WPCP 2BJ?Courier3|@ ix6X@`7X@Times New Roman LPT2:iptHPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\n"UX@phoenix#C\  P6QɒP#que Olive ItalicTimes New Roman Bold ItalicX01Í Í2K-x%CourierTimes New Roman"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd12-01-98 03:52p RBELLRBELL 4e 47 U.S.C.  152, 201, 211. See also Benchmarks Order2 FCC Rc 1995052 (finding Commission authority to regulate U.S. carrier settlTimes New RomanTimes New Roman Bold  P6QɒP#2 ZAKHP LaserJet 5Si LPT2:iptHPLAS5SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\n"UXP3|X "i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN;Indented 3Indented 3;11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#Indented 4Indented 4<11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#Indented 5Indented 5=11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#Indented 6Indented 6>11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#2??<@V=A>B>Indented 7Indented 7?11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#Indented 8Indented 8@11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#Interrogator 1Interrogator 1A11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#Interrogator 2Interrogator 2B11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#2BC?Dp@E*AFAInterrogator 3Interrogator 3C11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#Interrogator 4Interrogator 4D11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#Interrogator 5Interrogator 5E11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#Interrogator 6Interrogator 6F11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#2vEGBHCIDDJxDInterrogator 7Interrogator 7G11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#Interrogator 8Interrogator 8H11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#Document[8]Document[8]I11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#Document[4]Document[4]J  2BHKELbFMlGNGDocument[6]Document[6]K11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#Document[5]Document[5]L11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#Document[2]Document[2]M Document[7]Document[7]N11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#2KOtHP.IQlIRTJRight Par[1]Right Par[1]O11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#Right Par[2]Right Par[2]P11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#Document[3]Document[3]Q Right Par[3]Right Par[3]R11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#2(NS@KTKULVnMRight Par[4]Right Par[4]S11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#Right Par[5]Right Par[5]T11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#Right Par[6]Right Par[6]U11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#Right Par[7]Right Par[7]V11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#2RWZNX(OY8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"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$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""I\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>\>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\nBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\ffdddf2!!dddddH;dfHHHHHHHHHHd2F;8;fdHdJ2;H2;9HNAddHHHHHHHHHHddddd6dHHHHdddddddddddddddddddHHddddddRC"i~'^5>M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\nBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\"i~'^:LpddDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppdLd||p|||D8DpdDddXdXDdp88d8pdddLL8pXdXLD,DpD4ppDDD4DDDDDDdDd8dddddXXXXXL8L8L8L8pddddpppp|Xdddd|Xd|ddddXXpXXXXXdddpdppL8LdLDLdpppd|8|h|D|L|8pppddLLLpLpLpLpp|l|8|ppppppp|p|L|L|Ld|DppL|D|d4ddC8CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxHddLdddddd43>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\6jC:,g̃Xj9 xOG;XX` hp x (#` (#2X  "i~'K2^14Gccx+11c1114cccccccccc11`uoduc`r{.MiV{xixiY`xiiid141SS+`u]uiJor11`.rruuMMMoc]cVJSJc0ccccc1ccccccSci1u`u`u`u`u`§d]cicicici.1.1.1.1{rxrxrxrxrxoxoxoxoicu`uaxrxricuriu{Zuc{ZuZuZdcdcxnaZciciaZ{arorororo{r{r/1cicc0ix`ccicZ(Z9ccV8V.xaxa{raxrk(>$;;HCH:HCHCH:HCb[?;<0<4<0FF;;JE;;;;?;B22WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHHH2;;966;;l;;;ff;'+22;f''';f##dd;;<footnote reference)#footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP# {,K XR 4 footnote text#XP\  P6QynXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#X\ Í)z footnote reference)#X\  P6G;ɒP#See, e.g., International Settlement Rates, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 19806, 1980708, 19810  {O; '(1997) (Benchmarks Order), recon. pending, appeal filed; Cable & Wireless, P.L.C. v. FCC, No. 97 yO '1612 (D.C. Cir. filed Sept. 26, 1997).#XP\  P6QynXP#(# Abovecost 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 costbased accounting rates and expedite calling price reductions, the Commission modified its procedures governing requests for accounting rate modifications to  X 4permit accounting rate changes, such as growthbased accounting rates.)Afootnote reference)#footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#  K XZ4 footnote text#XP\  P6QynXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#X\ Í)z footnote reference)#X\  P6G;ɒP#See ISP Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 3552.#XP\  P6QynXP#(# 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 growthbased arrangement has an accounting rate that decreases as traffic volume increases.  X 4US??4??US.` ` In its ISP Order, the Commission established a standard under which the Bureau could consider, on a casebycase basis, granting accounting rate modifications, including growthbased arrangements, that include "a lower, more economically efficient, costbased, international accounting rate when supported by a sound analysis of the benefits  XM4that will result from the implementation of that rate.")Ffootnote reference)#footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP# MK Xv4 footnote text#XP\  P6QynXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#X\ Í)z footnote reference)#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id. at 3554.