WPC< 2HB X Z3|C (TT)Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)"5^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777C7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSx]AN:*KS7JSSSSS.4}}S2~~S}277JJS77SS7J72N7[[^C`^SS`*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZv7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7~.S^7~SC[227`K*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSSSC[227`L*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSSHP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MXript4AHPLA5SMX.WRSC\  P6Q,,,"XP2< z3Z 3|P Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)ozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddHP LaserJet 4/4MPT2 room 844AHPLAS4.WRSSC\  P6Q,,!\P2J nRxX Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)y.C8*X/C\  P6QP7PC2XXP\  P6QXP.7UC2XXU4  pQXter:Bh(P( PF&onts:)pZ CPDBM_WPNameSearchListBCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5^2BQdd$BBdq2B28dddddddddd88qqqYzoBNzoozzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`l2BBBBPBddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYzYzYzYdddddPdBdBBBdNdoNNF2ZdBYddddd7>d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddddPn<7PC2X DXP\  P6QXP.?7UC2XxXU4  pQX@W!0(X h0\  P6QhPAI(!XI,(\  P6Q,PB5PC2X3EXP*f9 xQXX{,C8*X3,C*f9 xQX"5@^2CTdd+CCd2C28ddddddddddCCdzzzzCYozzdozzooN8NTdCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddNN8dYYYNP7Pl2CC!CCPRCddzdzdzdzdzdYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYzddddoYdzdzdzdzdYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdYYo8oRdddzNzRdNdNNF2idNdddddd7>d<d<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd2@" #"5@^*7FSS$77Sq*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77qqqSffoxffxx7Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS7SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ*7777CE7SSfSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSfSoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS7S777SJoJ].]EoSoSxSofAfESASAN:*WSASSSSSS.4}}S2S}277]]S77SS7]72t7[[[[qee*C`q.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7FSS$77Sq*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77qqqSffoxffxx7Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS7SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ7S]SS7S777]]:S7A7o]*ASSSS.S7.Sq7SC[227`W*724S}}}Sffffffoffff7777xoxxxxxqxxxxx]fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSJS2: X4  X01Í ÍX81Í Í#XP\  P6QXP#> X4{  Federal Communications Commission`(#ZFCC 97204   yxdddy Պ  X' +`Before the { Federal Communications Commission  X'-Washington, D.C. 20554 ă `(#(#  XH4In the Matter of hhCq) ` `  hhCq)  X 4CABLE & WIRELESS, PLChhCq) XX` ` X XXhhCXq)(#  X 4Application for a License to Land andq)File No. SCL96005  X 4Operate in the United States a Privateq)hXpp(#p  X 4Submarine Fiber Optic Cable Extending q)  X 4Between the United States and the hhCq)  X4United Kingdom XXhhCXq)pp  *xxX(#  XK' CABLE LANDING LICENSE \  X4X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: 'ԍXSee  20 supra.(#W Therefore, consistent with our precedent, we apply an effective competitive opportunities framework in  X 4examining the application of a foreign carrier' K* yO'ЍXA "foreign carrier" is defined in Section 63.18(h)(1)(ii) of our rules as: ". . . [A]ny 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  {O'Regulations, see Final Acts of the World Administrative Telegraph and Telephone Conference,  {O'Melbourne, 1988 (WATTC88), Art.1." 47 C.F.R.  63.18(h)(1)(ii). As in the Foreign Carrier Entry  {O'Order, we construe this definition of a foreign carrier as we did in International Services. Thus, it includes foreign carriers that provide intercity or local access services or facilities in a foreign country. Regulation of International Common Carrier Services, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 7331, 7334 n.47 (1992). (# or its affiliatesK( K* yOx'ЍXThe Commission has defined "affiliation" in Section 63.18(h)(1)(i)(B) of our rules for purposes of determining those foreign carrier affiliates that are subject to the effective competitive opportunities analysis. This definition includes an ownership interest of greater than 25 percent, or a controlling  {O'interest at any level, in a U.S. carrier by a foreign carrier. 47 C.F.R.  63.18(h)(1)(i)(B). See also  {O'Foreign Carrier Entry Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 39023914.(#K to land and operate a non X 4common carrier cable system under the Cable Landing License Act.T)D vK* yO'ԍXWe note that on February 15, 1996, 69 countries signed a World Trade Organization ("WTO") agreement on basic telecommunications. The United Kingdom, like the United States, is one of the  {O'countries that has committed to open its market. On June 4, 1997, we issued a Notice of Proposed  {Oo'Rulemaking seeking comment on whether and how to amend our rules in response to the liberalized competitive environment that will exist when the WTO agreement takes effect on January 1, 1998. Rules and Policies on Foreign Participation in the U.S. Telecommunications Market, IB Docket No. 97142, FCC 97195 (rel. June 4, 1997). Because we have not yet adopted any new rules, however, we analyze the application before us under our current regulatory framework.(#T  X 426.