Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                      Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                )
                                )
                                        AT&T Corp.                      )       File Nos. USP-94-W-506
                                                                           
MCI Telecommunications Corp.    )                 USP-94-W-510
                                )                 USP-95-W-360
Petitions for Waiver of the     )                 USP-95-W-385
International Settlements Policy)                 USP-96-W-103
to Change the Accounting Rate   )                 ISP-96-W-256
for Switched Voice Service with )
Various Countries;              )
Re:  Applications for Review    )


                        ORDER ON REVIEW


                                        Adopted:  October 20, 1998              Released:  December 3, 1998

By the Commission:                      
                         I.  Introduction

     1.   In this Order, we deny the Applications for Review filed by Compa¤ia Dominicana
de Tel‚fonos C. por. A. (CODETEL), Cable & Wireless-West Indies (CWWI) and Philippines
Long Distance Telephone (PLDT) seeking review of a September 1997 order by the Chief of the
International Bureau.  After reviewing the record, we affirm the Bureau Order's finding that the
accounting rate arrangements contained in six modification requests filed by AT&T Corp. (AT&T) and MCI
Telecommunications Corp. (MCI) violated the Commission's International Settlements Policy (ISP).  We also affirm the Bureau Order's approval of those
accounting rate arrangements subject to the condition that all U.S. carriers that have entered into arrangements with CODETEL, CWWI or PLDT renegotiate
nondiscriminatory arrangements that comply with our ISP.  Finally, we affirm the requirement of the Bureau Order that, until nondiscriminatory arrangements are
negotiated, those affected U.S. carriers must eliminate the existing discrimination by recalculating settlements with their foreign correspondent carriers on the routes
at issue using the lowest average settlement rate for the relevant period.

                        II.  Background

A.   International Settlements Policy

     2.   The Commission's ISP governs in part the manner in which U.S. carriers may originate and terminate international telephone calls with a
foreign carrier.  A U.S. carrier exchanges international telephone calls with a foreign carrier pursuant to an operating agreement that includes the "accounting rate,"
the charge the two carriers have negotiated for handling each minute of an international call.  Since the 1930s, the Commission has recognized that the process for
reaching accounting rate agreements is subject to anticompetitive abuse, known as "whipsawing," in which a foreign carrier may use its monopoly leverage to play
one U.S. carrier off against competing U.S. carriers to gain favorable terms and conditions.  The ISP combats whipsawing by requiring that the operating
agreements between U.S. carriers and a carrier in a foreign country be nondiscriminatory in all material terms, including the accounting rate.
          
     3.   The Commission reformed the ISP in 1991 to remove regulatory impediments to lower, cost-based accounting rate arrangements.  Most
current accounting rates significantly exceed the underlying cost of terminating an international call.  Above-cost accounting rates lead to high international calling
prices for U.S. consumers and thereby restrict growth of the international telecommunications market in the United States.  To help encourage more cost-based
accounting rates and expedite calling price reductions, the Commission modified its procedures governing requests for accounting rate modifications to permit
accounting rate changes, such as growth-based accounting rates.  While most operating agreements have a single accounting rate for all minutes of traffic
exchanged by a U.S. carrier and its foreign correspondent, a growth-based arrangement has an accounting rate that decreases as traffic volume increases.    

     4.   In its ISP Order, the Commission established a standard under which the Bureau could consider, on a case-by-case basis, granting
accounting rate modifications, including growth-based arrangements, that include "a lower, more economically efficient, cost-based, international accounting rate
when supported by a sound analysis of the benefits that will result from the implementation of that rate."  In adopting this standard, the Commission maintained its
safeguards against whipsawing.  The Commission "emphasize[d] to both U.S. carriers and their foreign correspondents that it is our expectation that an accounting
rate modification agreement agreed to by a given foreign correspondent will be available to all competing U.S. carriers in a nondiscriminatory fashion."  The
requirement that such agreements be nondiscriminatory included the requirement that "the effective date of the accounting rate change, whether prospective or
retroactive, . . . be available to competing U.S. carriers."  Sections 64.1001 and 64.1002 of the Commission's rules require the U.S. carrier seeking the
modification to include a sworn statement that it informed its foreign correspondent that the negotiated accounting rate must be generally available to all other U.S.
carriers on a nondiscriminatory basis.

