of seven. (b) Positions of the Parties 65. WorldCom was the only commenter to oppose our proposed changes to the comment periods. WorldCom argues that the Commission should not change the filing period for petitions to deny non-dominant carrier applications. WorldCom states that the standard thirty day public comment period has served the public and the Commission well and there is no compelling reason to reduce it. WorldCom believes that public comment periods of 21, 28, and 30 days for different applications will be confusing and it does not believe that a 28- day comment period is substantially easier to calculate than a 30-day. Furthermore, WorldCom states that, in the rare case that a petition to deny is warranted, 21 days does not provide adequate time to prepare the appropriate pleading and the additional nine days would not delay unduly the application process. If a petition to deny is meritless, WorldCom states that the International Bureau should grant the application expeditiously. If the petition raises material questions, it believes nine days will have little or no impact on the timing of the International Bureau's ultimate decision. 66. In addition, AT&T and SPPT proposed some modifications. AT&T suggests that the Commission impose a uniform 21-day public notice period for filing all petitions to deny, for both streamlined and non-streamlined applications. AT&T believes that all oppositions to petitions to deny should be filed in 14 days and all replies to oppositions should be filed in seven days. AT&T states that all intervals should be based on calendar days for ease in calculating due dates. 67. SPPT believes that the streamlined processing procedures could be frustrated by frivolous petitions as a formal petition to deny would remove an application from streamlined processing. SPPT notes that petitioners would be rewarded for their non- meritorious filings by causing delay in the commencement of an applicant's services. SPPT states that the adjudication of petitions to deny is burdensome and time-consuming for the International Bureau's staff. SPPT recommends that the Commission consider the assessment of filing fees on petitions to deny. SPPT also recommends that the Commission amend Section 63.52(c) to require petitioners to verify by affidavit all of their interests, including economic interests, in having the application denied. (c) Discussion 68. We adopt the proposals as set forth in the Notice with a few modifications. We will add a new Section 63.20 to address streamlined Section 214 filing requirements and pleading periods. In this rule, we will reduce the comment period on applications that are subject to streamlined processing for facilities-based and resale applicants to 21 days. For non-streamlined applications, the comment period will be 28 days. We find this distinction necessary because non-streamlined applications are often not routine, and can raise difficult issues. Although we reject AT&T's request for a uniform 21-day comment period, we adopt AT&T's suggestion that the period for filing oppositions to petitions to deny for all applications be 14 days and the reply period 7 days. 69. We acknowledge WorldCom's concern that the change from 30 to 21 days for streamlined processing may impose a slight hardship on entities with limited resources. If an entity believes it needs additional time to file comments, it may request an extension of time. We believe that, on balance, it is less burdensome to consider requests for appropriate extensions of time on an ad hoc basis, than to hold up the vast majority of routine applications. Reducing the time parties have to submit comments will accelerate the application process and enable carriers to enter the market faster. This annual cumulative affect will be substantial to the industry as a whole. Similarly, we find, contrary to WorldCom's assertion, that reducing the comment period from 30 to 28 days for non- streamlined applications will make due dates easier to calculate for both applicants and the Commission. With rare exceptions to accommodate federal holidays, the due dates will be the same day of the week that the application appeared on public notice, only four weeks later. 70. We do not adopt SPPT's recommendation that we require full disclosure by petitioners or assess a filing fee on Commission licensees' petitions to deny. We do not believe the record discloses the need to deter the filing of petitions to deny by imposing fees, nor does it demonstrate that imposing such fees would have the intended effect. IV. FORM FOR FILING OF INTERNATIONAL SECTION 214 APPLICATIONS (a) The Notice 71. In the Notice, we proposed that applicants have the option of filing their Section 214 applications on computer diskettes. Also, we proposed that information or documents in foreign languages that are submitted to the Commission in Section 214 proceedings be accompanied by a certified translation in English. As a result of meetings with industry, we further proposed to apply the procedures applicable to carriers' electronic filing of their circuit status and addition reports to the Section 214 applications. Finally, we asked for comment on whether we should create a standard form for international Section 214 applications. (b) Positions of the Parties 72. Most commenters support the proposal of giving parties the option of filing their international Section 214 applications on computer diskettes. WorldCom and SPPT, however, support it only as long as parties also are required to file paper copies of their applications that are made available to the public. SPPT questions whether diskettes would be convenient to members of the public who wish to monitor the filing of Section 214 applications or to government agencies who are entitled to be served with Section 214 applications. SPPT suggests that it might be advisable for the Commission to rethink its diskette proposal or to delegate to the International Bureau the authority to modify the diskette proposal when it compiles the "filing manual" called for under proposed Section 63.53(b). 73. WorldCom believes there is no need to create a standard form for filing Section 214 applications. WorldCom states that the requirements in the proposed successor to Section 63.01 provide more than enough guidance for applicants to file a complete Section 214 application. Also, WorldCom states that given the variety in applicants, a form would be more burdensome than convenient. (c) Discussion 74. We adopt our proposal to give applicants the option of filing their Section 214 applications on computer diskettes. We will, however, continue to require that applicants file paper copies of their applications until such time as we determine that paper copies are no longer needed to facilitate public access. To the extent that they apply, we will apply the same procedures adopted in the Circuit Status Order proceeding to determine how these applications should be filed. Namely, we direct the International Bureau to prepare a filing manual specifying the type and format of computer diskettes to be used and to hold meetings with the public and industry to solicit suggestions on the methods and procedures to implement this new rule and to keep the manual current. This approach will enable us to facilitate public access to these applications via the Internet and eventually other means of electronic communications. Having applications on computer diskettes also will save the International Bureau time inputting information to be included in non-streamlined Section 214 authorizations, thus speeding up Section 214 application processing. 75. Also, we adopt our proposal that information or documents in foreign languages that are submitted to us in Section 214 proceedings be accompanied by a certified translation in English. Currently, we receive documents in foreign languages, which effectively precludes a large portion of the public from reading the materials. Having English translations of relevant documents that are now submitted in foreign languages would save us and others the time and resources needed to translate the documents. We believe that these changes will help us process Section 214 applications faster. 76. Finally, although WorldCom has raised concerns about creating a new form for filing Section 214 applications, we believe there may be benefits to a uniform Section 214 application form. For instance, creating a form would enable direct placement on the Internet which would provide easy access to businesses and others seeking information about applying for Section 214 authorizations. Therefore, we instruct the International Bureau to determine the practicality of a standardized form. In addition, we will make available to the public through the Internet and other sources filing aids such as checklists, instruction sheets or sample applications. V. TARIFFING REQUIREMENTS (a) The Notice 77. In the Notice, we proposed to streamline further the tariff requirements on international non-dominant international resale and facilities-based carriers by permitting them to file their international rates on one-day notice, instead of the current 14-day notice. We believed this action would accelerate the entry of carriers into the international telecommunications market and allow for rapid reaction to market conditions by existing international carriers. We further invited commenters to address whether non-dominant international tariff filings should be subject to relaxed form and content requirements, similar to those that govern the filing of non-dominant, domestic interstate tariffs. (b) Positions of the Parties 78. Virtually all commenters, except AT&T, agree that non-dominant carriers should be permitted to file rates based on one-day notice. MCI states that the earlier availability of new services and rate adjustments in the competitive arena clearly would serve the public interest. MCI is not aware of any non-dominant carrier's international service tariff revision that has been challenged successfully. MCI states that, if such an instance were to arise, the Commission and consumers would have ample opportunity to take remedial action after the tariff became effective. MCI asserts that the current rules place an enormous administrative burden upon carriers, such as MCI, which maintain single tariffs containing provisions pertaining to both domestic and international service. Several commenters assert that there is no reason to impose more burdensome tariffing requirements on a carrier's international as opposed to its domestic services. 