#XP\  P6QynXP#(#ƶ 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  X4available to all competing U.S. carriers in a nondiscriminatory fashion.")?Lfootnote reference)#footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP# yK X4 footnote text#XP\  P6QynXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#X\ Í)z footnote reference)#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id. at 3555.#XP\  P6QynXP#(#ƶ The requirement that such agreements be nondiscriminatory included the requirement that "the effective date of  X4the accounting rate change, whether prospective or retroactive, . . . be available to competing  X4U.S. carriers.")Pfootnote reference)#footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#b K X!4 footnote text#XP\  P6QynXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#X\ Í)z footnote reference)#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id. at 3555 n.36 (emphasis added).#XP\  P6QynXP#(# 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"K 0*g$g$88`" correspondent that the negotiated accounting rate must be generally available to all other U.S.  X4carriers on a nondiscriminatory basis.)Sfootnote reference)#footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#K X4 footnote text#XP\  P6QynXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#X\ Í)z footnote reference)#X\  P6G;ɒP#47 C.F.R.  64.1001, 64.1002.#XP\  P6QynXP#(# "y0*g$g$88"Ԍ X4~!X\ B.Bureau Order (#  X4US??5??US.` ` The International Bureau ruled on the six accounting rate modification requests  X4at issue (discussed individually below) on September 10, 1997. The Bureau Order reiterated  X4the ISP's longstanding nondiscrimination requirement.)VWfootnote reference)#footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#K X4 footnote text#XP\  P6QynXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#X\ Í)z footnote reference)#X\  P6G;ɒP#Bureau Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 13810.#XP\  P6QynXP#(# The Bureau Order identified two discriminatory aspects to the modification requests. First, the Bureau found that some of the growthbased accounting rate arrangements unreasonably discriminated against competing U.S. carriers because the foreign carrier had not offered them an equivalent growthbased arrangement. Second, the Bureau found that the growthbased arrangements in all of the petitions failed to take into account the different amount of telephone traffic provided by each  X 4U.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 growthbased  X 4arrangements 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.  X&4US??6??US.` ` The Bureau Order observed, however, that growthbased 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  X4create price and service options to take advantage of the lower rates.)[footnote reference)#footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#yK X4 footnote text#XP\  P6QynXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#X\ Í)z footnote reference)#X\  P6G;ɒP#Bureau Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 1381112.#XP\  P6QynXP#(# To that end, the  X4Bureau Order noted several possible approaches that U.S. carriers could use to reach growthbased accounting rate arrangements that were not unreasonably discriminatory. U.S. carriers could, for example, negotiate arrangements that set thresholds with reference to: (1) each  X4U.S. carrier's minutes in a base period or each carrier's service volume;)Pefootnote reference)#footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#e|bK X4 footnote text#XP\  P6QynXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#X\ Í)z footnote reference)#X\  P6G;ɒP#At one time, CODETEL had growthbased accounting rate agreements with three U.S. carriers, each with different threshold levels that generally mirrored differences in the volume of service provided by the carriers. For AT&T, the accounting rate was $1.30 per minute for service up to 32 million minutes  {O'in a quarter and the rate dropped to 60 per minute for service exceeding this level. See American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Petition for Waiver, USP94W327 (filed Aug. 26, 1994). MCI had an agreement with the same accounting rates as AT&T, but MCI's threshold level was 11 million  {OW"'minutes per quarter. See MCI, Petition for Waiver, USP94W323 (filed Aug. 18, 1994). The threshold level for a new entrant into this market, International Telecommunications Corporation (ITC),"!#0*g$g$#"  {O'was 300,000 minutes per month for the same accounting rates. See RSL COM U.S.A., International Settlements Policy Modification to Change the Accounting Rate for International Switched Voice Service to the Dominican Republic, ISP97M413 (filed July 9, 1997; amended July 18, 1997). Subsequently, AT&T negotiated a new agreement with CODETEL that changed the accounting rates and  {O'reduced its threshold level by almost onethird to 11 million minutes per quarter. See American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Petition for Waiver, USP95W385 (filed Aug. 10, 1995). ITC  yOD'negotiated a similar change that reduced its threshold level to 100,000 minutes per month.#XP\  P6QynXP#(# (2) U.S. carriers'~!" 0*g$g$88"  X4combined minutes;)_ifootnote reference)#footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#h K X4 footnote text#XP\  P6QynXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#X\ Í)z footnote reference)#X\  P6G;ɒP#U.S. carriers currently use this particular type of growthbased accounting rate arrangement for settlements with British Telecom (BT) and Mercury in the United Kingdom. For BT, the accounting rate falls from 0.15 SDR to 0.1 SDR for U.S. industry minutes that exceed a 500 million minute threshold. For Mercury, the accounting rate falls from 0.4 SDR to 0.1 SDR for U.S. industry minutes that exceed a 200 million minute threshold. In both cases, the thresholds could be lower if either U.K. carrier fails to reach these thresholds. In such a case, the level would equal the level realized by the  yOv 'U.K. carrier. See AT&T, Petition for Modification, ISP98W041 (filed Feb. 17, 1998).