     B.   Bureau Order

     5.   The International Bureau ruled on the six accounting rate modification requests at issue (discussed individually below) on September 10,
1997.  The Bureau Order reiterated the ISP's longstanding nondiscrimination requirement.  The Bureau Order identified two discriminatory aspects to the
modification requests.  First, the Bureau found that some of the growth-based accounting rate arrangements unreasonably discriminated against competing U.S.
carriers because the foreign carrier had not offered them an equivalent growth-based arrangement.  Second, the Bureau found that the growth-based arrangements in
all of the petitions failed to take into account the different amount of telephone traffic provided by each U.S. carrier on the particular route.  In the countries under
consideration in the Bureau Order, AT&T accounts for the largest share of U.S.-billed minutes.  All of the growth-based arrangements at issue set one threshold
number of minutes -- above which traffic would be settled at a lower rate.  The Bureau concluded that such arrangements penalize smaller carriers because the
smaller carriers are either unable to reach the threshold and qualify for the lower accounting rate or have a smaller proportion of traffic above the threshold that is
being settled at the lower rate.  The resulting cost differential impairs the ability of smaller carriers to compete with larger rivals, especially on the routes at issue
where settlements are such a large component of U.S. carriers' costs.  The Bureau found that both situations unreasonably discriminate against smaller U.S. carriers
and thereby violate the ISP.

     6.   The Bureau Order observed, however, that growth-based arrangements can serve the public interest in several ways, including (1) reducing
accounting rates and, therefore, consumer prices for international calling; and (2) potentially spurring carriers to create price and service options to take advantage of
the lower rates.  To that end, the Bureau Order noted several possible approaches that U.S. carriers could use to reach growth-based accounting rate
arrangements that were not unreasonably discriminatory.  U.S. carriers could, for example, negotiate arrangements that set thresholds with reference to:  (1) each
U.S. carrier's minutes in a base period or each carrier's service volume; (2) U.S. carriers' combined minutes; or (3) the ratio of a U.S. carrier's billed minutes
transmitted to a foreign carrier and the foreign carrier's billed minutes to the U.S. carrier.    

     7.     The Bureau concluded that granting the modification requests of AT&T with certain conditions would serve the public interest and
eliminate the unreasonably discriminatory effect of the arrangements on competing U.S. carriers.  Accordingly, as a condition of the grant, the Bureau directed all
U.S. carriers to renegotiate with the foreign carriers arrangements that eliminate the identified unreasonable discrimination.  Pending those negotiations, the Bureau
addressed the immediate discrimination problem by directing all U.S. carriers to settle on an interim basis at rates no higher than the lowest average accounting rate
on the route for the relevant period.  The Bureau Order thereby enforced the ISP requirement that an accounting rate arrangement received by one U.S. carrier
be available to all other U.S. carriers on a nondiscriminatory basis.

C.   Individual ISP Modification Requests

     8.   Dominican Republic.  AT&T requested an accounting rate modification, seeking to establish a growth-based arrangement with CODETEL
($1.10 per minute) during the "full" period and 70› during the "reduced" period for traffic less than 11 million minutes; 70› for all traffic above 11 million minutes)
for July 1, 1995 to December 31, 1995.  AT&T attached an affidavit that stated that AT&T "has made it clear to CODETEL that FCC policy requires that
competing U.S. carriers have access to the accounting rate negotiated with CODETEL on a non-discriminatory basis."  The Bureau Order found that the
accounting rate arrangement violated the ISP because CODETEL did not offer a comparable arrangement to other U.S. carriers.

     9.   In order to reduce the accounting rate and eliminate discrimination against U.S. carriers, the Bureau Order granted AT&T's modification
request and directed all U.S. carriers to negotiate a nondiscriminatory accounting rate with CODETEL.  Pending renegotiation, the Bureau directed all U.S. carriers
to settle on an interim basis at the lowest average settlement rate that a U.S. carrier had for service provided with CODETEL for the period from July 1, 1995 to
December 31, 1995.  AT&T's average settlement rate with CODETEL was the lowest at 52.6› ($1.05 accounting rate).

     10.  Other Caribbean Points.  MCI requested an accounting rate modification seeking to establish a growth-based arrangement with CWWI to
various Caribbean points.  MCI's requested modification was identical to one previously filed by AT&T.  The Bureau Order noted that, although MCI's
arrangement is identical to AT&T's, MCI's arrangement violates the ISP because MCI generates less traffic than AT&T to the various Caribbean points and, in most
cases, fails to reach the threshold for the lower rate.  As a result of this smaller traffic volume, MCI will have a higher average settlement rate.  Moreover, CWWI
never offered the arrangement to Sprint.  To eliminate this discrimination, the Bureau Order directed the competing U.S. carriers to negotiate nondiscriminatory
arrangements with CWWI.  Pending those negotiations, the Bureau ordered all U.S. carriers to settle on an interim basis at AT&T's average settlement rate to each
of the CWWI Caribbean points for each year during the relevant period. 