79. Although AT&T opposes our proposal, AT&T states that it would support a one-day notice period for international tariff filings if it applied to all unaffiliated U.S. carriers, and not just to non-dominant carriers. AT&T opposes widening the gap between the filing requirements imposed on dominant carriers and those imposed on non-dominant carriers. AT&T states that, by permitting one day's notice for only non-dominant carriers, the Commission impedes AT&T's ability to compete and respond rapidly to its customers' needs. (c) Discussion 80. We adopt our proposal to streamline the tariff requirements on international non-dominant international resale and facilities-based carriers. As detailed in the accompanying rules, we apply to international non-dominant carriers the relaxed form and content requirements used for non-dominant domestic carriers, including the filing of the tariffs on computer diskettes and a brief cover letter. In addition to streamlining our tariff content requirements, we adopt our proposed rule to allow non-dominant international carriers to file their tariffs on one-day notice. 81. We believe that streamlining the content requirements and the notice period for non-dominant international carriers serves the public interest. Simplifying non-dominant international carriers' tariff requirements provides uniform tariffing procedures for all non- dominant carriers' services, both international and domestic. Shorter filing periods will help accelerate the introduction of new international services by permitting non-dominant carriers to respond more rapidly to competitive forces. We recognize that competition exists in the international services market for non-dominant carriers and find that competition combined with filing tariffs on one-day notice is a sufficient constraint on unreasonable prices. Under our new streamlining rules, non-dominant carriers will not be subject to burdensome, unnecessary regulatory oversight. 82. We still need to ensure that carriers do not file international tariffs prior to obtaining Section 214 authority for the tariffed service. Therefore, we require carriers to certify in their cover letter that they have international Section 214 authority, and list the file number of the Section 214 authorization. This will ensure that carriers are authorized under the Communications Act to provide the proposed international service. 83. We do not adopt AT&T's suggestion to reduce the filing period to one-day notice for unaffiliated carriers that are regulated as dominant. We do not see justification in this record to change these carriers' tariff content or filing requirements. Carriers including those unaffiliated with foreign carriers, are classified as dominant if they possess market power, which gives them the ability to discriminate unreasonably or invoke unjust or unreasonable rates, terms, or conditions. Eliminating the notice period requirement for such carriers would unduly limit our ability to review their tariffs. Although a longer tariff filing requirement may be an impediment to a dominant carrier's ability to compete against non- dominant carriers, we are not persuaded at this time that a reduction in the filing requirements would be appropriate because of our traditional concerns about dominant carriers. 84. AT&T, GTE Hawaii and COMSAT, all of whom are regulated as dominant for certain international services, each have requests pending with us seeking modifications in the regulatory requirements applicable to them on the ground that they are subject to increasing competition in the international services market. We believe their individual regulatory treatment is more appropriately addressed in those pending proceedings addressing each carrier's regulatory classification. VI. FORBEARANCE 85. In the Notice, we requested comment on what, if any, Section 214 authorization requirements we should forbear from applying if given forbearance authority by Congress. Anticipating that Congress would pass a telecommunications reform law, ACC states that the Commission should forbear from requiring non-dominant carriers to file specific rate tariffs. ACC states that this will serve the public interest by reducing the time and cost associated with regulatory compliance on both government and carriers. CompTel recommends that the Commission eliminate the requirement that pure international switched resale carriers file applications for, and receive, Section 214 authority before providing international service. CompTel notes that the Commission has removed Section 214 requirements for non-dominant, domestic carriers, and that the Commission has, as the Notice recognized, "considerable discretion" in implementing Section 214. MCI recommends that the Commission conduct a further proceeding in the event it obtains forbearance authority. MCI states that the Commission's legal ability to reduce regulation is not the equivalent of removing regulation altogether. MCI contends that, if an act of Congress occurred making the above option available and the pending legislation cited by the Commission becomes law, the Commission would need to make certain determinations about carriers, consumers, and the public interest before exercising its forbearance authority. 86. Since the filing of comments in this proceeding, Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. With its passage comes many new opportunities for the Commission to promote further competition through additional deregulatory actions. In light of this legislation, we anticipate review of our international Section 214 authorization and tariffing procedures to identify new areas where additional streamlining may be appropriate. We agree with MCI, however, that such steps should be taken in the context of a new proceeding where we can make additional determinations about the state of competition in the international market and receive more public input. We will study the feasibility of the forbearance suggestions made in this proceeding and invite the public to make additional suggestions. VII. MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES 1. Growth-based accounting rates (a) Notice and Position of Parties 87. In response to the Commission's request in the Notice for suggestions for additional streamlined procedures, ACC and MFSI suggested that we change our international settlements policy concerning growth-based accounting rates. The Commission's international settlements policy (ISP) provides that an accounting rate reduction offered to one U.S. carrier by a foreign correspondent must be made available to all competing U.S. carriers in a non- discriminatory fashion. This policy is designed to avoid discrimination among U.S. carriers, but many disputes have arisen over compliance with the policy. One area of particular dispute raised by both ACC and MFSI is "growth-based" accounting rates. These types of accounting rate agreements call for reductions of the accounting rate as traffic grows. ACC and MFSI argue that, if "growth" is only calculated based on sheer volume of the largest carriers, such rates can have an anticompetitive, discriminatory effect. ACC states that the Commission should approve growth-based accounting rates only when the lower accounting rates are made available simultaneously to all corresponding U.S. carriers based on the aggregate volume of U.S. traffic to the same foreign point. They state that accounting rates should be based on the growth of the overall U.S. traffic volume to a particular foreign point, not simply the additional volume of a large carrier that already has captured substantial volume. 88. In response, AT&T argues that the issue of growth-based accounting rates is outside the scope of the current proceeding. AT&T states that this issue is properly before the Commission in four pending ISP waiver requests involving the Philippines and Malaysia, Spain, Bolivia and Uruguay, and should be determined there or in a separate rulemaking dedicated to accounting rate matters, not in a proceeding to streamline the international Section 214 process. BTNA states that action on ACC's request raises legal issues about the sufficiency of notice under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and states that, if the Commission believes that these matters warrant further consideration, a separate proceeding is both necessary and appropriate. (b) Discussion 89. We agree with AT&T and BTNA that the issue of growth-based accounting rates was not addressed directly in the Notice. This does not, however, preclude us from responding to ACC's and MFSI's comments to the extent that we clarify our existing policy. The issue of growth-based accounting rates under our ISP was recently addressed by the International Bureau in a letter to a foreign carrier, after the pleading cycle ended in this proceeding. In that letter, the Bureau recognized that a growth-based rate structure could be beneficial and consistent with our ISP when implemented in a non-discriminatory fashion. 