` ` In applying the effective competitive opportunities analysis under the Cable Landing License Act to C&W's application, we first determine whether C&W or its affiliate" )0*&&qq[ "  X4has market power in the United Kingdom, the destination market of the relevant cable.*K* {Oy'ԍXSee Foreign Carrier Entry Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 3887 ("The effective competitive opportunities test adopted here applies only to carriers with market power. . . . If dominant carriers are to match these entry opportunities, and the competitive strategies that they make possible, they have an incentive to support policy reforms in foreign countries that would satisfy the effective competitive opportunities analysis.)." (# The  X4Foreign Carrier Entry Order defines "market power" as "the ability of the carrier to act anticompetitively against unaffiliated U.S. carriers through the control of bottleneck services  X4or facilities on the foreign end."K+zK* {O 'ԍXId. at 3917.(#K "Bottleneck services or facilities" are "those that are necessary for the provision of international services, including intercity or local access  X4facilities on the foreign end."D, K* {OL 'ԍXId. (#D  Xa427.` ` If we determine that C&W does have market power in the United Kingdom,  XJ4we will examine the legal, or de jure, ability of U.S. carriers to have ownership interests in submarine cables landing in the United Kingdom. If no explicit legal restrictions on ownership exist, we will examine other factors to determine whether U.S. carriers have the  X 4practical or de facto ability to have ownership interests in cable facilities on the foreign end.  X 428.` ` Finally, we will determine whether there are other factors that weigh in favor of, or against, granting this application under the Cable Landing License Act. We will make this determination whether or not an applicant or its affiliate has market power in the destination market of the relevant cable.  Xh429.` ` In this case, C&W controls Mercury, a provider of domestic and international  XQ4telecommunications services in the United Kingdom.^-QK* yO'ЍXC&W Application at 3.(#^ To determine whether we will apply our effective competitive opportunities analysis, we will examine the market power of Mercury in the United Kingdom, the foreign destination market of C&W's proposed cable system.  X430.` ` In its recent grant of CWI's request to provide facilitiesbased services between the United States and the United Kingdom under Section 214, the International Bureau found that once the United Kingdom's Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) issued additional facilitiesbased licenses for international switched and private line services, Mercury would lack market power in the United Kingdom in the provision of these services. In analyzing Mercury's market power in the provision of international facilitiesbased services, the Bureau applied traditional antitrust principles to examine: (1) Mercury's market share; (2) the supply"T . -0*&&qqN" elasticity of the market; (3) the demand elasticity for Mercury's services; and (4) Mercury's  X4cost structure, size, and resources.-.ZK* {Ob'ԍXSee CWI Order at  9. The Bureau analyzed Mercury's market power in the provision of international switched services and private line services separately because the two services constitute separate product markets. (#-  X431.` ` The Bureau first examined the local and national (domestic long distance)  X4markets for terminating international facilitiesbased services at their U.K. destination. It concluded that Mercury does not control bottleneck services and facilities for terminating international switched and private line services and therefore lacks market power in the  X_4United Kingdom's domestic market.n/Z_K* {O 'ԍXId. at  1012. The Bureau found that Mercury's share of the U.K. domestic market for local and national (long distance) services is low, and Mercury's size and resources do not provide persuasive evidence that Mercury has market power in the United Kingdom's domestic telecommunications market.(#n  X1432.` ` TheTHE Bureau next examined the facilitiesbased markets for international services. The Bureau observed that the DTI had announced its intention to eliminate the restrictions limiting the provision of international facilitiesbased services to British Telecommunications, plc (BT) and Mercury and had invited companies to apply for licenses to provide international facilitiesbased telecommunications services on all routes from the  X 4United Kingdom.F0 K* {O{'ԍId. at  16.F The Bureau noted that DTI had not yet authorized any carrier other than Mercury or BT to provide international facilitiesbased services. The Bureau found that, "[w]ith the issuance of new facilitiesbased international licenses by DTI, . . . Mercury's current market shares of 24.6 percent and 36 percent for international switched and private  Xb4line services [would not] confer market power in either product market."Y1bK* {O'ԍId. at  14 (footnote omitted).Y  X44 33.` ` The Bureau also found there is significant capacity on existing and future cable  X4and satellite circuits between the United States and the United Kingdom.N20 K* {O'ԍXId. at  15.(#N With respect to barriers to entry into these product markets, the Bureau expressed its anticipation that the implementation of the United Kingdom's new regulatory policies would promote competitive  X4entry into the international facilitiesbased services markets.