WPC( 2BJ Courier3|XTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicTimes New RomanPCL) (Additional)HL4MPCAD.PRSx  @\ vX@26%F K3|jTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicTimes New Roman Bold Italic"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""J)J.J"VCTVCVCV(#,%!h>*f9 xr G;hX 6jC:,<Xj9 xOG;XW!@(#,<L-dominant, subject to certain separate affiliate conditions. See id. at  139 & 189. But see infra  14.(#C  X -x 12.` ` We reach the same conclusion s in the outofregion context. The critical issue is whether a BOC or independent LEC can use its market power in local exchange and exchange access services to act anticompetitively in its provision of outofregion international services. We find no practical distinctions between a BOC's or independent LEC's ability and incentive to use its market power in the provision of local exchange and access services to improperly allocate costs, discriminate against, or otherwise disadvantage unaffiliated domestic interexchange competitors as opposed to international service competitors. As a  X-result, we find that t he BOCs and independent LECs do not have, upon entry or soon thereafter, the ability to raise the price of outofregion international services by restricting their output of such services, even if they were to offer such services on an integrated basis with their local exchange and exchange access services. We therefore find that these carriers should be treated as nondominant in the provision of outofregion international services.  X-Consistent with the policy articulated in the Classification of LEC Long Distance Service  X-Report and Order, we also remove the interim separation requirements imposed on any BOC affiliate's Section 214 authorization to provide outofregion international service. We remove these requirements from Section 214 authorizations issued to independent LECs as well, but only with respect to their provision of international services originating from outof X&-region areas.S&H {O%-ԍXxSee id. at  197.(#S We note that the BOCs and independent LECs that provide outofregion"&0*((z" international services, even on an integrated basis, must continue to treat these activities as  X-nonregulated for purposes of our cost allocation rules.S  {Ob-ԍXxSee id. at  209.(#S  X-x 13.` ` The Commission concluded in the Classification of LEC Long Distance Service  X-Report and Order that incumbent independent LECs should be classified as nondominant in the provision of inregion international services but that they may only provide such services  Xz-through an affiliate that fulfills the separation requirements of the Competitive Carrier Fifth  Xe-Report and Order.G!ZeZ {Op -ԍXxSee id. at  188191; see also Classification of LEC Long Distance Service Reconsideration Order at  4 (stating that only "incumbent" independent LECs providing inregion international services must comply with the separation requirements). (#G Our interim conditions, therefore, will continue to apply to independent  XP-LECs' provision of inregion international services until the Classification of LEC Long  X;-Distance Service Report and Order becomes effective, at which time our interim conditions  X& -will be superseded by the rules adopted in that order. In addition, we note that the  X -Commission also modified the third of the Competitive Carrier Fifth Report and Order separation requirements so that independent LEC affiliates may acquire unbundled elements from their affiliated LECs, subject to the same terms and conditions as provided in an  X -agreement approved under Section 252 to which the independent LEC is a party." | {O-ԍXxSee Classification of LEC Long Distance Service Report and Order at  164.(#ƌ  X-x 14.` ` As a final matter, we reiterate the Commission's conclusion in the  X-Classification of LEC Long Distance Service Report and Order maintaining the separate framework regulating U.S. international carriers (including BOCs, independent LECs, or their affiliates) as dominant on routes where an affiliated foreign carrier has the ability to discriminate in favor of its U.S. affiliate through control of bottleneck services or facilities in  X--the foreign destination market.`#- {O-ԍXxSee id. at  81 n.212. (#`   X- * IV. Ordering Clauses ĐTP  X-x15.` ` In view of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interim safeguards imposed as a condition of nondominant treatment of BOCs' and independent LECs' provision of outofregion international services are removed.  Xu-x16.` ` This order is issued under Section 0.261 of the Commission's rules and is effective upon adoption. Petitions for reconsideration under Section 1.106 or applications for "^#0*((" review under Section 1.115 of the Commission's rules may be filed within 30 days of the date of the public notice of this order (see Section 1.4(b)(2) of the Commission's rules). x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@Peter F. Cowhey x` `  hh@Chief, International Bureau