     11.  Philippines.  AT&T requested an accounting rate modification, seeking a temporary reduction in the accounting rate to 87› for minutes
above a threshold of 9.5 million minutes) between AT&T and PLDT for November 1994, using a growth-based accounting rate.  AT&T attached an affidavit that
stated that AT&T "has made it clear to PLDT that FCC policy requires that competing U.S. carriers have access to the accounting rate negotiated with PLDT on a
non-discriminatory basis."  PLDT did not offer competing U.S. carriers the same arrangement.  Even if PLDT had offered the arrangement to other U.S. carriers,
the Bureau Order found the arrangement unreasonably discriminatory because the competing U.S. carriers' accounting rate reductions would be small in relation to
AT&T's reductions because they have significantly smaller amounts of U.S.-Philippines traffic above the threshold.

     12.  Because AT&T's modification request reduced the accounting rate on the U.S.-Philippine route -- albeit temporarily -- the Bureau Order
granted AT&T's modification request and directed all U.S. carriers to negotiate a nondiscriminatory accounting rate with PLDT.  Pending those negotiations, the
Bureau directed all U.S. carriers to settle on an interim basis at the lowest average settlement rate that a U.S. carrier had for service provided with PLDT for the
month of November 1994.  AT&T's average settlement rate with PLDT was the lowest at 62.4› ($1.25 accounting rate) for that month, while other U.S. carriers
had a rate of 67.5› ($1.35 accounting rate).

     13.  Uruguay.  AT&T requested an accounting rate modification, seeking to establish a growth-based arrangement with ANTEL (from $1.80 to
$1.00 for minutes above a threshold of 3 million minutes) for 1995.  MCI filed a similar modification request for service to Uruguay, but with no expiration date. 
AT&T attached an affidavit that stated that AT&T "has made it clear to ANTEL that FCC policy requires that competing U.S. carriers have access to the accounting
rate negotiated with ANTEL on a non-discriminatory basis."  The Bureau Order found that the growth-based arrangements contained in the modification requests
failed to take into account the different amount of telephone traffic provided by each U.S. carrier on the U.S.-Uruguay route and would unreasonably discriminate
against the smaller U.S. carriers.

     14.  Because AT&T's modification request reduced the accounting rate on the route, the Bureau Order accepted AT&T's request and directed
all U.S. carriers to negotiate a nondiscriminatory accounting rate with ANTEL.  The Bureau Order denied MCI's modification request as unreasonably
discriminatory because it would give AT&T a lower average settlement rate than MCI would have.  Pending renegotiation, the Bureau directed all U.S. carriers to
settle on an interim basis at the lowest average settlement rate that a U.S. carrier had for service provided with ANTEL.  AT&T's average settlement rate with
ANTEL was the lowest at 64.5› ($1.29 accounting rate), while MCI's was 75.7› ($1.51 accounting rate) and Sprint's was 90› ($1.80 accounting rate).

     15.  Malaysia.  AT&T requested an accounting rate modification, seeking a temporary reduction in the accounting rate (from $1.05 to 52.5›
for minutes above a threshold of 1.5 million minutes) between AT&T and STM for November 1994, using a growth-based accounting rate.  AT&T attached an
affidavit that stated that AT&T "has made it clear to STM that FCC policy requires that competing U.S. carriers have access to the accounting rate negotiated with
STM on a non-discriminatory basis."  The Bureau Order found the arrangement unreasonably discriminatory because only AT&T generated traffic above the
threshold.

     16.  Because AT&T's modification request reduced the accounting rate on the route -- albeit temporarily -- the Bureau Order accepted AT&T's
request and directed all U.S. carriers to negotiate a nondiscriminatory accounting rate with STM.  Pending those negotiations, the Bureau directed all U.S. carriers to
settle on an interim basis at the lowest average settlement rate that a U.S. carrier had for service provided with STM for the month of November 1994.  AT&T's
average settlement rate with STM was the lowest at 50› ($1.00 accounting rate) for that month, while other U.S. carriers had a rate of 52.5› ($1.05 accounting
rate).