@3Z K* {OK#'ԍXId. at  17 (". . . there is nothing in the record before us to suggest that the United Kingdom will impose restrictions on foreign ownership or participation in the provision of international facilitiesbased switched and private line services.").(#@ The Bureau found that there was sufficient evidence of an elastic demand for Mercury's services, and that Mercury's size" 30*&&qq>" and resources do not provide persuasive evidence that Mercury holds market power in the  X4provision of international facilitiesbased services.I4K* {Ob'ԍId. at  1819.I The Bureau therefore concluded that, once DTI issues additional facilities licenses, Mercury will lack market power in the United  X4Kingdom in the provision of facilitiesbased services.F5ZK* {O'ԍId. at  20.F Based on its findings, the Bureau did not apply the effective competitive opportunities analysis as part of its review of CWI's  X4application.M6K* {O* 'ЍXId. (#M  X_4!34.` ` We now examine whether Mercury has market power arising from its current ownership of U.K. submarine cables and cable stations. We note that, between them, Mercury and BT historically have owned and controlled nearly all U.K. undersea cables and cable stations. However, on December 19, 1996, DTI issued licenses to fortyfive new entrants, including a number of U.S. carriers, to provide U.K. facilitiesbased service. Upon request, applicants were granted licenses conferring "code powers," which vest the licensees with special rights to facilitate the construction of networks and cable stations. No further  X 4authorization is needed to land cables in the United Kingdom.O7 ~K* yO'ЍXIn light of the grant of these licenses, the International Bureau issued a letter to CWI on December 23, 1996 indicating that CWI's Section 214 authorization to provide facilitiesbased international switched and private line services on the U.S.U.K. route as a non-dominant carrier was effective immediately.  {OE'See Letter from Donald H. Gips, Chief, International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Rachel J. Rothstein, Senior Regulatory Counsel, Cable & Wireless, Inc. (Dec. 23, 1996). (#O We expect that new entrants will take advantage of this liberalization to construct and operate new cable facilities in competition with BT and Mercury. Given this opening of the U.K. international facilities market, and Mercury's current shares in the international facilitiesbased services product  Xb4markets,a8b0 K* {OC'ЍXSee  32 supra.(#a we also find that Mercury does not have market power arising from its ownership of U.K. undersea cables and cable stations. We affirm the International Bureau's findings that Mercury does not control bottleneck facilities in the United Kingdom and thus does not have market power in the United Kingdom, the destination market of this proposed cable. Accordingly, we do not reach the issue of whether the United Kingdom affords U.S. carriers effective competitive opportunities to land and operate cable systems in the United Kingdom.  X4"35.` ` We next examine whether there are any other reasons to deny C&W's application. As mentioned above, we received a communication from the Secretary of State  X4indicating that the Secretary approves the grant of the license.a9 K* {O&'ЍXSee  21 supra.(#a We have received no other"T 90*&&qq" communication from the Executive Branch expressing concern under the Cable Landing License Act with this application. In addition, no other party has raised any concerns which would warrant denying C&W's application. Accordingly, we conclude we should grant this application.  X' D.` ` Other Issues  X_'XX` ` 1. Potential for Discrimination by C&W (#`  X14#36.` ` Atlantic ATLANTIC  Express argues that because of its diverse interests around the world, C&W would have the ability and incentive to discriminate against U.S. interests. Atlantic Express states that C&W owns and operates the largest fleet of deepsea submarine cable laying ships in the world and thus could manipulate restoration rights to favor its own customers in this cable over others or deprive U.S. firms of a fair opportunity to participate in the cable provisioning process. In addition, Atlantic Express argues that C&W, with affiliates in over fifty foreign countries, could delay or deny U.S. carriers access to the proposed cable  X4unless they agree to a quid pro quo designed to favor one of C&W's affiliates in another market.  XM4$37.` ` Atlantic Express also states that some of its discrimination concerns are now  X64outside of the scope of the Section 214 authorization process because our International  X!4Section 214 Streamlining Order permits nondominant carriers with global Section 214 authority to add circuits without additional Commission authorization on any facilities not on  X4the exclusion list.:K* {On'ԍXSee Streamlining the International Section 214 Authorization Process and Tariff Requirements, Report  {O8'and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 12884 (1996). (# Thus, according to Atlantic Express, once a carrier receives global Section 214 authority, no vehicle of redress for discrimination would exist. In response, C&W states that Atlantic Express' claims about the potential for anticompetitive conduct by  X4C&W arising from its cable ownership are based on "speculation and surmise."W;$K* yO'ЍXC&W Opposition at 5.(#W  X4%38.