Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



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


Marpin Telecoms and              )
Broadcasting Company Limited,    )
                                )
                            Com- )
plainant,                        )
                                )    EB-01-MD-015
           v.                    )
                                )
Cable & Wireless, Inc., Cable &  )
Wireless USA, Inc., and Cable &  )
Wireless, plc,                   )

                          De-
fendants.



                  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


   Adopted: April 11, 2002              Released: April 19, 2002


By the Commission:


                        I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Order, we deny a complaint that Marpin Telecoms 
and Broadcasting Company Limited (``Marpin'') filed against Cable 
& Wireless, Inc. (``CWI''), Cable & Wireless, USA, Inc. (``CW 
USA''), and Cable & Wireless, plc (``CW plc'') pursuant to 
section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
(``Act'').1  Specifically, we reject Marpin's claim that the 
defendants' failure to restrain the allegedly anticompetitive 
activities of their affiliate/subsidiary operating in the 
Commonwealth of Dominica, West Indies (``Dominica'') violates 
section 214 of the Act, and the Commission order under which CWI 
and its successor, CW USA, received authorization to operate in 
the United States pursuant to section 214.2

                         II.  BACKGROUND

     II.A.     The Section 214 Process

     2.   Section 214 of the Act requires carriers to secure 
certification from the Commission before constructing or 
operating interstate or international communications lines.3   
Section 214 provides, in pertinent part, that:

     [n]o carrier shall . . . acquire or operate any line, or 
     extension thereof, or shall engage in transmission over or 
     by means of such additional or extended line, unless and 
     until there shall first have been obtained from the 
     Commission a certificate that the present or future public 
     convenience and necessity require or will require the . . . 
     operation[ ] of such additional or extended line . . . .4   

The Commission may attach to the issuance of the certificate 
terms and conditions that it deems necessary to promote the 
public interest.5  This case involves defendants' alleged 
violation of a condition in the 1998 Section 214 Order.

     II.B.     The Parties

     3.   Marpin provides telecommunications, Internet, and cable 
television services in Dominica,6 and operates pursuant to 
licenses granted by the government of Dominica.7  Marpin is 
organized under the laws of Dominica, and its offices are located 
in Dominica.8  Marpin does not claim to provide any 
telecommunications services in the United States.9

     4.   CW USA is a telecommunications carrier, incorporated in 
the United States, that is authorized pursuant to section 214 of 
the Act to provide facilities-based switched and private line 
international telecommunications and international resale service 
between the United States and various foreign points, including 
Dominica.10  CW USA formerly operated under the name CWI, and the 
entity previously known as CWI ceased to exist as a separate 
entity prior to the filing of this action.11 

     5.   CW USA is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of CW 
plc, which is a corporation organized under the laws of England 
and Wales.12  CW plc does not operate any communications 
facilities in the United States, and does not hold any 
authorization to offer service in the United States pursuant to 
section 214 of the Act.13

     6.   CW USA and CW plc are affiliates of a company known as 
Cable & Wireless Dominica Limited (``CW Dominica''), which is not 
a party to this action.14  CW Dominica is the dominant 
telecommunications carrier in Dominica.15  CW plc indirectly owns 
80 percent of CW Dominica, and the Government of Dominica owns 
the remaining 20 percent.16  CW USA is a horizontal affiliate of 
CW Dominica.17

     7.   The 1998 Section 214 Order granted CWI (before it 
operated under the name CW USA) authorization under section 214 
to offer facilities-based switched and private line service and 
non-interconnected resold private line services between the 
United States and Dominica.18  The 1998 Section 214 Order also 
granted CWI authority to provide service between the United 
States and a number of international locations in addition to 
Dominica, including Jamaica, and St. Kitts and Nevis.19  The 
International Bureau specifically conditioned such authority on 
CWI and its affiliates in Jamaica, and St. Kitts and Nevis ``not 
engaging in anticompetitive actions that will give the applicants 
an unfair advantage in the U.S. international services 
market.''20  On January 10, 2002, after Marpin initiated this 
action, the Commission's International Bureau released a 
subsequent order granting CW USA authority under section 214 to 
provide facilities-based and resale telecommunications service 
between the United States and all international points except 
China, Jamaica, Maldives, Russia, St. Kitts and Nevis, 
Seychelles, Vanuatu and Yemen.21  