#XP\  P6QynXP#(#h or (3) the ratio of a U.S. carrier's billed minutes transmitted to a foreign  X4carrier and the foreign carrier's billed minutes to the U.S. carrier.)arfootnote reference)#footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP# K X'4 footnote text#XP\  P6QynXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#X\ Í)z footnote reference)#X\  P6G;ɒP#Bureau Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 13812.#XP\  P6QynXP#(#  X4US??7??US.` ` 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  X 4on the route for the relevant period.)xfootnote reference)#footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#: K XA4 footnote text#XP\  P6QynXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#X\ Í)z footnote reference)#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id. After renegotiation with their foreign correspondents, we anticipate that U.S. carriers will follow the standard commercial practice of recalculating their settlement payments based on the renegotiated rates. If payments made on an interim basis result in lower settlement payments than those owed using the renegotiated rates, we expect that the U.S. carriers will pay the difference. If, however, the interim payments result in higher settlement payments than those owed using the renegotiated rates, we expect U.S. carriers will deduct the difference from future payments or receive a refund from their foreign  yO'correspondents.#XP\  P6QynXP#(#: 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.  X ' C.Individual ISP Modification Requests  X4US??8??US.` ` Dominican Republic. AT&T requested an accounting rate modification, seeking to establish a growthbased arrangement with CODETEL ($1.10 per minute) during"}'0*g$g$88"" the "full" period and 70 during the "reduced" period for traffic less than 11 million minutes;  X470 for all traffic above 11million minutes) for July 1, 1995 to December 31, 1995.)r}footnote reference)#footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#uK X4 footnote text#XP\  P6QynXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#X\ Í)z footnote reference)#X\  P6G;ɒP#The "full" rate period is in effect from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight local time for the originating point  yO'of a call. The "reduced" rate period is in effect from 12:00 midnight to 7:00 a.m.#XP\  P6QynXP#(#u 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  X4CODETEL on a nondiscriminatory basis.")4footnote reference)#footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#AK X~4 footnote text#XP\  P6QynXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#X\ Í)z footnote reference)#X\  P6G;ɒP#See AT&T Petition for Waiver (CODETEL), Affidavit of Jorge Matar.#XP\  P6QynXP#(# The Bureau Order found that the accounting rate arrangement violated the ISP because CODETEL did not offer a comparable arrangement  Xx4to other U.S. carriers.)?footnote reference)#footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#x*K X; 4 footnote text#XP\  P6QynXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#X\ Í)z footnote reference)#X\  P6G;ɒP#Bureau Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 13814.#XP\  P6QynXP#(#  XJ4US??9??US.` ` In order to reduce the accounting rate and eliminate discrimination against U.S.  X34carriers, 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  X 4at 52.6 ($1.05 accounting rate).)footnote reference)#footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP# K Xn4 footnote text#XP\  P6QynXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#X\ Í)z footnote reference)#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id.#XP\  P6QynXP#(#ƭ  X4US??10??US.` ` Other Caribbean Points. MCI requested an accounting rate modification seeking to establish a growthbased arrangement with CWWI to various Caribbean points.  Xh4MCI's requested modification was identical to one previously filed by AT&T.)footnote reference)#footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#oEhK X4 footnote text#XP\  P6QynXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#X\ Í)z footnote reference)#X\  P6G;ɒP#AT&T's modification petition, however, was not under consideration in the Bureau Order because its  {O'petition was unopposed and went into effect in 1992. Id. at 13815. AT&T attached an affidavit to its filing stating that it had "not bargained for, and ha[d] no knowledge of, exclusive availability of the new  {Ox'accounting rate with [CWWI]." See AT&T Petition for Waiver (CWWI), Affidavit of H.G. Horn.#XP\  P6QynXP#(#o The Bureau  XS4Order 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  X4smaller traffic volume, MCI will have a higher average settlement rate.)5footnote reference)#footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#A K X4 footnote text#XP\  P6QynXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#X\ Í)z footnote reference)#q0Xh d## X\  P6G;ɒP#See discussion in para. 5, supra.#XP\  P6QynXP#(# Moreover, CWWI  X4never 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"* 0*g$g$88\"  X4the relevant period.)֚footnote reference)#footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#%K X)4 footnote text#XP\  P6QynXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#X\ Í)z footnote reference)#X\  P6G;ɒP#Bureau Order, 12 FCC Rcd at Table 2 (listing AT&T's average settlement rates for the Caribbean  yO'points).#XP\  P6QynXP#(#%  X4US??11??US.