` ` We decline to deny C&W's application or require common carrier treatment of the proposed cable facility based on Atlantic Express' discrimination concerns. Absent a much stronger evidentiary showing than Atlantic Express has provided, we do not believe that the mere fact that C&W has diverse operations in other markets should have a direct bearing on our decision regarding this facility on the U.S.U.K. route. Such an approach could chill facilities investment as global competition increases and carriers enter new markets. Moreover, anticompetitive conduct by C&W or any other entity that violates U.S. antitrust laws remains fully actionable. " ;0*&&qqH"Ԍ X4&39.` ` We emphasize that our decision to grant this cable landing license to C&W on a noncommon basis is predicated in part upon the current and planned facility alternatives on  X4the U.S.U.K. route.^<\K* {OK'ЍXSee  16 supra. We note that the existence of other facilities on this route is relevant both for  {O'determining how to regulate the operation of this cable (i.e., on a common or noncommon carrier basis) and for examining C&W's market power. (#^ Because of these alternatives, carriers and users will have viable choices other than C&W's proposed system when seeking capacity on the U.S.U.K. route. Likewise, as the owner of a noncommon carrier cable system, C&W will tailor its capacity offerings to individual customers. We note, however, that we always have the ability to change the regulatory status of this cable and any other noncommon carrier cables on the same route to common carrier if the public interest so requires. Should conditions change for  XH4#Xh*f9 xr G;EXX#any#Xj\  P6G; DXP# reason, and the C&W cable becomes a potential bottleneck facility, we can exercise this option. Our ability to change the regulatory status of a noncommon carrier cable also  X 4remains available for redressing anticompetitive discrimination.= K* yO'ЍXWe note that the Commission has the authority to require such a change in regulatory status to common  {O'carrier. See, e.g., Optel, 8 FCC Rcd at 2269; Norlight, Order on Reconsideration, 2 FCC Rcd 5167,  {OK'5168 (1987); NARUC I, 535 F.2d at 644. Also, Section 2 of the Cable Landing License Act states that a cable landing license may be granted "upon such terms as shall be necessary to ensure just and reasonable rates and service in the operation and use of cables so licensed." Cable Landing License Act at  35.(#Ɛ The fact that nondominant U.S. carriers no longer need to obtain additional Section 214 authority to add circuits on particular U.S.licensed facilities in no way limits our authority to reclassify a particular cable as a common carrier facility or even revoke the license.  X ' XX` ` 2. Special Share Arrangement(#`  X{4 '40.` ` Atlantic ATLANTIC  Express asserts that the U.K. Government maintains important influence over C&W by virtue of its "special rights preference share" in C&W. C&W argues that the rights possessed by the U.K. Government under this arrangement with C&W are limited in nature.  X4(41.` ` In accordance with its special share, the U.K. Government or its representative must consent in writing to any proposals for amending, removing, or altering certain provisions of C&W's articles of incorporation. These include provisions regarding special share rights, limitations on shareholders, and directors (requiring, for example, that either the chairman or the chief executive officer of C&W be a British citizen). The special shareholder is also entitled certain rights with regard to major corporate events and to receive notice of, attend, and speak at general meetings. As we found above, C&W's U.K. affiliate, Mercury, is nondominant in the U.K. market. There is no record evidence to indicate that the special share arrangement alters this status. Accordingly, we find that C&W's special share"Ph =0*&&qq" arrangement with the U.K. Government does not change the outcome of our analysis of this application.  X'  BV. CONCLUSION ă  X4)42.` ` WeWE grant C&W's application for authority to land and operate a noncommon carrier fiber optic submarine cable extending between the United States and the United  X_4Kingdom, subject to the conditions listed below.*>_K* yO'ЍXBased on the information provided by C&W and pursuant to the Commission's procedures implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 47 C.F.R. 1.1301!1.1319 (1996), we conclude that the grant of the requested authorizations would have no significant effect on the quality of the human environment and is therefore categorically excluded from environmental processing. Consequently, C&W is not required to submit an environmental assessment with this application.(#* Grant of this application will increase facilities competition on the U.S.U.K. route.  X 4 VI. ORDERING CLAUSES  X 4  X 4*43.