     II.C.     The Instant Proceeding

     8.   Marpin claims that defendants' failure to restrain the 
allegedly anticompetitive activities of non-party CW Dominica in 
Dominica constitutes a violation of the terms and conditions of 
CW USA's section 214 authorization.22  In particular, Marpin 
maintains that defendants have unlawfully failed to prevent CW 
Dominica from ``endeavor[ing] to retain its monopoly status in 
Dominica in defiance of local law by refusing to interconnect its 
facilities with Marpin, challenging Marpin's operating authority, 
and terminating Marpin's access to international and local 
service without cause.''23  Marpin alleges that this 
anticompetitive conduct by non-party CW Dominica in Dominica has 
impeded Marpin's efforts to offer competing telecommunications 
service in Dominica.24 Marpin also asserts that these 
anticompetitive actions have adversely affected domestic 
communications within Dominica, and international communications 
between Dominica and the United States.25  Marpin asks the 
Commission to enter orders declaring the defendants to be in 
violation of section 214; revoking CW USA's section 214 authority 
to provide service between Dominica and the United States; 
imposing monetary forfeitures on CW USA; and awarding monetary 
damages to Marpin in excess of $3.2 million.26 

     9.   CW USA answered the Complaint, denying the violations 
alleged by Marpin and advancing various affirmative defenses.  No 
answer was filed on behalf of CWI or CW plc.  CW USA's answer 
stated that CWI has operated as CW USA during all relevant times, 
and that CW plc is not a common carrier subject to the complaint 
procedures of sections 206 and 208 of the Act.27  CW plc did, 
however, jointly file with CW USA a motion to dismiss the 
complaint challenging the Commission's personal jurisdiction over 
CW plc and its subject matter jurisdiction over this action.28  

                      III.      DISCUSSION

     III.A.    Marpin Cannot Establish That CW USA Violated 
          Section 214.

     10.  Marpin alleges no affirmative anticompetitive conduct 
by CW USA.  Rather, Marpin contends only that CW USA's failure to 
restrain CW Dominica's alleged misconduct in Dominica violates 
two provisions of the 1998 Section 214 Order.  Specifically, 
Marpin argues that CW USA has violated paragraph 19 of the order, 
which, according to Marpin, contains a prohibition of any 
anticompetitive conduct by CWI (CW USA's predecessor) and any of 
its foreign affiliates that adversely affects U.S. carriers and 
their customers.29  In addition, Marpin maintains that CW USA has 
violated the order's prohibition against accepting ``special 
concessions'' in violation of section 63.14 of our rules.30 

     11.  The International Bureau included paragraph 19 in that 
Order in response to a petition by Sprint Communications Company, 
L.P. (``Sprint'') that opposed granting CWI authority to provide 
service on the U.S.-Jamaica and U.S.-St. Kitts and Nevis routes.  
Specifically, Sprint argued that past anticompetitive behavior by 
CWI's monopoly affiliates Cable & Wireless Jamaica, Ltd. 
(``CWJ'') and St. Kitts and Nevis Telecommunications, Ltd. 
(``SKANTEL'') rendered it highly likely that they, together with 
CWI, would engage in future conduct posing a ``very high risk'' 
to competition.31  In response to these complaints, the Bureau 
imposed the following condition on CWI's authorization to provide 
service in the United States:

          In light of the continuing unresolved 
          disputes between Sprint and CWJ, and the 
          apparent delay in SKANTEL's initiation of 
          return traffic to Sprint, we condition grant 
          of this authority expressly on the 
          applicants, SKANTEL and CWJ not engaging in 
          anticompetitive actions that will give the 
          applicants an unfair advantage in the U.S. 
          international services market.  If we find 
          evidence of such anticompetitive conduct, we 
          reserve the right to impose substantial 
          forfeitures or suspend or terminate this 
          authorization for failure to meet the 
          conditions of the grant.32