90. There are, however, many complex issues with implementing non- discriminatory growth-based accounting rate structures. Although this proceeding is not the proper forum to resolve all these issues, we do, however, wish to take this opportunity to elaborate on one aspect of the growth-based accounting rate issue. The average unit costs of providing international telecommunications service tend to fall as service volume increases because fixed costs are spread over more and more units of output. We believe that growth-based accounting rate structures that are designed and implemented correctly will reflect this cost characteristic, offer significant potential benefits, and promote the Commission's objective of lower, more cost-based accounting rates. In order to ensure non-discrimination among U.S. carriers and to promote economic efficiency, however, implementation of such rate structures must recognize differences in the volume of service provided by different U.S. carriers and not be based on a service volumes attainable only by the largest suppliers. 2. Correspondent agreements (a) Position of Parties 91. ACC suggests that the Commission adopt new rules and policies to establish new guidelines for correspondent agreements. ACC notes that currently the Commission requires carriers to certify in their correspondent agreements that they have not "bargained for preferential treatment." ACC proposes that the Commission change the certification to state that a carrier "has not knowingly received and is aware of no preferential treatment afforded it." It argues this language change would make clear to carriers that they cannot obtain preferential treatment even if it is not "bargained for." ACC states that the Commission should require carriers to make such a certification for all markets in which they already hold agreements. ACC further proposes that the Commission prohibit discriminatory buy-in provisions, such as those requiring more than one percent traffic levels, high capacity or switch modification fees as a condition of obtaining an operating agreement. Again, BTNA objects to the Commission considering these issues in this proceeding, arguing insufficient notice was given under the APA. (b) Discussion 92. In our Foreign Carrier Entry Order, we amended Section 63.14 to prohibit all U.S. international carriers from agreeing to accept special concessions directly or indirectly from any foreign carrier or administration with respect to traffic or revenue flows between the United States and a foreign country. We believe ACC's concerns are effectively addressed by our "no special concessions" clause. U.S. carriers have an affirmative obligation to reject any preferential treatment from a foreign administration or carrier once the U.S. carrier is made aware of that treatment. Amending Section 64.1001 to add a certification requirement of compliance with this obligation would only be an additional paperwork burden on applicants without any additional benefit. Therefore, we decline to adopt ACC's proposed changes. 3. "Fresh-look" for long-term service arrangements (a) Position of Parties 93. Pacwest suggests that the Commission permit customers with long-term service arrangements to terminate such arrangements upon the introduction of new service offerings by competitive service providers. Pacwest contends that long-term service arrangements with incumbent, monopoly service providers inhibit the development of competition and effectively prevent customers from using the facilities of competitive service providers such as Pacwest. Pacwest asserts that the Commission should require local exchange carriers ("LECs") to include a "fresh look" period which would be triggered upon the introduction of competition. Pacwest argues that this provision should be included in all interstate/international access tariffing because it would allow customers with long-term service arrangements with the LECs to consider new competitive providers for their telecommunications needs upon their introduction in the market. 94. BTNA and GTE state that Pacwest's proposal is outside the scope of this proceeding. BTNA contends that Pacwest's proposal, if adopted, would be a federal abrogation of private contracts, which is a step not lightly taken or often used. In addition, BTNA states that the Communications Act requires a Section 205 hearing before taking such action, and that the instant notice and rulemaking is not an adequate substitute. GTE adds that Pacwest made the same argument to the Commission over a year ago in a separate filing concerning GTE Hawaii's cable landing license. (b) Discussion 95. We agree with BTNA and GTE that Pacwest's proposal goes far beyond the scope of this proceeding to streamline the Section 214 authorization process and tariff requirements. Pacwest is seeking to change requirements for local exchange carriers. These rule changes would be addressed better in a proceeding that was targeted towards competitive access providers (CAPs) and their relationships with LECs. To make such a change here would deny many interested parties the opportunity to comment because these issues were not raised in the Notice, and these affected entities are not participating or likely to review the comments in this proceeding. Therefore, we deny Pacwest's proposal. VIII. CONCLUSION 96. In this Order, we modify our Section 214 application process and tariff requirements to eliminate unnecessary and burdensome regulations. We adopt rules that will streamline our regulations on international carriers, reduce the processing time of Section 214 applications, and clarify our rules relating to international carriers. We anticipate that our new rules will make entry to and exit from the international services market easier and faster for international carriers. This will lead to greater competition and, in turn, greater responsiveness to consumer needs. Ultimately, consumers will receive lower prices, better quality and greater choices in their international services. IX. PROCEDURAL MATTERS; ORDERING CLAUSES 97. The analysis pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 is contained in Appendix B. 98. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the policies, rules, and requirements adopted herein, except those needing OMB approval, WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE thirty days after publication in the Federal Register. 99. Matters subject to OMB approval, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13, WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE upon such approval. 100. This action is taken pursuant to Sections 4, 214, 219, 303(r) and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 214, 219, 303(r) and 403. 101. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding IS HEREBY TERMINATED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary APPENDIX A FINAL RULES Part 1, 61 and 63 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 1 -- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1. The authority citation for Part 1 continues to read as follows: AUTHORITY: --- 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 303, and 309(j) unless otherwise noted. 2. Section 1.767 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding new paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:  1.767 Cable landing licenses. (a) Applications for cable landing licenses under 47 U.S.C. 34-39 and Executive Order No. 10530, dated May 10, 1954, should be filed in duplicate and in accordance with the provisions of that Executive Order. These applications should contain: (1) The name, address and telephone number(s) of the applicant; (2) The Government, State, or Territory under the laws of which each corporate or partnership applicant is organized; (3) The name, title, post office address, and telephone number of the officer and any other contact point, such as legal counsel, to whom correspondence concerning the application is to be addressed; (4) A description of the submarine cable, including the type and number of channels and the capacity thereof; (5) A specific description of the cable landing location on the shore of the United States and in foreign countries where the cable will land (including a map). Applicants initially may file a general geographic description of the landing points; however, grant of the application will be conditioned on the Commission's final approval of a more specific description of the landing points to be filed by the applicant no later than 90 days prior to construction. The Commission will give public notice of the filing of this description, and grant of the license will be considered final if the Commission does not notify the applicant otherwise in writing no later than 60 days after receipt of the specific description of the landing points. (6) A statement as to whether the cable will be operated on a common carrier or non-common carrier basis, and if operation will be on a non-common carrier basis, include the ownership information required in Section 63.18(e)(6) and (h)(1) through (2) of this chapter; and (7) Any other information that may be necessary to enable the Commission to act on their application. ***** (e) A separate application shall be filed with respect to each individual cable system for which a license is requested, or for which modification or amendment of a previous license is requested. (f) Applicants shall disclose to any interested member of the public, upon written request, accurate information concerning the location and timing for the construction of a submarine cable system authorized under this section. This disclosure shall be made within 30 days of receipt of the request. PART 61 -- TARIFFS 1. The authority citation for Part 61 continues to read as follows: AUTHORITY: Secs. 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, and 403, unless otherwise noted. 