                        III.  Discussion

     17.  CODETEL, CWWI and PLDT each filed an Application for Review of the Bureau Order.  They challenge the Bureau Order on four
principal grounds.  First, they allege the Bureau Order exceeds the Commission's statutory authority.  Second, they contend that the requirement that all U.S.
carriers settle at a rate no higher than the lowest average settlement rate on the particular route pending further negotiations to reach nondiscriminatory accounting
rate agreements is impermissibly retroactive.  Third, they assert that the Commission denied them due process because of insufficient notice.  Finally, they argue that
the Bureau Order constitutes "arbitrary and capricious," "unreasonable" and "irrational" agency action.  We find all of these arguments without merit and affirm the
Bureau Order as discussed below.

     A.   Commission Has Statutory Authority to Regulate International Settlements.

               1.   Commission Has Jurisdiction Over Foreign Communication That Originates or Terminates in the United States.

     18.  CODETEL, CWWI and PLDT challenge our statutory authority to regulate international settlements.  The Communications Act
of 1934 (the Act) gives the Commission jurisdiction over "all interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio . . . which originates and/or is received
within the United States . . . ."  The Act defines "foreign communication" as "communication from or to any place in the United States to or from a
foreign country."  We reaffirm the longstanding view that international telephone calls settled under the accounting rate system that originate or
terminate in the United States plainly fall within the Act's definition of "foreign communications."  

               2.   The Bureau Order Enforces the ISP's Nondiscrimination Requirement Adopted Pursuant to Section 201 of the Act.

     19.  CODETEL, CWWI and PLDT contend that, by directing competing U.S. carriers to pay at a nondiscriminatory rate pending the
renegotiation of nondiscriminatory accounting rate agreements, the Bureau Order has unlawfully prescribed a rate.  We find that the Bureau neither
needed to, nor did, exercise rate prescription authority under Section 205 of the Act to take the action it did.  Section 201 of the Act gives the Commission
the authority to ensure that "charges" or "practices" -- such as accounting rate agreements -- "for and in connection with" the provision of foreign
communications are "just and reasonable."  The Commission relied on this authority in adopting its ISP, which forms the basis for the enforcement
action taken in the Bureau Order.  Although the Commission has the authority to prescribe settlement rates, the Bureau Order does not, as the foreign
carriers allege, exercise that authority.  Rather, the Bureau Order enforces the ISP's nondiscrimination requirement by directing competing U.S. carriers
to pay on an interim basis at the same level already agreed to between the foreign correspondent and a U.S. carrier.

                  3.     Bureau Order Applies to U.S. Carriers Only.

     20.  CODETEL, CWWI and PLDT argue the Bureau Order exceeds the Commission's statutory authority by asserting jurisdiction
over foreign carriers.  CWWI goes on to argue that the Commission has authority only over the "half circuit," that portion of an international phone line
that lies on the U.S.-side of an imaginary point mid-way between the two countries, and that the Bureau Order represents an attempt to regulate the
foreign half of the circuit.  However, the Bureau Order, which enforces specific provisions of the existing ISP, acts as a direct constraint on U.S. carriers
only.  While the Bureau Order necessarily affects the foreign carriers, such consequences are an inevitable result of domestic enforcement of the ISP and
do not amount to an assertion of jurisdiction over the foreign end of a telephone call.  The indirect effect of the Bureau Order on foreign carriers does not
preclude the Commission from enforcing its ISP.  As the D.C. Circuit recognized in Radio Television S.A de C.V. v. FCC, the Commission can affect the
interests and behaviors of foreign companies in the exercise of its regulatory authority over domestic companies.

               4.   Contractual Nature of Accounting Rates Agreements Does Not Shield Them from Requirements of the Act.

     21.  We disagree with the assertion of PLDT and CWWI that the contractual nature of a U.S. carrier's accounting rate arrangement
with a foreign carrier insulates it from our review.  Contrary to PLDT's contention, nothing in RCA Communications limits the FCC's authority over U.S.
carriers' contracts.  Although the court theorized about the possible consequences of the Commission order in that case -- including rescinded or
renegotiated contracts -- it affirmed the Commission's order requiring U.S. carriers to change their contracts.  "All contracts which the carriers might
make were subject to the power of Congress to regulate foreign commerce."  This power necessarily includes the power to direct U.S. carriers to amend
their accounting rate arrangements to comply with the Commission's statutorily-based nondiscrimination requirement of the ISP.  Moreover, we find no
support for CWWI's position that Section 211 of the Act requires U.S. carriers to file their contracts with us, but does not allow us to regulate or modify
the terms of those contracts.  We have long held that we have the authority to determine whether the terms and conditions of contracts filed pursuant to
Section 211's requirement are consistent with other provisions of the Act.  CWWI's view of Section 211 would turn the statutory filing requirement into
a "meaningless exercise" in paper collection.