     12.  According to Marpin, the above language ``expressly 
placed CWI on notice that anticompetitive conduct by its foreign 
affiliates outside the United States which adversely affects the 
U.S. international service market could result in substantial 
forfeitures and termination of its license.''33  CW USA disputes 
that the condition stated in paragraph 19 applies to the conduct 
of CWI and any foreign affiliate.  Rather, CW USA contends that 
the condition applies exclusively to the conduct of CW USA and 
its foreign affiliates in Jamaica and St. Kitts and Nevis.34 

     13.  We agree with CW USA.  We conclude that paragraph 19, 
when read in the context of the entire order, compels the 
conclusion that the paragraph's conditions apply only to CWI (and 
successor CW USA) and to the two foreign affiliates named in that 
paragraph (SKANTEL and CWJ) with respect to their activities in 
Jamaica and St. Kitts and Nevis - not to all foreign affiliates 
or all foreign countries as Marpin contends.  As the order makes 
clear, paragraph 19 directly addressed allegations by Sprint 
regarding the conduct of CWJ and Skantel.  Notably, Sprint did 
not seek to deny CWI authority to operate on routes between the 
United States and all foreign countries in which a CWI affiliate 
was the dominant carrier.  Sprint's petition pertained 
exclusively to the U.S.-Jamaica and U.S.-St. Kitts and Nevis 
routes and specifically alleged that the conduct of CWI's 
affiliates in those countries harmed Sprint.35  Instead of 
denying CWI authorization on those routes, as Sprint had urged, 
the 1998 Section 214 Order conditioned the grant of section 214 
authority.  Moreover, we note that the International Bureau 
specifically rejected AT&T's request that the Bureau impose 
special conditions on CWI's provision of service to all of the 
affiliated routes addressed in the 1998 Section 214 Order.36  
Thus, we read the 1998 Section 214 Order as imposing obligations 
only on CWI (and its successor CW USA), CWJ, and Skantel, and 
only with respect to Jamaica and St. Kitts and Nevis.  Thus, 
because behavior with respect to Dominica is at issue here, we 
deny the complaint.Even assuming the condition covers Skantel, 
CWJ, and CWI outside of Jamaica and St. Kitts and Nevis, Marpin 
does not allege that Skantel or CWJ have engaged in any 
anticompetitive actions. As to CW USA (formerly CWI), Marpin 
alleges no affirmative anticompetitive conduct, but merely a 
failure to prevent CW Dominica's allegedly anticompetitive 
conduct.  Nothing in the record suggests that CW USA participated 
in the conduct of CW Dominica.  We will not find on this record 
that the alleged lack of action by CW USA constitutes ``engaging 
in anticompetitive actions'' in violation of the 1998 Section 214 
Order.  We therefore find that CW USA has not violated the 1998 
Section 214 Order.

     14.  We reject Marpin's assertion that the construction of 
paragraph 19 that we apply here gives CW USA's foreign affiliates 
``free reign to engage in market abuses adversely affecting U.S. 
carriers and their customers.''37  Our rules provide safeguards 
against market abuses on U.S. international routes that exist 
separate and apart from any special conditions of CW USA's 
existing section 214 authorization.38  In addition, we note that 
CW USA is classified as a dominant carrier with respect to a 
number of international routes, including the U.S.-Dominica 
route.39  Therefore, it also is subject on these routes to the 
structural safeguards and reporting requirements applicable to 
dominant carriers.40  Marpin does not allege that CW USA has 
violated any of these regulatory safeguards, with the exception 
of section 63.14 of our rules41 and, as discussed below, Marpin 
has failed to offer any proof in support of its section 63.14 
claim.  Nor has Marpin presented any facts that lead us to 
conclude that these safeguards, together with the specific 
conditions on CW USA's section 214 authorization, are 
insufficient to protect against harm to competition on U.S. 
international routes resulting from potential market abuses by CW 
USA's foreign affiliates.