2. Section 61.20 is amended by revising its preceding centered headings and paragraph (b) to read as follows: GENERAL RULES GENERAL RULES FOR DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL NONDOMINANT CARRIERS  61.20 Method of filing publications. ***** (b)(1) In addition, for all tariff publications requiring fees as set forth in part 1, subpart G of this chapter, issuing carriers must submit the original of the cover letter (without attachments), FCC Form 159, and the appropriate fee to the Mellon Bank, Pittsburgh, PA at the address set forth in Section 1.1105 of this chapter. Issuing carriers should submit these fee materials on the same date as the submission in paragraph (a) of this section. (2) International carriers must certify in their original cover letter that they are authorized under Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to provide service, and reference the FCC file number of that authorization. ***** 3. Section 61.21 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:  61.21 Cover letters. (a)(1) Except as specified in Section 61.32(b), all publications filed with the Commission must be accompanied by a cover letter, 8.5 by 11 inches (21.6 cm x 27.9 cm) in size. All cover letters should briefly explain the nature of the filing and indicate the date and method of filing of the original cover letter, as required by Section 61.20(b)(1). (2) International carriers must certify that they are authorized under Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to provide service, and reference the FCC file number of that authorization. ***** 4. Section 61.22 is amended by revising its preceding centered headings and paragraphs (b) and (d) to read as follows: SPECIFIC RULES FOR DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL NONDOMINANT CARRIERS  61.22 Composition of tariffs. ***** (b) The tariff must contain the carrier's name, the international Section 214 authorization FCC file number (when applicable), and the information required by Section 203 of the Act. ***** (d) Domestic and international nondominant carriers subject to the provisions of this Section are not subject to the tariff filing requirements of Section 61.54. 5. Section 61.23(c) is revised to read as follows:  61.23 Notice requirements. ***** (c) Tariff filings of domestic and international non-dominant carriers must be made on at least one-day notice. PART 63 -- EXTENSION OF LINES AND DISCONTINUANCE OF SERVICE BY CARRIERS AND GRANTS OF RECOGNIZED PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY STATUS 1. The authority citation for Part 63 continues to read as follows: AUTHORITY: --- Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205, 218, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 613 of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. secs. 151, 154(i), 15(j), 201-205, 218, 403, and 533 unless otherwise noted. 2. Section 63.01 is amended by removing paragraphs (k)(5) through (7), (r), (s) and Notes 1 through 4, and revising the section heading and introductory paragraph, to read as follows:  63.01 Contents of applications for domestic common carriers. Except as otherwise provided in this part, any party proposing to undertake any construction of a new line, extension of any line, acquisition, lease, or operation of any line or extension thereof or engage in transmission over or by means of such line, and such line originates and terminates in the United States, for which authority is required under the provisions of Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, shall request such authority by formal application which shall be accompanied by a statement showing how the proposed construction, etc., will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Such statement must include the following information as applicable: ***** 3. Section 63.05 is amended by revising the section heading to read as follows: Section 63.05 Commencement and completion of construction for domestic common carriers. ***** 4. Section 63.10 is amended by revising the last sentence of paragraphs (a), (a)(3), and (a)(4), and all of (c)(3) to read as follows: Section 63.10 Regulatory classification of U.S. international carriers. (a) *** For purposes of paragraph (a)(1) through (3) of this section, "affiliation" and "foreign carrier" are defined as set forth in Section 63.18(h)(1)(i) and (ii), respectively. ***** (3) *** Such a demonstration should address the factors that relate to the scope or degree of the foreign affiliate's bottleneck control, including those listed in Section 63.18(h)(8). (4) *** The existence of an affiliation with a U.S. facilities-based international carrier shall be assessed in accordance with the definition of affiliation contained in Section 63.18(h)(i), except that the phrase "U.S. facilities-based international carrier" shall be substituted for the phrase "foreign carrier." ***** (c) *** (3) Obtain Commission approval pursuant to Section 63.18 before adding or discontinuing circuits; and ***** 5. Section 63.11 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (a)(2), (c)(1) through (3), (d), and the last sentence of (e)(2) to read as follows:  63.11 Notification by and prior approval for U.S. international carriers that have or propose to acquire ten percent investments by, and/or an affiliation with, a foreign carrier. (a) Any carrier authorized to provide international communications service under this part that, as of the effective date of this rule as amended in IB Docket No. 95-22, is, or has an affiliation with, a foreign carrier within the meaning of Section 63.18(h)(1)(i)(A) or (h)(1)(i)(B), or that as of such date knows of an existing ten percent or greater interest, whether direct or indirect, in the capital stock of the authorized carrier by a foreign carrier, or that after the effective date of this rule becomes affiliated with a foreign carrier within the meaning of Section 63.18(h)(1)(i)(A), shall notify the Commission within thirty days of the effective date of this rule or within thirty days of the acquisition of the affiliation, whichever occurs later. For purposes of this section, "foreign carrier" is defined as set forth in Section 63.18(h)(1)(ii). ***** (2) Any carrier that has previously notified the Commission of an affiliation with a foreign carrier, as defined by Section 63.18(h)(1) immediately prior to the rule's amendment in IB Docket No. 95-22, need not notify the Commission again of the same affiliation. ***** (c) *** (1) The carrier also should specify, where applicable, those countries named in paragraph (c) for which it provides a specified international communications service solely through the resale of the international switched or private line services of U.S. facilities-based carriers with which the resale carrier does not have an affiliation. Such an affiliation is defined in Section 63.18(h)(1)(i), except that the phrase "U.S. facilities-based international carrier" shall be substituted for the phrase "foreign carrier." (2) The carrier shall also submit with its notification: (i) The ownership information as required to be submitted pursuant to Section 63.18(h)(2); (ii) Where the carrier is authorized as a private line reseller on a particular route for which it has an affiliation with a foreign carrier, as defined in Section 63.18(h)(1)(i), a certification as required to be submitted pursuant to Section 63.18(h)(4); and (iii) A "special concessions" certification as required to be submitted pursuant to Section 63.18(i). (3) The carrier is responsible for the continuing accuracy of the certifications provided under this section. Whenever the substance of any certification provided under this section is no longer accurate, the carrier shall as promptly as possible, and in any event within thirty days, file with the Secretary in duplicate a corrected certification referencing the FCC File No. under which the original certification was provided, except that the carrier shall immediately inform the Commission if at any time the representations in the "special concessions" certification provided under paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section are no longer true. See  63.18(i))(2). This information may be used by the Commission to determine whether a change in regulatory status may be warranted under Section 63.10. (d) Unless the carrier notifying the Commission of a foreign carrier affiliation under paragraph (a) of this section qualifies for the presumption of non-dominant regulation pursuant to Section 63.10(a)(4), it should submit the information specified in Section 63.18(h)(8) to retain its non-dominant status on any affiliated route. (e) *** (2) *** If notified that the acquisition raises a substantial and material question, then the carrier shall not consummate the planned investment until it has filed an application under Section 63.18 and submitted the information specified under paragraphs (h)(6) or (7), as applicable, and (8) of that section, and the Commission has approved the application by formal written order. 