` ` ConsistentCONSISTENT with the foregoing, we hereby GRANT AND ISSUE to Cable & Wireless, plc, under the provisions of the Cable Landing License Act and Executive Order 10530, a license to land and operate a noncommon carrier fiber optic submarine cable system (with two fiber pairs operating at 5 Gbps per pair) extending between the United States and the United Kingdom, with landing points in the northeastern United States and the southwestern portion of the United Kingdom. This grant is subject to all rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission; any treaties or conventions relating to communications to which the United States is or may hereafter become a party; any action by the Commission or the Congress of the United States rescinding, changing, modifying, or amending any rights accruing to any person hereunder; and the following conditions: ` ` (1) The location of the cable within the territorial waters of the United States of America, its territories and possessions, and upon its shore shall be in conformity with plans approved by the Secretary of the Army, and the cable shall be moved or shifted by the Licensee at its expense upon the request of the Secretary of the Army whenever he or she considers such course necessary in the public interest, for reasons of national defense, or for the maintenance or improvement of harbors for navigational purposes;(#` XX` ` (2) The Licensee shall at all times comply with any requirements of United States government authorities regarding the location and concealment of the cable facilities, buildings, and apparatus for the purpose of protecting and safeguarding the cable from injury or destruction by enemies of the United States of America;(#` "x>0*&&qq^"Ԍ` ` (3) The Licensee or any persons or companies controlling it, controlled by it, or under direct or indirect common control with it does not enjoy and shall not acquire any right to handle traffic to or from the United States, its territories, or its possessions unless such service be authorized by the Commission pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act, as amended;(#` XX` ` (4) The Licensee or any persons or companies controlling it, controlled by it, or under direct or indirect common control with it shall not acquire or enjoy any right for the purpose of handling or interchanging traffic to or from the United States, its territories, or its possessions to land, connect, or operate cables or landlines, to construct or operate radio stations, or to interchange traffic, that is denied to any other United States company by reason of any concession, contract, understanding, or working arrangement to which the Licensee or any persons controlling it, controlled by it, or under direct or indirect common control with it are parties;(#` XX` ` (5) Neither this license nor the rights granted herein shall be transferred, assigned, or in any manner either voluntarily or involuntarily disposed of or disposed of indirectly by transfer of control of the Licensee to any persons, unless the Federal Communications Commission shall give prior consent in writing;(#` XX` ` (6) The licensee shall obtain prior Commission approval for any change of five percent or more in the ownership or control of the cable;(#` XX` ` (7) The Licensee shall notify the Commission in writing of (i) the precise locations at which the cable will land; and (ii) the specific ownership interests of Segment A, the U.S. landing station, including a description of the proposed owners and their voting interests. Such notification shall occur no later than ninety days prior to commencing construction of the cable landing stations. The corporate entity maintaining the U.S. landing station shall have no more than 20 percent foreign ownership without prior approval. The Licensee also shall notify the Commission of the proposed voting interests of Segments B and C of the cable. The Commission will give public notice of the filing of this information, and grant of this license will be considered final unless the Commission issues a notice to the contrary no later than sixty days after receipt of all the required information; (#` XX` ` (7) The Commission reserves the right to require the Licensee to file an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement should it determine that the landing of the cable at those locations and construction of necessary cable landing stations would significantly affect the environment"Q%>0*&&qqe#" within the meaning of Section1.1307 of the Commission's procedures implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; this license is subject to modification by the Commission upon its review of any environmental assessment or environmental impact statement that it may require pursuant to its rules;(#` XX` ` (8) This license is revocable by the Commission after due notice and opportunity for hearing pursuant to section 2 of "An Act Relating to the Landing and Operation of Submarine Cables in the United States," 47 U.S.C. 35, or for failure to comply with the terms of the authorizations;(#` XX` ` (9) The Licensee shall notify the Commission in writing of the date on which the cable is placed in service, and this license shall expire 25 years from such date, unless renewed or extended upon proper application, and, upon expiration of this license, all rights granted under it shall be terminated; and (#` ` ` (10) The terms and conditions upon which this license is given shall be accepted by the Licensee by filing a letter with the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554, within 30 days of the release of the cable landing license.(#`  X4+44.` ` This Order is issued effective upon release. Petitions for reconsideration under Section1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.106, may be filed within 30 days of  X4the date of public notice of this order (#Xh*f9 xr G;EXX#see#Xj\  P6G; DXP# 47 C.F.R. 1.4(b)(2)). XX` ` X XXhhCFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION(#h ` `  hhCWilliam F. Caton XX` ` X XXhhCActing Secretary(#h