     15.  Marpin also alleges that CW USA violated the 1998 
Section 214 Order by accepting a special concession in 
contravention of 47 C.F.R.  63.14.  This claim, too, must fail.  
As Marpin correctly notes,42 the 1998 Section 214 Order expressly 
prohibited CWI from accepting ``special concessions,'' as defined 
in 47 C.F.R.  63.14 (b), from its affiliated foreign carriers in 
any market, including Dominica, for which CWI is subject to 
dominant carrier regulation.43  Section 63.14(b) defines 
``special concession'' as ``an exclusive arrangement involving 
services, facilities, or functions on the foreign end of a U.S. 
international route that are necessary for the provision of basic 
telecommunications services where the arrangement is not offered 
to similarly situated U.S.-licensed carriers and involves: (1) 
Operating agreements for the provision of basic services; (2) 
Distribution arrangements or interconnection arrangements . . . 
or (3) Any information, prior to public disclosure, about a 
foreign carrier's basic network services that affects either the 
provision of basic or enhanced services or interconnection to the 
foreign country's domestic network by U.S. carriers or their U.S. 
customers.''44

     16.  Marpin's claim under section 63.14 rests entirely on 
its argument that defendants have violated the special 
concessions rule ``to the extent they benefit indirectly from CW-
Dominica's anticompetitive practices and do not disclose to U.S. 
carriers and customers the blocking of Marpin-related 
traffic.''45  This argument fails to allege the essential 
elements of a claim under section 63.14.  Marpin has not 
identified any ``arrangement'' between CW USA and CW Dominica 
that has not been offered to similarly situated U.S.-licensed 
carriers.  Marpin concedes that the alleged misconduct of which 
it complains under section 63.14 is the refusal of CW Dominica, a 
Dominican carrier, to interconnect Marpin, also a Dominican 
carrier, with U.S. carriers.  Marpin contends that CW USA enjoys 
"indirect benefits" as a result of this alleged misconduct.46  
However, such unspecified indirect "benefits," by themselves, do 
not qualify as "an exclusive arrangement" within the meaning of 
section 63.14.47 Further, even if access to information about the 
blocking of Marpin-related traffic could, under some 
circumstances, qualify as a ``special concession,'' as Marpin's 
argument implies, Marpin has not even alleged that CW USA had 
exclusive access to information about the blocking of Marpin-
related traffic that was unavailable to similarly situated U.S. 
carriers.  For these reasons, we must deny Marpin's claim that CW 
USA has violated the conditions of its section 214 authorization 
by accepting a special concession prohibited under 47 C.F.R  
63.14.48

     III.B.    Marpin Has Failed to Establish that CW plc 
          Violated Section 214. 

     17.  Marpin alleges that CW plc has violated the terms and 
conditions of the section 214 authorization held by CW USA.49  
Marpin acknowledges that CW plc neither operates any 
communications facilities in the United States, nor holds any 
authorization to provide service pursuant to section 214 of the 
Act.50  Marpin therefore does not contend that CW plc has 
violated the terms and conditions of any section 214 
authorization issued to CW plc.  Rather, Marpin's allegations 
against CW plc for violating section 214 are entirely derivative 
of its claims against CW USA.  Thus, because Marpin has not 
established any violation of CW USA's section 214 authorization, 
Marpin's claims against CW plc cannot stand.51 

                         IV.  CONCLUSION

     18.  We conclude that Marpin has failed to allege facts 
sufficient to support its claims that CW USA and CW plc violated 
section 214 of the Act, or the terms and conditions of the order 
under which CW USA received authorization to operate pursuant to 
section 214.  Consequently, we deny Marpin's claims against CW 
USA and CW plc in their entirety.52

                      V.   ORDERING CLAUSES

     19.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 
4(i), 4(j), and 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), and 214, that the 
Complaint filed by Marpin Telecoms and Broadcasting Company 
Limited against Cable & Wireless, Inc., Cable & Wireless, USA, 
Inc., and Cable & Wireless, plc IS DENIED in its entirety, and 
this proceeding is TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE.

     20.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Motion for Summary 
Judgment or, in the Alternative, to Compel, filed on September 4, 
2001, and the Joint Motion to Dismiss of Cable & Wireless USA, 
Inc. and Cable & Wireless plc, filed on September 6, 2001, ARE 
DENIED as moot.