6. Section 63.12 is revised to read as follows:  63.12 Streamlined processing of certain international facilities-based and resale applications. (a) Except as provided by paragraph (c) of this section, a complete application seeking authorization under Section 63.18(e)(1) and (2) to acquire facilities to provide international services shall be granted by the Commission 35 days after the date of public notice listing the application as accepted for filing. (b) Issuance of public notice of the grant shall be deemed the issuance of Section 214 certification to the applicant, which may commence operation on the 36th day after the date of public notice listing the application as accepted for filing, but only in accordance with the operations proposed in its application and the rules, regulations, and policies of the Commission. (c) The streamlined processing procedures provided by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall not apply where: (1) The applicant seeks authority under either Section 63.18(e)(1) for global Section 214 authority to operate as a facilities-based carrier or Section 63.18(e)(2) to resell international services, and the applicant has an affiliation within the meaning of Section 63.18(h)(1)(i) with a facilities-based foreign carrier in a destination market, and the Commission has not yet made a determination as to whether that foreign carrier possesses market power in that market; or (2) The applicant has an affiliation within the meaning of Section 63.18(h)(1)(i) with a dominant U.S. facilities-based carrier whose international switched or private line services the applicant seeks authority to resell (either directly or indirectly through the resale of another reseller's services); or (3) The applicant seeks authority under Section 63.18(e)(2) to resell international private line services to a country for which the Commission has not determined as of the date of public notice of the application that equivalent resale opportunities exist between the United States and the destination country; or (4) The application is formally opposed within the meaning of Section 1.1202(e) of this chapter; or (5) The Commission has informed the applicant in writing, including by public notice, within 28 days after the date of public notice accepting the application for filing, that the application is not eligible for streamlined processing under this section. (d) Any complete application that is subject to paragraph (c) of this section will be acted upon only by formal written order and operation for which such authorization is sought may not commence except in accordance with such order. Note: The term "facilities-based carrier" as used in this section means one that holds an ownership, indefeasible-right-of-user, or leasehold interest in bare capacity in an international facility, regardless of whether the underlying facility is a common or non- common carrier submarine cable, or an INTELSAT or separate satellite system. 7. Section 63.13 is amended by revising the last sentence of paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(5), and revising (a)(4) to read as follows:  63.13 Streamlined procedures for modifying regulatory classification of U.S. international carriers from dominant to non-dominant. ***** (a) *** (3) *** For purposes of this paragraph, "telecommunications facilities" are defined as in Section 63.18(h)(4). (4) Any carrier filing a certified list pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section must also provide the "special concessions" certification as required to be submitted pursuant to Section 63.18(i). (5) *** See  63.18(i)(2). ***** 8. Section 63.14 is revised to read as follows:  63.14 Prohibition on agreeing to accept special concessions. Any carrier authorized to provide international communications service under this part shall be prohibited from agreeing to accept special concessions directly or indirectly from any foreign carrier or administration with respect to traffic or revenue flows between the United States and any foreign country served under the authority of this part and from agreeing to enter into such agreements in the future. For purposes of this section, "foreign carrier" is defined as in Section 63.18(h)(1)(ii) and "special concession" is defined as in Section 63.18(i). 9. Section 63.15 is revised to read as follows:  63.15 Special procedures for international service providers. Any party seeking to construct, acquire or operate lines in any new major common carrier facility project or non-U.S. licensed satellite or cable system for the provision of international common carrier services shall file an application pursuant to Section 63.18(e)(6) of this chapter. If a carrier has global Section 214 authority pursuant to the provisions of Section 63.18(e)(1) of this chapter, and the carrier desires to use non-U.S. licensed facilities pursuant to the provisions of Section 63.18(e)(1)(ii)(B), this filing requirement does not apply. 10. Section 63.17 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (b)(4) to read as follows:  63.17 Special provisions for U.S. international common carriers ***** (b) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(5) of this section, a U.S. common carrier, whether a reseller or facilities-based, may engage in "switched hubbing" to countries not found to offer equivalent resale opportunities under Section 63.18(e)(3) and (4) under the following conditions: ***** (4) No U.S. common carrier may engage in switched hubbing under this section to a country where it has an affiliation with a foreign carrier unless and until it receives specific authority to do so under Section 63.18. For purposes of this paragraph, "affiliation" and "foreign carrier" are defined in Section 63.18(h)(1)(i)(B) and (ii), respectively. 11. New Section 63.18 is added to read as follows:  63.18 Contents of applications for international common carriers. Except as otherwise provided in this part, any party seeking authority pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to construct a new line, or acquire or operate any line, or engage in transmission over or by means of such additional line for the provision of common carrier communications services between the United States, its territories or possessions, and a foreign point shall request such authority by formal application which shall be accompanied by a statement showing how the grant of the application will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Such statement shall consist of the following information, as applicable: (a) The name, address, and telephone number of each applicant; (b) The Government, State, or Territory under the laws of which each corporate or partnership applicant is organized; (c) The name, title, post office address, and telephone number of the officer and any other contact point, such as legal counsel, to whom correspondence concerning the application is to be addressed; (d) A statement as to whether the applicant has previously received authority under Section 214 of the Act and, if so, a general description of the categories of facilities and services authorized (i.e., authorized to provide international switched services on a facilities basis); (e) One or more of the following statements, as pertinent: (1) If applying for authority to acquire interests in facilities previously authorized by the Commission in order to provide international basic switched, private line, data, television and business services to all international points, the applicant shall: (i) State that it is requesting Section 214 authority to operate as a facilities-based carrier pursuant to the terms and conditions of paragraph (e)(1) of this section. (ii) Comply with the following terms and conditions: (A) Authority to provide services to all international points under this part extends only to those countries for which the applicant qualifies for non-dominant regulation as set forth in Section 63.10. If an applicant is affiliated with a facilities-based foreign carrier in a destination market and the Commission has not determined that the foreign carrier does not possess market power in that market, the applicant shall not commence service on any such route unless and until it receives specific authority to do so under paragraph (e)(6) of this section. If an applicant becomes dominant on a particular route after receiving authority under this Section, the terms and conditions of Section 63.10(c) will apply to its provision of services on the dominant route. An applicant should file separately under Section 63.18(e)(6) to provide service on routes on which it may not qualify for regulation as a non-dominant carrier. (B) The applicant may only provide service using half-circuits on appropriately licensed U.S. common and non-common carrier facilities (either under Title III of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, or the Submarine Cable Landing License Act, 47 U.S.C.  34 et. al.) provided that these facilities do not appear on an exclusion list published by the Commission and any necessary overseas connecting facilities. Applicants may not use non-U.S. licensed facilities unless and until the Commission specifically approves their use and so indicates on the exclusion list, and only then for service to the countries indicated thereon. (C) The applicant may provide service to any country not included on an exclusion list published by the Commission. (D) The applicant may provide international basic switched, private line, data, television and business services. (E) The authority granted under this paragraph shall be subject to all Commission rules and regulations and any conditions stated in the Commission's public notice or order that serves as the applicant's Section 214 certificate. See  63.12. (2) If applying for authority to resell the international services of authorized U.S. common carriers for the provision of international basic switched, private line, data, television and business services to all international points, the applicant shall: (i) State that it is requesting Section 214 authority to operate as a resale carrier pursuant to the terms and conditions of Section 63.18(e)(2). (ii) Comply with the following the terms and conditions: (A) The applicant may resell the international services of any authorized common carrier, except affiliated carriers regulated as dominant on the route to be served, pursuant to that carrier's tariff or contract duly filed with the Commission, for the provision of international basic switched, private line, data, television and business services to all international points; (B) The applicant may resell private line services for the provision of international basic switched services only to countries found by the Commission to provide equivalent resale opportunities, except in circumstances where the applicant is affiliated with a facilities- based foreign carrier in a destination market and the Commission has not determined that the foreign carrier does not possess market power in that market. In such circumstances, the applicant shall not commence service on any such route unless and until it receives specific authority to do so under paragraph (e)(6) of this section. The Commission will provide public notice of its determinations. (C) The authority granted under this paragraph shall be subject to all Commission rules and regulations and any conditions stated in the Commission's public notice or order that serves as the applicant's Section 214 certificate. See  63.12. (3) If applying for authority to resell private lines for the purpose of providing international basic switched services to countries not on the Commission's published list of equivalent countries, applicant shall demonstrate for each country to which it seeks to provide service that that country affords resale opportunities equivalent to those available under U.S. law. In this regard, applicant shall: (i) Include evidence demonstrating that equivalent resale opportunities exist between the United States and the subject country, including any relevant bilateral agreements between the administrations involved. Parties must demonstrate that the foreign country at the other end of the private line provides U.S.