` ` 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 growthbased 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  Xa4PLDT on a nondiscriminatory basis.")]footnote reference)#footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#aAK X; 4 footnote text#XP\  P6QynXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#X\ Í)z footnote reference)#X\  P6G;ɒP#See AT&T Petition for Waiver (PLDT), Affidavit of William L. Barney.#XP\  P6QynXP#(# PLDT did not offer competing U.S. carriers the same  XJ4arrangement. Even if PLDT had offered the arrangement to other U.S. carriers, the Bureau  X54Order 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  X 4they have significantly smaller amounts of U.S.Philippines traffic above the threshold.)]footnote reference)#footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP# *K {O' footnote text#XP\  P6QynXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#X\#X\  P6G;ɒP# Í)z footnote reference)Bureau Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 13813.#XP\  P6QynXP#(#  X 4US??12??US.` ` Because AT&T's modification request reduced the accounting rate on the U.S. X 4Philippine 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  X<4rate of 67.5 ($1.35 accounting rate).)ƨfootnote reference)#footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#<K J footnote text#XP\  P6QynXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#X\#q0Xh d# Í)z footnote reference)# q0Xh d#Id.# XP\  P6QynXP#(#  X4US??13??US.` ` Uruguay. AT&T requested an accounting rate modification, seeking to establish a growthbased arrangement with ANTEL (from $1.80 to $1.00 for minutes above a threshold of 3 million minutes) for 1995. MCI filed a similar modification request for service to Uruguay, but with no expiration date. AT&T attached an affidavit that stated that AT&T "has made it clear to ANTEL that FCC policy requires that competing U.S. carriers have  X4access to the accounting rate negotiated with ANTEL on a nondiscriminatory basis.")>footnote reference)#footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP# K J footnote text#XP\  P6QynXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#X\#q0Xh d# Í)z footnote reference)# q0Xh d#See AT&T Petition for Waiver (ANTEL), Affidavit of Jorge Matar.# XP\  P6QynXP#(# The  X4Bureau Order found that the growthbased arrangements contained in the modification requests failed to take into account the different amount of telephone traffic provided by each U.S. carrier on the U.S.Uruguay route and would unreasonably discriminate against the"Z 0*g$g$88"  X4smaller U.S. carriers.)footnote reference)#footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#!K J) footnote text#XP\  P6QynXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#X\#q0Xh d# Í)z footnote reference)# q0Xh d#Bureau Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 13814.# XP\  P6QynXP#(#  X4US??14??US.` ` Because AT&T's modification request reduced the accounting rate on the route,  X4the Bureau Order accepted AT&T's request and directed all U.S. carriers to negotiate a  X4nondiscriminatory 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  X 4rate) and Sprint's was 90 ($1.80 accounting rate).)Ifootnote reference)#footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#" YK J  footnote text#XP\  P6QynXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#X\#q0Xh d# Í)z footnote reference)# q0Xh d#Id.# XP\  P6QynXP#(#  X 4US??15??US.` ` Malaysia. AT&T requested an accounting rate modification, seeking a temporary reduction in the accounting rate (from $1.05 to 52.5 for minutes above a threshold of 1.5 million minutes) between AT&T and STM for November 1994, using a growthbased accounting rate. AT&T attached an affidavit that stated that AT&T "has made it clear to STM that FCC policy requires that competing U.S. carriers have access to the accounting rate  X4negotiated with STM on a nondiscriminatory basis.")Yfootnote reference)#footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP##"K J: footnote text#XP\  P6QynXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#X\#q0Xh d# Í)z footnote reference)# q0Xh d#See AT&T Petition for Waiver (STM), Affidavit of William L. Barney.# XP\  P6QynXP#(# The Bureau Order found the arrangement unreasonably discriminatory because only AT&T generated traffic above the  XS4threshold.)footnote reference)#footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#$SK J footnote text#XP\  P6QynXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#X\#q0Xh d# Í)z footnote reference)# q0Xh d#Bureau Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 13813.# XP\  P6QynXP#(#  X%4US??16??US.` ` Because AT&T's modification request reduced the accounting rate on the route  X4ԩ 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 ($1.05  X4accounting rate).)[footnote reference)#footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#%K J footnote text#XP\  P6QynXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QynXP#X\#q0Xh d# Í)z footnote reference)# q0Xh d#Id.# XP\  P6QynXP#(#  XX'M] III. Discussion \  X*4US??17??US.` ` CODETEL, CWWI and PLDT each filed an Application for Review of the"* }%0*g$g$88c" Bureau Order.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#& footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#PLDT also requested a stay of the Bureau Order. See PLDT's Request for Stay at 1.#XP\  P6QXP# 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.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP# ' footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#Id. Because growthbased accounting rate arrangements may appear similar to volume discount arrangements permitted by the Commission in some instances, we want to take this opportunity to distinguish them. In its access charge rules, the Commission has allowed carriers to offer term and volume discounts for various rate elements. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R.  69.110(f)-(h) (entrance facilities); 47 C.F.R.  69.111(i)-(k) (tandem switched transport); 47 C.F.R.  69.112(e)-(h) (direct-trunked transport). See also Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company Facilities, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 7 FCC Rcd 7369, 745865 (1992) (Special Access Expanded Interconnection Order). The Commission has noted that term and volume discounts can have a beneficial effect on competition in the United States. See, e.g., Special Access Expanded Interconnection Order, 7 FCC Rcd at 7457. The Commission has allowed term and volume discounts for those elements where sufficiently competitive conditions exist such that unreasonable and unlawful discrimination will not likely result. See Access Charge Reform; Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers; Transport Rate Structure and Pricing; Usage of the Public Switched Network by Information Service and Internet Access Providers, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Third Report and Order, and Notice of Inquiry, 11 FCC Rcd 21354, 21435 (Access Reform NPRM). In the context of accounting rate arrangements, however, a foreign monopoly or dominant carrier typically controls all or most of the facilities necessary to terminate a call from the United States into the particular foreign country. In almost all cases, the settlement rates that foreign monopoly carriers charge U.S. carriers are not based on costs. Allowing a foreign carrier to give one U.S. carrier a growthbased accounting rate arrangement, which is not based on true cost savings directly attributable to term or volume discounts, that gives one U.S. carrier a lower average settlement rate than its competing U.S. carriers would create the type of anticompetitive discrimination that the Commission sought to combat with the ISP and thus provide no benefit to competition. The Commission will only allow accounting rate arrangements that deviate from the ISP if they comply with the requirements set forth in the Flexibility rules. See Flexibility Order, 11 FCC Rcd 20063, modified, Rules and Policies on Foreign Participation in the U.S. Telecommunications Market, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 23891, recon. pending (Foreign Participation Order) (identifying the conditions that the Commission would consider sufficiently competitive to allow deviation from the ISP).#XP\  P6QXP#  A.Commission Has Statutory Authority to Regulate International Settlements.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#X01ÍÍX01 Í  Í ( footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP# Í) footnote reference)#C\  P6QP#See generally Benchmarks Order, 12 FCC Rcd 19806, 1993552.#XP\  P6QXP# 1.Commission Has Jurisdiction Over Foreign Communication That Originates or Terminates in the United States. US??18??US.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 . . . ."# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#X01 Í  Í X01ÍÍ) footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP# Í) footnote reference)#C\  P6QP#47 U.S.C.  152(a).#XP\  P6QXP# The Act defines "foreign communication" as "communication from or to any place in the United States to or from a foreign country."# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#* footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#Id.  153(17). #XP\  P6QXP# 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."# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#(+ footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#See, e.g., RCA Communications, Inc. v. United States, 43 F. Supp. 851, 854855 (S.D.N.Y. 1942).#XP\  P6QXP#( 2.The Bureau Order Enforces the ISP's Nondiscrimination Requirement Adopted Pursuant to Section 201 of the Act. US??19??US.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.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#a, footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#See, e.g., CODETEL's Application for Expedited Review at 810; CWWI's Application for Review at 1213; PLDT's Application for Review at 68.#XP\  P6QXP#a 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."# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#)- footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#47 U.S.C.  201. See also Louisiana Public Service Commission v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 37274 (1986).#XP\  P6QXP#) The Commission relied on this authority in adopting its ISP, which forms the basis for the enforcement action taken in the Bureau Order.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#. footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#See ISP Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 355556.#XP\  P6QXP# Although the Commission has the authority to prescribe settlement rates,# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#/ footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#See Benchmarks Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 1993944.#XP\  P6QXP# the Bureau Order does not, as the foreign carriers allege, exercise that authority.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#0 footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#CODETEL, CWWI and PLDT have all cited to Section 205 of the Act and cases involving rate prescriptions to support their retroactivity argument. See, e.g., CODETEL's Application for Expedited Review at 810 (citing Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital, 488 U.S. 204 (1988) (Bowen)); CWWI's Application for Review at 1415 (citing Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. FCC, 966 F.2d 1478 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. FCC, 949 F.2d 864 (6th Cir. 1991)); PLDT's Application for Review at 1113 (citing Bowen, 488 U.S. at 208). Because we have not engaged in a rate prescription in word or deed, we find that caselaw unrelated to the Bureau Order's enforcement of the ISP.