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 



                                                  
                         Marlene H. Dortch
                         Secretary
_________________________

1    47 U.S.C.  208.  Formal Complaint, File No. EB-01-MD-015 
(filed Aug. 9, 2001) (``Complaint'').  Although the Complaint 
states that Marpin initiated this action pursuant to section 206 
(47 U.S.C.  206), rather than section 208, of the Act, Complaint 
at 1, we have treated this as an action pursuant to section 208 
from the outset, and will continue to do so in this order.  See 
Notice of Formal Complaint, File No. EB-01-MD-015 (dated Aug. 15, 
2001).  
2         47 U.S.C.  214; Cable & Wireless, Inc., Order, 
Authorization and Certificate, 13 FCC Rcd 17933 (Int. Bur. 1998) 
(``1998 Section 214 Order'').  Marpin's claim that defendants 
violated the terms and conditions of the 1998 Section 214 Order 
is the only violation of section 214 that Marpin alleges in this 
cases.  Accordingly, we treat Marpin's claim that defendants 
violated section 214, and Marpin's claim that defendants violated 
the 1998 Section 214 Order, as the same claim.  
3         See, e.g., Atlantic Tele-Network, Inc. v. FCC, 59  F.3d 
1384, 1386 (D.C. Cir.1995).
4    47 U.S.C.  214(a).