-based carriers with: (A) The legal right to resell international private lines, interconnected at both ends, for the provision of switched services; (B) Nondiscriminatory charges, terms and conditions for interconnection to foreign domestic carrier facilities for termination and origination of international services, with adequate means of enforcement; (C) Competitive safeguards to protect against anticompetitive and discriminatory practices affecting private line resale; and (D) Fair and transparent regulatory procedures, including separation between the regulator and operator of international facilities-based services. (ii) The procedures set forth in paragraph (e)(3) of this section are subject to Commission policies on resale of international private lines in CC Docket No. 90-337 as amended in IB Docket No. 95-22. (4) Any carrier authorized under this section to acquire and operate international private line facilities other than through resale may use those private lines to provide switched basic services to countries found by the Commission to provide equivalent resale opportunities except in circumstances where the applicant is affiliated with a facilities-based foreign carrier in the country at the foreign end of the private line, and the Commission has not determined that the foreign carrier does not possess market power in that market. In such circumstances, the applicant shall not commence service on such route unless and until it receives specific authority to do so under paragraph (e)(6) of this section. The Commission will provide public notice of its equivalency findings. The applicant is subject to all applicable Commission rules and regulations and any conditions stated in the Commission's public notice or order that serves as the applicant's Section 214 certificate. See  63.12. (i) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of this section, any carrier that seeks to provide switched basic services over its authorized private line facilities to countries not identified in the Commission's published list of equivalent countries shall, for each country for which it seeks to provide switched basic service over its authorized private lines facilities, request such authority by formal application. Such application shall be accompanied by a demonstration that that country affords resale opportunities equivalent to those available under U.S. law. In this regard, applicant shall include the information required by paragraph (3) of this section. (ii) No formal application is required under paragraph (e)(4) of this section in circumstances where the carrier's previously authorized private line facility is interconnected to the public switched network only on one end -- either the U.S. or the foreign end -- and where the carrier is not operating the facility in correspondence with a carrier that directly or indirectly owns the private line facility in the foreign country at the other end of the private line. (5) If applying for authority to acquire facilities through the transfer of control of a common carrier holding international Section 214 authorization, or through the assignment of another carrier's existing authorization, the applicant shall complete paragraph (a) through (d) of this section for both the transferor/assignor and the transferee/assignee. Paragraph (g) of this section is not applicable, and only the transferee/assignee needs to complete paragraph (i) and (j) of this section. At the beginning of the application, the applicant should also include a narrative of the means by which the transfer or assignment will take place. The Commission reserves the right to request additional information as to the particulars of the transaction to aid it in making its public interest determination. (6) If applying for authority to acquire facilities or to provide services not covered by Sections 63.18(e)(1) through (5), the applicant shall provide a description of the facilities and services for which it seeks authorization. Such description also shall include any additional information the Commission shall have specified previously in an order, public notice or other official action as necessary for authorization. Applicants for new submarine cable facilities also shall include a list of the proposed owners of the cable, their voting interests and ownership interests by segment in the cable. (f) Applicants may apply for any or all of the authority provided for in paragraph (e) of this section in the same application. The applicant may want to file separate applications for those services not subject to streamlined processing under Section 63.12. (g) Where the applicant is seeking facilities-based authority under paragraph (e)(6) of this section, a statement whether an authorization of the facilities is categorically excluded as defined by Section 1.1306 of this chapter. If answered affirmatively, an environmental assessment as described in Section 1.1311 of this chapter need not be filed with the application. (h) A certification as to whether or not the applicant is, or has an affiliation with, a foreign carrier. (1) The certification shall state with specificity each foreign country in which the applicant is, or has an affiliation with, a foreign carrier. For purposes of this certification: (i) Affiliation is defined to include: (A) A greater than 25 percent ownership of capital stock, or controlling interest at any level, by the applicant, or by any entity that directly or indirectly controls or is controlled by it, or that is under direct or indirect common control with it, in a foreign carrier or in any entity that directly or indirectly controls a foreign carrier; or (B) A greater than 25 percent ownership of capital stock, or controlling interest at any level, in the applicant by a foreign carrier, or by any entity that directly or indirectly controls or is controlled by a foreign carrier, or that is under direct or indirect common control with a foreign carrier; or by two or more foreign carriers investing in the applicant in the same manner in circumstances where the foreign carriers are parties to, or the beneficiaries of, a contractual relation (e.g., a joint venture or market alliance) affecting the provision or marketing of basic international telecommunications services in the United States. A U.S. carrier also will be considered to be affiliated with a foreign carrier where the foreign carrier controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with a second foreign carrier already found to be affiliated with that U.S. carrier under this section. (ii) Foreign carrier is defined as any entity that is authorized within a foreign country to engage in the provision of international telecommunications services offered to the public in that country within the meaning of the International Telecommunication Regulations, see Final Acts of the World Administrative Telegraph and Telephone Conference, Melbourne, 1988 (WATTC-88), Art. 1, which includes entities authorized to engage in the provision of domestic telecommunications services if such carriers have the ability to originate or terminate telecommunications services to of from points outside their country. (2) In support of the required certification, each applicant shall also provide the name, address, citizenship and principal businesses of its ten percent or greater direct and indirect shareholders or other equity holders and identify any interlocking directorates. (3) Each applicant that proposes to acquire facilities through the resale of the international switched or private line services of another U.S. carrier shall additionally certify as to whether or not the applicant has an affiliation with the U.S. carrier(s) whose facilities-based service(s) the applicant proposes to resell (either directly or indirectly through the resale of another reseller's service). For purposes of this paragraph, affiliation is defined as in paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this section, except that the phrase "U.S. facilities-based international carrier" shall be substituted for the phrase "foreign carrier." (4) Each applicant that certifies under this section that it has an affiliation with a foreign carrier and that proposes to resell the international private line services of another U.S. carrier shall additionally certify as to whether the affiliated foreign carrier owns or controls telecommunications facilities in the particular country(ies) to which the applicant proposes to provide service (i.e., the destination country(ies)). For purposes of this paragraph, telecommunications facilities are defined as the underlying telecommunications transport means, including intercity and local access facilities, used by a foreign carrier to provide international telecommunications services offered to the public. (5) Each applicant and carrier authorized to provide international communications service under this part is responsible for the continuing accuracy of the certifications required by paragraphs (h)(3) and (4) of this section. Whenever the substance of any such certification is no longer