#XP\  P6QXP#Ѣ 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.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#1 footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#See generally Lincoln Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. FCC, 659 F.2d 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (finding that Section 154(i) of the Act gave the Commission the authority to establish an interim billing and collection arrangement as a "helpful and necessary step for the Commission to take in implementing its 'immediate' interconnection order"). #XP\  P6QXP#  3.Bureau Order Applies to U.S. Carriers Only. US??20??US.CODETEL, CWWI and PLDT argue the Bureau Order exceeds the Commission's statutory authority by asserting jurisdiction over foreign carriers.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#^2 footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#See, e.g., CODETEL's Application for Expedited Review at 13; CWWI's Application for Review at 411; PLDT's Application for Review at 68.#XP\  P6QXP#^ 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 midway between the two countries, and that the Bureau Order represents an attempt to regulate the foreign half of the circuit.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#3 footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#CWWI's Application for Review at 47.#XP\  P6QXP# However, the Bureau Order, which enforces specific provisions of the existing ISP, acts as a direct constraint on U.S. carriers only.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP# 4 footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#47 U.S.C.  201, 211. See also ISP Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 3555 and n.36.#XP\  P6QXP#  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,# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#5 footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#130 F.3d 1078 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Radio Television S.A de C.V. v. FCC involved the Commission's grant of a television network's application for authority to transmit television programming from the United States to a Mexican television station for rebroadcast into the United States. The D.C. Circuit held that the Commission acted reasonably in conditioning license renewal on whether the Mexican station had provided "issueresponsive programming" to its U.S. viewers. Id. at 1082.#XP\  P6QXP#ѧ the Commission can affect the interests and behaviors of foreign companies in the exercise of its regulatory authority over domestic companies.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#6 footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#See also RCA Communications, 43 F. Supp. at 854; United States v. Weiner, 701 F. Supp. 14, 17 (D. Mass. 1988), aff'd, 887 F.2d 259 (1st Cir. 1989) (granting permanent injunctive relief against a seagoing station broadcasting outside the territorial waters of the United States because its broadcasts would be received within U.S. borders).#XP\  P6QXP# 4.Contractual Nature of Accounting Rates Agreements Does Not Shield Them from Requirements of the Act. US??21??US.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.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#7 footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#See, e.g., PLDT's Consolidated Reply to Oppositions at 57.#XP\  P6QXP# 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."# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#8 footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#RCA Communications, 43 F. Supp. at 854855.#XP\  P6QXP# This power necessarily includes the power to direct U.S. carriers to amend their accounting rate arrangements to comply with the Commission's statutorilybased nondiscrimination requirement of the ISP. Moreover, we find no support for CWWI's position# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#9 footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#CWWI's Application for Review at 910.#XP\  P6QXP# 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.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP# : footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, 712 F.2d 517, 53435 (D.C. Cir. 1983).#XP\  P6QXP#  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.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#; footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#See Bell System Tariff Offerings, 46 FCC 2d 413 (1974), aff'd on other grounds sub nom. Bell Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania v. FCC, 502 F.2d 1250 (3d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, AT&T v. FCC, 423 U.S. 886 (1975). See also Southern Pacific Communications Co., 66 FCC 2d 199 (1977).#XP\  P6QXP# CWWI's view of Section 211 would turn the statutory filing requirement into a "meaningless exercise" in paper collection.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#g< footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#See Interconnection Facilities Provided to the International Record Carriers, Final Decision and Order, 63 FCC 2d 761, 766 (1977) (IRC Interconnection Order).#XP\  P6QXP#g 5.The Bureau Order Comports with U.S. International Obligations. US??22??US.We also find that the Bureau Order's enforcement of the ISP is fully consistent with U.S. international obligations.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#]= footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#See generally 47 U.S.C.  303(r) (giving the Commission authority to "[m]ake such rules and regulations and prescribe such restrictions and conditions, not inconsistent with law, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act, or any international radio or wire communications treaty or convention, or regulations annexed thereto . . . to which the United States is or may hereafter become a party").