               5.   The Bureau Order Comports with U.S. International Obligations.

     22.  We also find that the Bureau Order's enforcement of the ISP is fully consistent with U.S. international obligations.  CODETEL,
CWWI and PLDT claim that the Bureau Order violates the provision in the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITR) of the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU) that calls for accounting rates to be negotiated "pursuant to mutual agreement."  The ITR does contemplate a principle
of mutually established accounting rates.  Our enforcement of the ISP, though, does not run afoul of this principle.  As in any other negotiations, foreign
carriers have the freedom to walk away from the transaction if they are not willing to accept the terms and conditions, including Commission requirements. 


     23.  The preamble to the ITR, moreover, recognizes that "it is the sovereign right of each country to regulate its
telecommunications."  Nothing in the ITR requires the United States to cede its authority over U.S. carriers.  Our right to authorize a U.S. carrier to
provide service to a foreign country necessarily includes the right to ensure that an arrangement entered into by the U.S. carrier is consistent with the
public interest.  The Commission's ISP protects the public interest by preventing a foreign carrier from being able to use its leverage as a monopoly or
dominant carrier to play one U.S. carrier off against competing U.S. carriers to gain favorable terms and conditions.  CODETEL, CWWI and PLDT all
knew about the ISP and its nondiscrimination requirement at the time they willingly entered into the accounting rate arrangements at issue.

     B.   Requirement that U.S. Carriers Recalculate Interim Settlement Payments Consistent with the ISP Is Not Impermissibly Retroactive.

     24.  The Bureau Order enforces the longstanding ISP requirement of nondiscrimination by directing U.S. carriers to renegotiate
nondiscriminatory accounting rate arrangements.  In the interim, pending these renegotiations, the Bureau Order enforces the ISP by requiring U.S. carriers to
eliminate unreasonable discrimination in rates by recalculating settlements with their foreign correspondents using the lowest average settlement rate on the route for
the relevant period.  CODETEL, CWWI and PLDT contend that requiring U.S. carriers to recalculate settlements is impermissibly retroactive.  For the reasons
discussed below, we disagree.

     25.  In Williams Natural Gas Co. v. FERC, the D.C. Circuit held that agency action is not impermissibly retroactive if the result is not a
"shift from a clear prior policy."  The Bureau Order enforces "clear prior policy" and is not a "shift" from the existing ISP's nondiscrimination requirement.  The
Commission's prior policy clearly required that an accounting rate arrangement be made available to competing U.S. carriers in a nondiscriminatory fashion, as of
the effective date of the accounting rate change, whether prospective or retroactive.  The foreign carriers' retroactivity argument fails because the Commission's
prior policy explicitly required that accounting rate arrangements be made generally available on a nondiscriminatory basis, even if the discrimination or lack of
general availability becomes apparent only after the arrangement has been negotiated.  Similarly, we note that in New England Telephone and Telegraph
Company v. FCC the D.C. Circuit upheld a Commission order requiring AT&T and several former AT&T operating companies to reduce rates in order to
reimburse customers for earnings in excess of a rate of return previously prescribed by the Commission.  There, as here, the "order under review merely recognized
that the prior [requirement] had been violated and imposed a remedy for that violation."

     26.  It is well established that if an affected party had notice of the potential outcome at the time the past action occurred, then an adjudicative
action that rectifies a past violation is not impermissibly retroactive.  Both the ISP and the accounting rate modification standard predated all six accounting rate
arrangements addressed in the Bureau Order.  Moreover, AT&T and MCI specifically informed the foreign correspondent carriers involved in the accounting rate
arrangements at issue of the nondiscrimination requirement.  CODETEL, CWWI and PLDT cannot now argue that they did not know about the Commission's rule
at the time they entered into their arrangements with AT&T, or that one of the potential consequences of their arrangements with one U.S. carrier would be that
competing U.S. carriers would have to receive the same rate.