5         47 U.S.C.  214(c).
6         Complaint at 2,  2; C&W USA's Verified Answer to 
Marpin's Verified Complaint, File No. EB-01-MD-015 (filed Aug. 
29, 2001) (``Answer'') at 12,  2.  
7         Revised Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts, Disputed 
Facts and Key Legal Issues, File No. EB-01-MD-015 (filed Oct. 29, 
2001) (``Joint Statement'') at 9,  30-32.
8         Joint Statement at 9,  29; Complaint at 2,  1; Answer 
at 12,  1, 2.  
9         See generally, Complaint at 2,  1, 2.
10   Complaint at 3,  4; Answer at 13,  4. 
11   Joint Statement at 6,  15-18; Opening Brief, File No. EB-
01-MD-015 (filed Dec. 10, 2001) (``Marpin Brief'') at 3.  CW USA 
currently holds all licenses and authorizations previously held 
by CWI.  Answer at 13,  4.  See Marpin Brief at 3.  Accordingly, 
we refer to CWI and its successor CW USA collectively as ``CW 
USA'' in discussing Marpin's allegations in this case.  We refer 
to ``CWI'' individually, only when quoting or paraphrasing 
orders, pleadings, or briefs that refer to CWI individually.
12   Complaint at 2,  3; Answer at 12,  3; Joint Statement at 
3,  2.  CW USA is an ``indirect'' wholly-owned subsidiary 
because it is wholly-owned by another company that is ultimately 
wholly-owned by CW plc through a chain of subsidiary 
corporations. Joint Statement at 3,  4.
13        Answer at 13,  4; Marpin Brief at 4.  
14   Joint Statement at 3,  3-4.
15   Complaint at 5,  10.  See 1998 Section 214 Order, 13 FCC 
Rcd at 17933-34,   1, 23-24 and International Authorizations 
Granted, Public Notice, DA No. 02-46, 2002 WL 24115 (Int. Bur.) 
(rel. Jan. 10, 2002) (``2002 Section 214 Public Notice'')(grant 
of consolidated limited global section 214 authority), recon. 
pending, which classify CW USA as a dominant carrier on the route 
between the United States and Dominica.
16   Joint Statement at 3,  4. 
17   Joint Statement at 3,  3.  CW USA is a ``horizontal'' 
affiliate of CW Dominica because both companies are indirect, 
commonly-controlled subsidiaries of CW plc.  Id. at  1, 3, 4.
18        1998 Section 214 Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 17933,  1.
19   1998 Section 214 Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 17933,  1.
20   1998 Section 214 Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 17937-38,  19.
21   2002 Section 214 Public Notice, 2002 WL 24115. 
22   Complaint at  7, 13; at 8,  15; at 23-24,  56; at 24-25, 
 58;  See Reply, File No. EB-01-MD-015 (filed Sept. 4, 2001) 
(``Reply'') at  23 (noting that ``the entire focus of Marpin's 
Complaint is the violation of U.S. Defendants' Section 214 
authorizations by all three Defendants''). 
23   Complaint at 7,  13.  More specifically, Marpin alleges 
that CW Dominica has: (1) terminated a toll free number service 
that Marpin used to provide Internet access locally, Complaint at 
8-10,  16-22 (Count 1); Marpin Brief at 14-15; (2) refused to 
interconnect CW Dominica's local customers and Marpin's 
international service, or to terminate international long 
distance traffic on Marpin's facilities, and attempted to disrupt 
Marpin's international service arrangement with MCI WorldCom, 
Complaint at 10,  23 (Count 2); Marpin Brief at 15; (3) turned 
off local exchange connections that CW Dominica previously had 
provided to Marpin for the provisioning of local service, 
Complaint at 11-16,  24-34 (Count 3); Marpin Brief at 15; (4) 
refused to interconnect the Marpin and CW Dominica networks, or 
to provide connectivity to an eastern Caribbean regional fiber 
network that would allow connections to MCI WorldCom's exchange 
facilities in the United States, and has entered into an 
agreement with the Government of Dominica and other Caribbean 
nations that bars Marpin from delivering international traffic to 
or from CW Dominica customers for a prescribed period of time, 
Complaint at 16-21,  35-50 (Count 4); Marpin Brief at 15; and 
(5) refused to allocate to Marpin new central office codes 
required for the provisioning of telecommunications service, 
Complaint at 21-22,  51-53 (Count 5); Marpin Brief at 15-16.
24   Complaint at 22-23,  54.
25   Complaint at  7,   14; at  10,   21; Marpin  Brief at  16; 
Letter from Eric Fishman,  counsel for Marpin,  to Lisa J.  Saks, 
Attorney, Market Dispute Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau, 
File No. EB-01-MD-015 (filed Jan. 18, 2002) (clarifying  argument 
made on page 16 of Marpin Brief).
26   Complaint at 26-27,  62, 63.  Marpin requested, pursuant 
to section 1.722(c)(2) of the formal complaint rules, that the 
Commission determine damages in a separate proceeding following 
its determination of liability and prospective relief.  47 C.F.R. 
 1.722(c)(2); Complaint at 27,  63 (mistakenly identifying the 
applicable rule as ``1.722(b)(2)'').
27   Answer at 1, n.1.  See id. at 6-7,  1-5. 
28   Joint Motion to Dismiss of Cable & Wireless USA, Inc. and 
Cable & Wireless, plc, File No. EB-01-MD-015 (filed Sept. 6, 
2001) (``Joint Motion to Dismiss''). 
29   Complaint at 24-25,  58; Reply at  28; Marpin Brief at ii, 
17.
30   47 C.F.R.  63.14.  Marpin Brief at 18.
31   1998 Section 214 Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 17937-38,  10.
32   1998 Section 214 Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 17941-42,  19 
(footnotes omitted) (emphasis added).
33   Marpin Brief at 17 (citing 1998 Section 214 Order, 13 FCC 
Rcd at 179341-42,  19); see Reply at  28.
34   CW USA Brief at 10 (quoting 1998 Section 214 Order, 13 FCC 
Rcd at 17947,  38 (emphasis added by CW USA)). 