accurate, the applicant/carrier shall as promptly as possible and in any event within thirty days file with the Secretary in duplicate a corrected certification referencing the FCC File No. under which the original certification was provided. This information may be used by the Commission to determine whether a change in regulatory status may be warranted under Section 63.10. (6) Each applicant that certifies that it is, or that it has an affiliation with, a foreign carrier, as defined in paragraphs (h)(1)(i)(B) and (ii), respectively, in a named foreign country and that seeks to operate as a U.S. facilities-based international carrier to that country from the United States shall provide information in its application filed under this part to demonstrate that either: (i) The named foreign country (i.e., the destination foreign country) provides effective competitive opportunities to U.S. carriers to compete in that country's international facilities-based market; or (ii) Its affiliated foreign carrier does not have the ability to discriminate against unaffiliated U.S. international carriers through control of bottleneck services or facilities in the destination country. (A) The demonstration specified by paragraph (6)(i) of this subsection should address the following factors: (1) The legal ability of U.S. carriers to enter the foreign market and provide facilities-based international services, in particular international message telephone service (IMTS); (2) Whether there exist reasonable and nondiscriminatory charges, terms and conditions for interconnection to a foreign carrier's domestic facilities for termination and origination of international services; (3) Whether competitive safeguards exist in the foreign country to protect against anticompetitive practices, including safeguards such as: (i) Existence of cost-allocation rules in the foreign country to prevent cross- subsidization; (ii) Timely and nondiscriminatory disclosure of technical information needed to use, or interconnect with, carriers' facilities; and (iii) Protection of carrier and customer proprietary information; (4) Whether there is an effective regulatory framework in the foreign country to develop, implement and enforce legal requirements, interconnection arrangements and other safeguards; and (5) Any other factors the applicant deems relevant to its demonstration. (B) The demonstration specified in paragraph (h)(6)(ii) of this section should include the same information requested by paragraph(h)(8) of this section. (7) Each applicant that certifies that it is, or that it has an affiliation with, a foreign carrier, as defined in paragraph (h)(1)(i)(B) and (ii), respectively, in a named foreign country and that proposes to resell the international switched or non-interconnected private line services, respectively, of another U.S. carrier for the purpose of providing international communications services to the named foreign country from the United States shall provide information in its application filed under this part to demonstrate that either: (i) The named foreign country (i.e., the destination foreign country) provides effective competitive opportunities to U.S. carriers to resell international switched or non- interconnected private line services, respectively; or (ii) Its affiliated foreign carrier does not have the ability to discriminate against unaffiliated U.S. international carriers through control of bottleneck services or facilities in the destination country. (A) The demonstration specified by paragraph (h)(7)(i) of this section should address the following factors: (1) The legal ability of U.S. carriers to enter the foreign market and provide resold international switched services (for switched resale applications) or non-interconnected private line services (for non-interconnected private line resale applications); (2) Whether there exist reasonable and nondiscriminatory charges, terms and conditions for the provision of the relevant resale service; (3) Whether competitive safeguards exist in the foreign country to protect against anticompetitive practices, including safeguards such as: (i) Existence of cost-allocation rules in the foreign country to prevent cross- subsidization; (ii) Timely and nondiscriminatory disclosure of technical information needed to use, or interconnect with, carriers' facilities; and (iii) Protection of carrier and customer proprietary information; (4) Whether there is an effective regulatory framework in the foreign country to develop, implement and enforce legal requirements, interconnection arrangements and other safeguards; and (5) Any other factors the applicant deems relevant to its demonstration. (B) The demonstration specified in paragraph (h)(7)(ii) of this section should include the same information requested by paragraph (h)(8) of this subsection. (8) Each applicant that certifies that it has an affiliation with a foreign carrier in a named foreign country and that desires to be regulated as non-dominant for the provision of international communications service to that country may provide information in its application filed under this part to demonstrate that its affiliated foreign carrier does not have the ability to discriminate against unaffiliated U.S. international carriers through control of bottleneck services or facilities in the named foreign country. See  63.10, Regulatory Classification of U.S. International Carriers. (i) Such a demonstration should address the factors that relate to the scope or degree of the foreign affiliate's bottleneck control, such as: (A) The monopoly, duopoly, or oligopoly status of the destination country; and (B) Whether the foreign affiliate has the potential to discriminate against unaffiliated U.S. international carriers through such means as preferential operating agreements, preferential routing of traffic, exclusive or more favorable transiting agreements, or preferential domestic access and interconnection arrangements. (ii) Such a demonstration may also address other factors the applicant deems relevant, such as the effectiveness of regulation in the destination country. (i) Each applicant shall certify that the applicant has not agreed to accept special concessions directly or indirectly from any foreign carrier or administration with respect to traffic or revenue flows between the U.S. and any foreign country which the applicant may serve under the authority granted under this part and will not enter into such agreements in the future. (1) For purposes of paragraph (i) of this section, and of Sections 63.11(c)(2)(iii), 63.13(a)(4), and 63.14, special concession is defined as any arrangement that affects traffic or revenue flows to or from the United States that is offered exclusively by a foreign carrier or administration to a particular U.S. international carrier and not also to similarly situated U.S. international carriers authorized to serve a particular route. (2) The special concessions certification required by paragraph (i) of this section and by Sections 63.11(c)(2)(iii) and 63.13(a)(4) shall be viewed as an ongoing representation to the Commission, and applicants/carriers shall immediately inform the Commission if at any time the representations in their certifications are no longer true. Failure to so inform the Commission will be deemed a material misrepresentation to the Commission. (j) A certification pursuant to Sections 1.2001 through 1.2003 of this chapter that no party to the application is subject to a denial of Federal benefits pursuant to Section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. See 21 U.S.C.  853a. Note 1: The word "control" as used in this section is not limited to majority stock ownership, but includes actual working control in whatever manner exercised. Note 2: The term "facilities-based carrier" as used in this section means one that holds an ownership, indefeasible-right-of-user, or leasehold interest in bare capacity in an international facility, regardless of whether the underlying facility is a common or non- common carrier submarine cable, or an INTELSAT or separate satellite system. Note 3: The assessment of "capital stock" ownership will be made under the standards developed in Commission case law for determining such ownership. See, e.g., Fox Television Stations, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 8452 (1995). "Capital stock" includes all forms of equity ownership, including partnership interests. Note 4: In applying the provisions of this section, ownership and other interests in U.S. and foreign carriers will be attributed to their holders and deemed cognizable pursuant to the following criteria: (a) Attribution of ownership interests in a carrier that are held indirectly by any party through one or more intervening corporations will be determined by successive multiplication of the ownership percentages for each link in the vertical ownership chain and application of the relevant attribution benchmark to the resulting product, except that wherever the ownership percentage for any link in the chain exceeds 50 percent, it shall not be included for purposes of this multiplication. For example, if A owns 30 percent of company X, which owns 60 percent of company Y, which owns 26 percent of "carrier," then X's interest in "carrier" would be 26 percent (the same as Y's interest because X's interest in Y exceeds 50 percent), and A's interest in "carrier" would be 7.8 percent (0.30 x 0.26). Under the 25 percent attribution benchmark, X's interest in "carrier" would be cognizable, while A's interest would not be cognizable. 