      C.  Bureau Order Satisfies Due Process Requirements.

     27.  CODETEL, CWWI and PLDT argue that they were denied due process because they did not receive service of the modification requests
and because the Bureau did not request public comment on them.  First, we note that all three carriers had notice of the rulemaking underlying our ISP
requirement of nondiscrimination for growth-based accounting rate arrangements.  Additionally, the rates at issue never took effect because of the oppositions
filed, alleging violations of the ISP's nondiscrimination requirement.  Any carrier involved in one of the growth-based arrangements should reasonably have known
that the rates were not in effect and that the Bureau was looking at whether they complied with the ISP.  

     28.  Most importantly, the Bureau Order represented an action of domestic regulation.  The Bureau Order enforces our ISP on U.S. carriers
by directing them to take specific action to correct unreasonable discrimination.  While it clearly has an effect on CODETEL, CWWI and PLDT, it acts directly only
on U.S. carriers and the Bureau had no obligation to serve the modification requests on any foreign carrier or to seek comment from them.  As a matter of courtesy,
however, we encourage the Bureau in the future to take reasonable steps to notify foreign correspondent carriers of any relevant modification petitions that have
been suspended. 

D.   The Bureau Order Is Reasonable And Rational.

     29.  CODETEL, CWWI and PLDT claim the Bureau Order is "arbitrary and capricious," "unreasonable" and not "rational" respectively. 
We disagree for the following reasons.  The Bureau Order relied on the standard established by the Commission in 1991 that "delegate[d] authority to the Common
Carrier Bureau to consider, on a case-by-case basis, granting [accounting rate modification] requests that include a lower, more economically efficient, cost-based,
international accounting rate when supported by a sound analysis of the benefits that will result from the implementation of that rate."  Applying this standard, the
International Bureau found that the growth-based accounting rate arrangements at issue were discriminatory because competing U.S. carriers with fewer minutes of
traffic on the particular route than another U.S. carrier would have higher average settlement rates.

     30.  The Bureau Order recognized, though, that growth-based accounting rate arrangements would serve the public interest in several ways,
including (1) reducing accounting rates and, therefore, consumer prices for international calling; and (2) potentially spurring carriers to create incentives to take
advantage of the lower rates.  To cure the violation of the ISP's nondiscrimination requirement while maintaining the benefits of more cost-based rates, the Bureau
rationally granted the modification requests on the condition that all U.S. carriers pay the same average settlement rate that AT&T received.  In this way, the
Bureau Order meets the Commission's stated accounting rate goals by allowing accounting rates on those routes to move to lower, more cost-based rates negotiated
by AT&T and ensuring that those rates are generally available to all U.S. carriers on a nondiscriminatory basis.

     31.  Despite PLDT's contentions to the contrary, we find the Bureau Order fully consistent with the D.C. Circuit's holding in Northeast
Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC.  In that case, the Commission had relied on its prior "experience" with one of the owners of the proposed licensee and from
"materials on file in other [Commission] proceedings" in waiving a rule that required lottery winners for a cellular radio license to meet certain financial
qualifications.  The court held that the Commission acted improperly in waiving the rule because it had failed to articulate an "appropriate general standard" to
govern the waiver in that case.  With regard to the accounting rate modifications at issue here, however, the Commission had a standard -- which rationally
corresponds to the action taken in the Bureau Order -- in place long before any of the modification requests were filed.     

                         IV.  Conclusion

     32.  We conclude that the Bureau acted properly in finding the accounting rate arrangements contained in six modification requests at issue here
violated the ISP, and approving them on the condition that all U.S. carriers renegotiate nondiscriminatory arrangements.  We also conclude that the Bureau properly
directed the U.S. carriers, pending renegotiation, to eliminate discrimination by recalculating settlements with their foreign correspondent carriers on the routes at
issue using the lowest average settlement rate for the relevant period and paying at that rate on an interim basis.  We therefore deny the Applications for Review of
CODETEL, CWWI and PLDT and affirm the Bureau Order in its entirety.

                      IV.  Ordering Clauses

     33.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 5(c)(5), 201, 211, 214 and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 152, 154(i), 155(c)(5), 201, 211, 214 and 303(r), and Section 1.115 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.115, that the
Applications for Review filed by Compa¤ia Dominicana de Tel‚fonos C. por. A., Cable & Wireless-West Indies and Philippines Long Distance Telephone ARE
DENIED.     34.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), and Section
1.43 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.43, that the Motion for Stay filed by Philippines Long Distance Telephone IS DISMISSED as moot.


                    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                    Magalie Roman Salas
                    Secretary