#XP\  P6QXP#] 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. US??23??US.The preamble to the ITR, moreover, recognizes that "it is the sovereign right of each country to regulate its telecommunications."# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#> footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#International Telecommunication Regulations, preamble.#XP\  P6QXP# Nothing in the ITR requires the United States to cede its authority over U.S. carriers.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#? footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#Id. at Article 1.7(a) ("These regulations recognize the right of any member . . . to require that administrations and private operating agencies, which operate in its territory and provide an international telecommunication service to the public, be authorized by that member.").#XP\  P6QXP# 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.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#@ footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#See 47 U.S.C.  152, 201, 211. See also Benchmarks Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 1995052 (finding Commission authority to regulate U.S. carrier settlement rates consistent with international obligations). #XP\  P6QXP#ѐ 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.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#/A footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#See Section III.C. of this Order (discussing Bureau Order's compliance with due process requirements).#XP\  P6QXP#/ B.Requirement that U.S. Carriers Recalculate Interim Settlement Payments Consistent with the ISP Is Not Impermissibly Retroactive. US??24??US.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.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#B footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#Bureau Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 13810, 13813. #XP\  P6QXP# CODETEL, CWWI and PLDT contend that requiring U.S. carriers to recalculate settlements is impermissibly retroactive.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#cC footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#See, e.g., CODETEL's Application for Expedited Review at 810; CWWI's Application for Review at 1415; PLDT's Application for Review at 1113.#XP\  P6QXP#c For the reasons discussed below, we disagree. US??25??US.In Williams Natural Gas Co. v. FERC,# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#D footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#3 F.3d 1544 (D.C. Cir. 1993).#XP\  P6QXP# the D.C. Circuit held that agency action is not impermissibly retroactive if the result is not a "shift from a clear prior policy."# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#E footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#Id.#XP\  P6QXP# 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.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#F footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\XP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#ISP Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 3555 and n.36.#XP\  P6QXP# 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.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#G footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#Id. See also Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. FERC, 606 F.2d 1094, 11151116 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (finding that FERC's actions were not impermissibly retroactive because agency had not changed an explicit past policy, but rather had reaffirmed wellestablished regulatory principles). #XP\  P6QXP# Similarly, we note that in New England Telephone and Telegraph Company v. FCC# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#H footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#826 F.2d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1987).#XP\  P6QXP# 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."# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#I footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#Id. at 1108.#XP\  P6QXP# US??26??US.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.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#J footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#See, e.g., Adelphia Communications Corp. v. FCC, 88 F.3d 1250, 1257 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (cable system operators had notice in initial rate orders that Commission retained discretion to determine whether a particular offering satisfied standard and had statutory mandate to review and revise rules; disregarding this possibility does not give operators equitable claim against application of a new rule to address evasion of Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act).#XP\  P6QXP#Ѩ 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.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#K footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#ISP Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 3555 n.36. Moreover, we note that the Bureau directed the U.S. carriers to recalculate their settlements on an interim basis only, pending the renegotiation of nondiscriminatory accounting rate arrangements. Bureau Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 13812.#XP\  P6QXP# C.Bureau Order Satisfies Due Process Requirements. US??27??US.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.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#_L footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#See, e.g., CODETEL's Application for Expedited Review at 610; CWWI's Application for Review at 16; PLDT's Application for Review at 911.