35   1998 Section 214 Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 17935,  5.  
36   See 13 FCC Rcd at 17938,  12.  AT&T had argued that such 
conditions were warranted because the Commission's dominant 
carrier rules and safeguards were ``not sufficient to reduce the 
risk that CWI will distort competition on the routes it seeks to 
serve.''  Id.  The International Bureau, however, concluded that 
there was ``no basis'' to impose the conditions that AT&T 
requested, finding that the Commission's regulatory safeguards 
and enforcement authority would be sufficient to detect and deter 
anticompetitive conduct by CWI and its foreign affiliates. 1998 
Section 214 Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 17941,  18.  We note also that 
in the 2002 Section 214 Public Notice,  the International Bureau 
granted CW USA authority to provide service between the United 
States and all international points, with the exception of five 
specific locations that include Jamaica and St. Kitts and Nevis.  
The Bureau's decision to treat CW USA's service to Dominica under 
a grant of global operating authority, while continuing to 
subject CW USA to the terms and conditions of the 1998 Section 
214 Order with respect to service to Jamaica and St. Kitts and 
Nevis, demonstrates that the Bureau continued to find unnecessary 
special conditions related to other affiliated routes, including 
Dominica.
37   Reply at  28.
38   See, e.g., 47 C.F.R  63.14 (prohibiting U.S. carriers from 
accepting special concessions from foreign carriers with market 
power) and 47 C.F.R  63.21(g) (allowing the Commission to impose 
additional requirements on U.S. international carriers where harm 
to competition is occurring on U.S. international routes).
39        1998 Section 214 Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 17933-34,  1; 
2002 Section 214 Public Notice, 2002 WL 24115.
40   See 47 C.F.R.  63.10(c).
41   47 C.F.R.  63.14.
42   Complaint at 7,  12(e).
43   1998 Section 214 Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 17947,  37.
44        47 C.F.R.  63.14(b) (emphasis added).
45   Marpin Brief at 18 (emphasis added).
46   Id.
47   See 47 C.F.R.  63.14(b); see also supra para. 15.
48   In its brief, Marpin asserted for the first time that the 
conduct described in the Complaint also violated sections 201 and 
202 of the Act.  Marpin Brief at 18.  The Complaint did not 
allege violations of section 201 or section 202, and Marpin 
devoted only one half page of its brief to these alleged 
violations.  Marpin Brief at 18.  As a result, the record 
provides an inadequate basis for us to assess the merits of 
Marpin's section 201 and 202 claims.  See, e.g., AT&T Corp. v. 
Jefferson Telephone Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 
16130, 16133 n.18 (2001); Consumer.Net v. AT&T Corp., Order, 15 
FCC Rcd 281, 300,  40 n.93 (1999) (declining to consider an 
argument raised for the first time in the briefs).  Cf., Building 
Owners and Managers Ass'n Int'l v. FCC, 254 F.3d 89, 100 n.14 
(D.C. Cir. 2001) (declining to address an issue raised cursorily 
in the brief).
49   Complaint at 7,  13; at 8,  15; at 23-24,  56; at 24-25, 
 58; Reply at  23 (noting that ``the entire focus of Marpin's 
Complaint is the violation of the U.S. Defendants' section 214 
authorizations by all three Defendants'')
50        Answer at  II (A) (4); Marpin Brief at 4.  
51   We therefore find it unnecessary to reach the separate 
question of whether the Commission has personal jurisdiction over 
CW plc.  We conclude that, even assuming jurisdiction exists, 
Marpin cannot establish that CW plc violated section 214 of the 
Act or CW USA's section 214 authorization.
52   Marpin moved for summary judgment against CWI and CW plc 
based on their failure to answer the Complaint or, in the 
alternative, to compel the defendants to answer fully the 
allegations in the Complaint.  Motion for Summary Judgment or, in 
the Alternative, to Compel, File No. EB-01-MD-015 (filed Sept. 4, 
2001).  Since filing that motion, Marpin has conceded that ``CWI 
no longer exists separate from CWUSA,'' Marpin Brief at 3, and 
has stated that it ``sees no need for an exercise of separate 
jurisdiction over CWI'' as long as CW USA ``is held fully 
responsible for the actions of CWI and for the production of 
documents formerly in the possession of CWI,'' id.  Consequently, 
we consider Marpin's request for summary judgment against CWI to 
be withdrawn.  In any event, we deny the Motion for Summary 
Judgment as moot because, as discussed above, even assuming the 
facts alleged by Marpin are true, we find that Marpin cannot 
establish a violation of section 214 or CW USA's section 214 
authorization by CW USA, its predecessor CWI, or its indirect 
parent CW plc.  Moreover, because we deny the Complaint based on 
Marpin's failure to establish that any of the defendants violated 
section 214 or CW USA's section 214 authorization, we need not 
address the additional grounds for dismissal that CW USA and CW 
plc raised in the Joint Motion to Dismiss.  In addition, we deny 
as moot Marpin's two letter requests for leave to supplement the 
exhibits to the Marpin Brief.  Letter from Eric Fishman, counsel 
for Marpin, to Lisa J. Saks, Attorney, Market Dispute Resolution 
Division, Enforcement Bureau, File No. EB-01-MD-015 (filed Feb. 
22, 2002); Letter from Eric Fishman, counsel for Marpin, to Lisa 
J. Saks, Attorney, Market Dispute Resolution Division, 
Enforcement Bureau, File No. EB-01-MD-015 (filed Mar. 7, 2002).