12. A new Section 63.19 is added to read as follows:  63.19 Special procedures for discontinuances of international services. (a) Any non-dominant international carrier as this term is defined in Section 63.10 that seeks to discontinue, reduce or impair service, including the retiring of international facilities, dismantling or removing of international trunk lines, shall be subject to the following procedures in lieu of those specified in Sections 63.61 through 63.601: (1) The carrier shall notify all affected customers of the planned discontinuance, reduction or impairment at least 60 days prior to its planned action. Notice shall be in writing to each affected customer unless the Commission authorizes in advance, for good cause shown, another form of notice. (2) The carrier shall file with this Commission a copy of the notification on or after the date on which notice has been given to all affected customers. (b) Any dominant international carrier as this term is defined in Section 63.10 that seeks to retire international facilities, dismantle or remove international trunk lines, and the services being provided through these facilities are not being discontinued, reduced or impaired, shall only be subject to the notification requirements of paragraph (a) of this section. If such carrier discontinues, reduces or impairs service to a community or retires facilities that impair or reduce service to a community, the dominant carrier shall file an application pursuant to Sections 63.62 and 63.500. 13. A new Section 63.20 is added to read as follows:  63.20 Copies required; fees; and filing periods for international service providers. (a) Unless otherwise specified the Commission shall be furnished with an original and five copies of applications filed for international facilities and services under Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Provided, however, that where applications involve only the supplementation of existing international facilities, and the issuance of a certificate is not required, an original and two copies of the application shall be furnished. Upon request by the Commission, additional copies of the application shall be furnished. Each application shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed in Subpart G of Part 1 of this chapter. (b) No application accepted for filing and subject to the provisions of Sections 63.02, 63.18, 63.62 or 63.505 shall be granted by the Commission earlier than 28 days following issuance of public notice by the Commission of the acceptance for filing of such application or any major amendment unless said public notice specifies another time period, or the application qualifies for streamlined processing pursuant to Section 63.12. (c) No application accepted for filing and subject to the streamlined processing provisions of Section 63.12 shall be granted by the Commission earlier than 21 days following issuance of public notice by the Commission of the acceptance for filing of such application or any major amendment unless said public notice specifies another time period. (d) Any interested party may file a petition to deny an application within the 21 day or other time period specified in paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section. The petitioner shall serve a copy of such petition on the applicant no later than the date of filing thereof with the Commission. The petition shall contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that the petitioner is a party in interest and that a grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Such allegations of fact shall, except for those of which official notice may be taken, be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof. The applicant may file an opposition to any petition to deny within 14 days after the original pleading is filed. The petitioner may file a reply to such opposition within seven days after the time for filing oppositions has expired. Allegations of facts or denials thereof shall similarly be supported by affidavit. These responsive pleadings shall be served on the applicant or petitioner, as appropriate, and other parties to the proceeding. 14. A new Section 63.21 is added to read as follows:  63.21 Conditions applicable to international Section 214 authorizations. International carriers authorized under Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, must follow the following requirements and prohibitions: (a) Carriers may not resell private lines for the provision of international switched services unless the country at the foreign end of the private line is deemed equivalent. See  63.18(e)(3) through (4). (b) Carriers must file copies of operating agreements entered into with their foreign correspondents within 30 days of their execution, and shall otherwise comply with the filing requirements contained in Section 43.51 of this chapter. (c) Carriers must file tariffs pursuant to Section 203 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 203, and Part 61 of this chapter. (d) Carriers must file annual reports of overseas telecommunications traffic as required by Section 43.61 of this chapter. (e) Carriers regulated as dominant must provide the Commission with the following information within 30 days after conveyance of transmission capacity on submarine cables to other U.S. carriers: (1) The name of the party to whom the capacity was conveyed; (2) The name of the facility in which capacity was conveyed; (3) The amount of capacity that was conveyed; and (4) The price of the capacity conveyed. 15. Section 63.52 is amended by revising the section heading to read as follows:  63.52 Copies required; fees; and filing periods for domestic authorizations. ***** 16. Section 63.53 is amended to read as follows:  63.53 Form. (a) Applications under Section 214 of the Communications Act shall be submitted on paper not more than 21.6 cm (8.5 in) wide and not more than 35.6 cm (14 in) long with a left-hand margin of 4 cm (1.5 in). This requirement shall not apply to original documents, or admissible copies thereof, offered as exhibits or to specially prepared exhibits. The impression shall be on one side of the paper only and shall be double-spaced, except that long quotations shall be single-spaced and indented. All papers, except charts and maps, shall be typewritten or prepared by mechanical processing methods, other than letter press, or printed. The foregoing shall not apply to official publications. All copies must be clearly legible. (b) Applications submitted under Section 214 of the Communications Act for international services may be submitted on computer diskettes pursuant to a filing manual compiled by the International Bureau, but a paper copy of the application with the original signature must accompany the diskette. The manual will specify the type and format of the computer diskettes and the reporting and procedural requirements for such applications. (c) Applications submitted under Section 214 of the Communications Act for international services and any related pleadings that are in a foreign language shall be accompanied by a certified translation in English. 17. Section 63.62 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:  63.62 Type of discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of telephone or telegraph service requiring formal application. ***** (a) The dismantling or removal of a trunk line (for contents of application see  63.500) for all domestic carriers and for dominant international carriers except as modified in Section 63.19; ***** 18. Section 63.71 is amended by revising the section heading to read as follows:  63.71 Special procedures for discontinuance, reduction or impairment of service by domestic non-dominant carriers. ***** APPENDIX B FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS Pursuant to Section 603 of Title 5, United States Code, 5 U.S.C.  603, an initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in IB Docket No. 95-118. Written comments on the proposals in the Notice, including the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, were requested. A. NEED AND PURPOSE OF RULES. This Report and Order streamlines the international Section 214 authorization process and tariff requirements in order to greatly lessen the regulatory burdens on applicants, authorized carriers, and the Commission to enable them to operate more efficiently and respond better to customers' needs in a timely manner. These rules allow international carriers to enter and exit the market more quickly with greater flexibility to meet the evolving needs of the global telecommunications market. B. ISSUES RAISED BY THE PUBLIC IN RESPONSE TO THE INITIAL ANALYSIS. We received one comment in response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The America's Carriers Telecommunications Association (ACTA) completely supported the initiatives of the Commission in seeking to reduce unnecessary regulation and to streamline the regulation required to serve the interests of the public. ACTA raised one area of concern as the Commission replaces traditional regulatory controls in favor of competition to regulate the marketplace. ACTA states that effective enforcement of the remaining regulations, which is both prompt and effective, is critical to survival of the smaller competitors in the industry. ACTA states that present complaint and tariff processes favor the established carriers, as does commercial arbitration and/or the Alternative Dispute Resolution proceedings of the Commission. ACTA states that the Commission should provide small competitors a fair, unbiased and competent forum to air their grievances and to obtain justice. C. SIGNIFICANT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED. We have attempted to balance all the commenters' concerns with our public interest mandate under the Act in order to adopt a clear and administratively feasible approach to processing international Section 214 applications and tariffs. Where we have removed regulations, we have been careful to consider the implications on small businesses and the industry in general. We have considered and addressed all of the alternatives offered. We rejected proposals to streamline dominant carrier regulations where we believed such action would hinder our ability to regulate dominant carriers, and safeguard against market power abuses.