#XP\  P6QXP#_ First, we note that all three carriers had notice of the rulemaking underlying our ISP requirement of nondiscrimination for growthbased accounting rate arrangements.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#M footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#See, e.g., Regulation of International Accounting Rates, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 5 FCC Rcd 4948, 4949 (1990) (stating that "under the proposed notifications approach, an exclusive arrangement would not be permitted that is, if a foreign telecommunications administration implements a lower accounting rate with one U.S. carrier, it must be prepared to offer the same rate to all U.S. carriers serving that country."). See also Streamlining the International Section 214 Authorization Process and Tariff Requirements, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 12884 (1996) (noting AT&T's position that the issue of growthbased accounting rates is "properly before the Commission" in pending ISP modification requests, including some of those at issue); Regulation of International Accounting Rates, Order on Reconsideration, 7 FCC Rcd 8049, 8052 n.18 (1992) (stating that the Commission may enforce the ISP requirements using whatever mechanisms that are within the Commission's authority to ensure nondiscriminatory accounting rate arrangements).#XP\  P6QXP# Additionally, the rates at issue never took effect because of the oppositions filed, alleging violations of the ISP's nondiscrimination requirement.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#N footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#See 47 C.F.R.  64.1001(l).#XP\  P6QXP# Any carrier involved in one of the growthbased 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. US??28??US.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. US??29??US.CODETEL, CWWI and PLDT claim the Bureau Order is "arbitrary and capricious," "unreasonable" and not "rational" respectively.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#iO footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#See, e.g., CODETEL's Application for Expedited Review at 1820; CWWI's Application for Review at 1721; PLDT's Application for Review at 1416.#XP\  P6QXP#i 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# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#P footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#This authority was transferred to the International Bureau upon its creation in 1994. See Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 25, 43, 64 and 73 of the Commission's Rules to Reflect a Reorganization Establishing the International Bureau, Order, 9 FCC Rcd 7050 (1994).#XP\  P6QXP# to consider, on a casebycase basis, granting [accounting rate modification] requests that include a lower, more economically efficient, costbased, international accounting rate when supported by a sound analysis of the benefits that will result from the implementation of that rate."# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#Q footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#ISP Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 3554. #XP\  P6QXP# Applying this standard, the International Bureau found that the growthbased 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.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#R footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#See Bureau Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 1381011. #XP\  P6QXP# US??30??US.The Bureau Order recognized, though, that growthbased 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.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#S footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#Id. at 1381112.#XP\  P6QXP# To cure the violation of the ISP's nondiscrimination requirement while maintaining the benefits of more costbased 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.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#T footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#Id. at 13812.#XP\  P6QXP# 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 costbased rates negotiated by AT&T and ensuring that those rates are generally available to all U.S. carriers on a nondiscriminatory basis.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#U footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6XP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#See, e.g., ISP Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 3552, 355455.#XP\  P6QXP# US??31??US.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.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#V footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#897 F.2d 1164 (D.C. Cir. 1990).#XP\  P6QXP# 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.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#W footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#Id. at 1166.#XP\  P6QXP# 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.# footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP#X footnote text#XP\  P6QXP## footnote reference##XP\  P6QXP##q0Xh# Í) footnote reference)#q0Xh#Id.#XP\  P6QXP# 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 US??32??US.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  US??33??US.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 Commissions Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.115, that the Applications for Review filed by Compa9ia Dominicana de Tel)fonos C. por. A., Cable & WirelessWest Indies and Philippines Long Distance Telephone ARE DENIED. US??34??US.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 Commissions Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.43, that the Motion for Stay filed by Philippines Long Distance Telephone IS DISMISSED as moot. ` hp x (#p x (#FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary