**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the matter of                 | *  | IB Docket No. 04-47          |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Amendment of Parts 1 and 63 of   | ** |                              |
| the                              |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
| Commission's Rules               | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING**

**Adopted:** February 25, 2004 **Released:** March 4, 2004

**Comment Date:** 45 days after Federal Register publication

**Reply Comment Date:** 75 days after Federal Register publication

By the Commission:

**Table of Contents**

Paragraph#

I. Introduction 1

II\. Background 2

III\. Discussion

A. Discontinuance of International Service 9

B. International 214 Authorizations for CMRS Carriers 15

C. International Roaming 22

D. Commonly-controlled Subsidiaries 27

> E. Modification of Cable Landing License Rules 33

F. Other Rules 36

IV\. Conclusion 38

V. Administrative Matters

A. Ex Parte Presentations 39

B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 40

C. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 44

D. Comment Filing Procedures 45

E. Further Information 54

VI\. Ordering Clauses 55

# Introduction

1.  In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek comment on several
    potential changes to our international section 214 authorization
    process[^1] and the rules relating to the provision of United States
    (U.S.)-international telecommunications services. Specifically, we
    seek comment on whether to amend the procedures for discontinuing an
    international service to be more consistent with the procedures for
    discontinuing a domestic service. We also seek comment on ways to
    lessen the burdens placed on Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS)
    carriers by the international section 214 application process. In
    particular, we seek comment on whether to establish international
    section 214 authority for CMRS carriers to provide international
    resale service subject to their notifying the Commission within 30
    days of when they begin to provide international service. We propose
    to amend our rules to clarify that U.S.-authorized resale carriers
    can resell the U.S.-inbound international services of either U.S.
    carriers or foreign carriers. We seek comment on whether to amend
    our rules to allow commonly-controlled subsidiaries to use their
    parent's section 214 authorization to provide international service.
    Additionally, we seek comment on whether to amend section 1.767 of
    the Commission's rules[^2] regarding procedures for Commission
    consideration of applications for cable landing licenses in order to
    assure compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
    (CZMA).[^3] Finally, we propose to amend other rules to clarify
    their intent.

# background

2.  The Commission has continually reviewed its rules regarding the
    authorization of international services under section 214 of the
    Act.[^4] Through this review, the Commission has sought to
    facilitate the introduction of new services, and to provide
    customers with more choices, more innovative services, and
    competitive prices. Where the Commission has found that a rule is no
    longer necessary or could be streamlined, it has acted to amend the
    rule so that it can improve its processing of authorization
    applications and regulation of international telecommunications
    services.

3.  In 1996, the Commission created an expedited process for global,
    facilities-based, and resale section 214 applications.[^5] The
    Commission permitted applicants to apply for section 214
    authorizations on a global or limited basis, reduced paperwork
    obligations, streamlined tariff requirements for non-dominant
    international carriers, and ensured that essential information is
    readily available to all carriers and users. The Commission also
    adopted streamlined processing for international section 214
    authorizations, which allowed for grant of such applications 35 days
    after the date of the public notice listing the application as
    accepted for filing. This expedited process has facilitated entry
    into the U.S.-international telecommunications market and the
    expansion of international services to the benefit of U.S. consumers
    and competition.

4.  Starting in 1998, the Commission made numerous changes to its
    regulations as part of the biennial regulatory review process.[^6]
    In the *1998 International Biennial Review Order*, the Commission
    took additional steps to reduce certain regulatory burdens placed on
    providers of international telecommunications services in light of
    market changes. The Commission further streamlined its procedures
    for granting international section 214 authorizations to provide
    international services, and expanded the categories of applications
    eligible for streamlined processing.[^7] The processing time was
    further reduced so that an applicant qualifying for streamlined
    processing is authorized to provide international services 14 days
    after public notice of an application. The vast majority of
    international section 214 applicants now qualify for streamlined
    processing, and carriers can then provide service starting on the
    fifteenth day after public notice.

5.  As part of the 2000 biennial regulatory review, the Commission
    amended several rules to clarify their intent and eliminated rules
    that no longer had any application. In the *2000 International
    Biennial Review Order*, the Commission revised the rules for *pro
    forma* transfers and assignments of international section 214
    authorizations to give carriers greater flexibility in structuring
    transactions.[^8] These changes also assist carriers by making the
    rules more consistent with those procedures used for other service
    authorizations, particularly for the CMRS.[^9] The Commission also
    clarified the international discontinuance rules and, consistent
    with domestic service rules, exempted CMRS carriers from the
    discontinuance requirements. The Commission further narrowed one of
    the section 214 benchmark conditions, so that it only applies to the
    provision of the U.S.-international facilities-based switched
    services for facilities-based U.S. carriers affiliated with dominant
    foreign carriers.[^10]

6.  As part of the 2002 biennial regulatory review,[^11] the
    International Bureau ("Bureau") released a staff report that set
    forth various recommendations for reviewing our rules regarding the
    provision of international telecommunications.[^12] The Bureau
    reviewed rules that fall within and outside the scope of section 11
    of the Communications Act,[^13] and made recommendations based both
    on changes in the competitive level of the marketplace and on other
    public interest reasons.[^14] The Bureau recommended in the *2002 IB
    Biennial Review Staff Report* that we undertake a proceeding to
    review certain rules within Part 63 of the Commission's rules.[^15]

7.  As part of the 2002 biennial regulatory review proceeding, the
    Commission received comments on proposed changes to the rules
    contained in Part 63.[^16] In its comments, Cingular argued that the
    section 214 authorization process and regulation unduly burden CMRS
    carriers and requested that the Commission take action to lessen the
    burdens placed on CMRS carriers.[^17] Cingular stated that even if
    the Commission continues to require CMRS carriers to obtain section
    214 authorization to provide international service, it should modify
    section 63.21(h) to allow commonly-controlled subsidiaries to use
    their parent corporation's authorization rather than having to
    obtain their own authorizations.[^18] Verizon requested that we
    modify section 63.19 to conform the notice period for discontinuance
    of international services to that for domestic services.[^19]

8.  Based on its review of the rules and various comments, the Bureau
    recommended that the Commission undertake a proceeding to review
    several rules in Part 63 for reasons other than developments in the
    level of competition.[^20] The Bureau recommended that the
    Commission institute a proceeding to explore whether there are less
    burdensome means of applying the public interest goals of Part 63 to
    CMRS carriers.[^21] The Bureau, however, disagreed with Cingular
    that the Commission should modify section 63.21(h) to allow
    commonly-controlled subsidiaries to use their parent's international
    section 214 authorization.[^22] The Bureau also recommended that the
    Commission modify the rules specifically to permit all
    U.S.-authorized resale carriers to resell the international services
    of foreign-authorized carriers.[^23] The Bureau also recommended
    that the Commission initiate a proceeding to modify the requirements
    for discontinuance of an international service, and consider whether
    those requirements should conform with the requirements for
    discontinuance of a domestic service.[^24]

# Discussion

## Discontinuance of International Service

9.  We seek comment on whether to amend the procedures for
    discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of an international service
    by a U.S. carrier to be more consistent with our procedures for
    discontinuance of a domestic service. At present there are several
    differences between the discontinuance procedures for international
    and domestic services, including the length of notice required.
    These differences can be confusing to a carrier and its customers if
    the carrier is discontinuing both domestic and international
    services.

10. The procedures for discontinuing an international service are
    contained in section 63.19 of the Commission's rules.[^25] The rule
    distinguishes among three categories of U.S. international carriers
    in setting out the discontinuance procedures. A non-dominant
    international carrier[^26] must notify its affected customers at
    least 60 days prior to a planned discontinuance, reduction, or
    impairment of service.[^27] The carrier must also file a copy of the
    notification with the Commission on or after the date on which
    notice has been given to all affected customers.[^28] A carrier that
    has been classified as dominant due to its having market power in
    the provision of an international service on the U.S. end of the
    route[^29] must obtain prior approval before a planned
    discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service on that
    route.[^30] A CMRS carrier is exempt from the discontinuance
    procedures.[^31]

11. The procedures for a planned discontinuance of a domestic service
    are contained in section 63.71.[^32] Under that rule, a domestic
    carrier must notify all affected customers of the planned
    discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of services in
    writing.[^33] The rule sets out specific information that the
    carrier must use in its notice to customers as well as specific
    language regarding the processing of the discontinuance application
    at the Commission and how customers can file comments with the
    Commission.[^34] The carrier must file an application with the
    Commission,[^35] and must submit a copy of the application to the
    public utility commission and Governor of each state in which the
    discontinuance, reduction, or impairment is proposed, as well as to
    the Department of Defense.[^36] The Commission places the
    application on public notice, and the date of the public notice is
    the date the application is deemed filed for purpose of determining
    the automatic grant period.[^37] A non-dominant carrier's
    application will be granted automatically 31 days after the public
    notice and a dominant carrier's application will be granted
    automatically 60 days after the public notice, unless the Commission
    notifies the carrier that the application will not be automatically
    granted.[^38]

12. In its comments in the 2002 biennial review proceeding, Verizon
    stated that the Commission should conform the notice period for
    discontinuance of international services by a non-dominant
    U.S.-international carrier to that for discontinuance of a domestic
    service by a non-dominant carrier.[^39] Verizon argued that this
    change would eliminate the potential for disjointed notices to
    affected customers when a non-dominant carrier discontinues both
    domestic and international services, and would make the rules more
    consistent and rational.[^40] In the *2002 IB Biennial Review Staff
    Report,* the Bureau agreed with Verizon, finding that, when a
    carrier that provides both domestic and international service seeks
    to discontinue service, the different requirements for the two
    services place unnecessary burdens on the carrier and the
    Commission, which can lead to confusion for the carrier's
    customers.[^41] The Bureau thus recommended that the Commission
    consider modifying the rule to conform more closely with the
    discontinuance requirements for domestic service.[^42]

13. We seek comment on whether we should modify the international 214
    discontinuance procedures so that they are more consistent for
    international and domestic services. Verizon requested that we
    reduce the notification period for a non-dominant carrier's
    discontinuance of international services from 60 days to 30 days to
    be consistent with the domestic procedures.[^43] We seek comment on
    this proposal. Specifically we seek comment on the appropriate
    notice period so that a carrier's customers will have sufficient
    time to secure an alternative provider for their U.S.-international
    services before their existing service is discontinued. In 1996, the
    Commission found that the increase in the number of international
    carriers and competition in the international service market allowed
    us to decrease the notice period from 120 days to 60 days.[^44] We
    seek comment on whether the market changed sufficiently in the
    intervening time to allow us to further decrease the notice period.
    We also seek comment on whether there are differences between the
    domestic and international services markets that justify having a
    different notification period. Do different classes of customers
    (e.g., residential end-users, business users, resale carriers,
    government agencies) have different needs regarding the time
    necessary to secure an alternative carrier for U.S.-international
    service?

14. We note that, under the current rules, the notification periods are
    triggered by different events. Under the procedures for a
    non-dominant international carrier to discontinue international
    service, the 60-day period begins with the notification to the
    affected customers.[^45] In contrast, under the procedures for a
    non-dominant carrier to discontinue a domestic service, the 30-day
    period does not start until the Commission places the application
    for discontinuance on public notice.[^46] Should we modify the
    international procedures so that the notification period commences
    upon public notice of the discontinuance request? Similarly, should
    we set forth language that a U.S.-international carrier should use
    in the discontinuance notification to its customers advising the
    customers of the Commission's procedures regarding grant of a
    discontinuance request and how they can file comments with the
    Commission, as we require for carriers seeking to discontinue
    domestic services?[^47] Generally, we seek comment on which, if any,
    of the procedures for discontinuance of a domestic service should
    also be used for the discontinuance of an international service by a
    U.S.-carrier and which procedures should be different. Commenters
    should explain why the procedures should be the same or should be
    different.

## International 214 Authorizations for CMRS Carriers

15. Currently, CMRS carriers only provide international service on a
    resale basis. Their primary service is domestic wireless service,
    and they generally provide international service as a convenience to
    their customers.[^48] We request comment on a post-notification
    process for granting international section 214 authority to CMRS
    carriers seeking to provide international service to their customers
    through the pure resale of the switched services of other U.S.
    carriers.[^49] In particular, we seek comment on whether we should
    exempt from the requirement to file an application for international
    section 214 authority prior to providing service a CMRS carrier that
    provides international service on a purely switched resale basis,
    and is either (1) unaffiliated with a foreign carrier with market
    power at the foreign end of the route,[^50] or (2) where the CMRS
    provider has an affiliation with such a foreign carrier and seeks to
    provide international service by reselling directly or indirectly
    the international switched services of U.S. carriers with which it
    is not affiliated.[^51]

16. The Commission previously has considered proposals to forbear from
    regulating, or to grant blanket authority to, CMRS carriers and
    other entities seeking to provide international services. In the
    *PCIA Forbearance Order*, the Commission denied a request to
    forbear, under section 10 of the 1996 Act, from applying
    international Title II regulation, including section 214 regulation,
    to providers of broadband personal communications services
    (PCS).[^52] The Commission noted that, among other things, the
    review of international section 214 applications includes
    consultation with the Executive Branch on national security, law
    enforcement, foreign policy, and trade concerns.[^53] The Commission
    found that there was a continued need to impose certain conditions
    on all international section 214 authorizations, and, in particular
    cases, to impose dominant carrier regulation.[^54] The Commission
    stated its concern that a broadband PCS provider, like any other
    carrier of international traffic, could acquire an affiliation with
    a foreign carrier that has market power at the foreign end of a U.S.
    route, and that the foreign affiliate could leverage that power to
    discriminate against U.S. competitors on that affiliated route.[^55]
    The Commission therefore concluded that international service must
    continue to be provided only pursuant to an authorization that can
    be conditioned or revoked, if necessary.[^56] The Commission stated
    that the 1998 biennial review proceeding would consider steps to
    minimize burdens on international carriers, including PCS
    providers.[^57]

17. Shortly thereafter, in the *1998 International Biennial Review
    NPRM*, the Commission proposed a blanket authorization that would
    have permitted any entity that would be a non-dominant international
    communications common carrier to provide, without prior approval
    from the Commission, resale and facilities-based service on any
    route where it had no affiliation with a foreign carrier with market
    power operating on the foreign end of the route.[^58] The proposed
    rule would have required the entity to notify the Commission within
    30 days that it had commenced service under blanket authorization,
    and would have reserved the right to condition or revoke the blanket
    authorization of any entity for a violation of the Commission's
    rules or policies.[^59] The Commission sought particular comment on
    whether international section 214 blanket authorizations would be
    more appropriate for CMRS carriers than for other entities seeking
    to provide international service.[^60] Various Executive Branch
    agencies opposed the proposal on national security and law
    enforcement grounds.[^61] Therefore, in the *1998 International
    Biennial Review Order*, the Commission declined to adopt an
    international section 214 blanket authorization for CMRS and other
    providers, but rather adopted further streamlining procedures for
    international section 214 applications.[^62]

18. In the *2002 IB Biennial Review Staff Report,* the Bureau
    recommended that the Commission explore the possibility of using
    blanket section 214 resale authorizations for CMRS carriers with a
    *de minimis* share of the U.S. international services market.[^63]
    Under such an approach, a CMRS licensee would not be required to
    obtain section 214 authorization prior to providing resale of
    international services, but would be subject to the requirements of
    Part 63, including its foreign carrier affiliation notice
    requirements, competitive safeguards, and reporting
    requirements.[^64] The Bureau recognized that this approach may
    raise concerns for the Executive Branch since it would no longer
    have the opportunity to review applications for national security,
    law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade issues prior to the CMRS
    carrier initiating international service.[^65] The Bureau therefore
    recommended that the Commission seek comment on means to address any
    Executive Branch concerns while lessening the burdens on CMRS
    carriers.[^66]

19. We seek comment on what would be a narrow exemption from the
    Commission's rules for authorizing the provision of international
    services. Today, an entity that has been licensed by the Commission
    under Title III of the Communications Act to provide CMRS in the
    United States and also seeks to provide its U.S. customers with
    international calling capability from or to the United States must
    file an application for Title II international section 214
    authority. We seek comment on whether we should exempt from the
    requirement to file a prior application for international section
    214 authority those CMRS carriers that are: (1) unaffiliated with a
    foreign carrier with market power operating at the foreign end of a
    route; [^67] or (2) where the CMRS provider has an affiliation with
    such a foreign carrier, seeks to provide international service by
    reselling directly or indirectly the international switched services
    of U.S. carriers with which it is not affiliated.

20. In particular, we seek comment on whether there may be national
    security, law enforcement, foreign policy, or trade issues when a
    CMRS carrier does not provide international service over its own
    facilities or the facilities of an affiliated carrier, but rather
    merely resells the switched services of unaffiliated U.S. carriers
    in order to provide international calling capabilities to its
    customers. We seek comment on whether any such issues could be
    addressed by requiring a CMRS carrier to notify the Commission
    within 30 days of when it begins to provide international service
    through the resale of an unaffiliated U.S. carrier. Under such a
    requirement, after the Commission received the notification from the
    CMRS carrier, the Commission would issue a public notice that the
    CMRS carrier had begun providing international resale service. This
    approach is similar to the 30-day notification requirement the
    Commission proposed in the *1998 International Biennial Review NPRM*
    to ensure that the Commission could condition or revoke a blanket
    authorization, if necessary.[^68]

21. We also seek comment on whether the *de minimis* nature of CMRS
    resale of switched voice services and the fact that CMRS carriers
    also hold Title III licenses from the Commission are factors that
    would distinguish CMRS carriers from other pure resellers on
    unaffiliated routes that would remain subject to prior Commission
    approval of international section 214 authority.[^69] We also seek
    comment on whether we should re-evaluate any blanket authorization
    approach if CMRS carriers' international traffic and revenue grow to
    the extent that they are no longer *de minimis*.

## International Roaming

22. We propose to modify sections 63.18(e)(2) and 63.23 of the
    rules[^70] to permit explicitly all U.S.-authorized resale carriers
    to resell U.S.-inbound international services of both U.S. or
    foreign carriers. This would apply to carriers providing service
    through a global resale authorization as well as those providing
    service through a limited-global or individual service
    authorization. We seek comment on this proposal.

23. In the *2002 IB Biennial Review Staff Report*, the Bureau
    recommended that the Commission modify the rules specifically to
    permit all U.S.-authorized resale carriers to resell the
    U.S.-inbound services of foreign carriers. According to the Bureau,
    this rule change would clarify that any U.S. carrier that is
    authorized to provide resale service may resell foreign carrier
    services in order to provide international calling capability to
    U.S. customers that are roaming in foreign markets and want to call
    back to the United States.[^71]

24. Under section 214 of the Act and section 63.18 of our rules, a
    carrier must obtain authority to provide U.S.-international service,
    including service from a foreign point to the United States (inbound
    traffic).[^72] To the extent that a CMRS carrier\'s customer is
    roaming in a foreign country and calls back to the United States,
    the service provided to that customer includes termination of the
    call in the United States, which includes the inbound delivery that
    must be provided by a carrier with an international section 214
    authorization. The U.S.-CMRS carrier, by providing to a U.S.
    customer foreign-to-U.S. calling (which would include roaming
    service in the foreign country), is reselling the in-bound delivery
    of an authorized carrier.[^73] Under the language of section 63.18,
    the U.S.-CMRS carrier would be \"engag\[ing\] in transmission over
    or by means of \[a\] line for the provision of common carrier
    communications services between the United States and a foreign
    point\" and thus would need to obtain international section 214
    authorization.

25. Section 63.18(e)(2) allows a carrier to request global resale
    authority and under section 63.18(e)(3) a carrier may seek authority
    to resell services between the United States and particular
    international points.[^74] Section 63.23 sets forth the conditions
    that apply to a U.S. carrier that is authorized to provide
    U.S.-international service through resale.[^75] Currently, section
    63.18(e)(2) only allows a carrier to request authority to resell the
    international services of authorized U.S. common carriers, and does
    not authorize the resale of service from foreign carriers. Section
    63.23 does not specifically address the ability of a carrier with an
    international resale authorization to resell the service of a
    foreign carrier for inbound U.S.-international service. This lack of
    clarity may cause some confusion as to whether a CMRS carrier can
    resell U.S. inbound service of a foreign carrier for the U.S.-CMRS
    carrier's customers that are roaming in a foreign country. The rule
    would also appear to require the CMRS carrier to obtain resale
    authority under section 63.18(e)(3) rather than global resale
    authority under section 63.81(e)(2) in order to resell the service
    of a foreign carrier.

26. We believe that a U.S.-CMRS carrier should be able to provide
    international roaming service to its customers through its global
    resale authority. We do not believe that it should be necessary for
    the carrier to seek specific authority to resell the U.S.-inbound
    service of a foreign carrier. We believe that the review conducted
    to obtain resale authorization is sufficient to protect against
    possible anticompetitive conduct by foreign carriers. The initial
    review also provides the Commission with the opportunity to review
    foreign ownership and allows opportunity for Executive Branch input
    on national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade
    matters. We seek comment on this analysis and whether there is a
    need to conduct a separate review for a carrier's provision of
    international roaming for national security or other reasons. We
    propose to amend section 63.18(e)(2) to allow all carriers,
    including CMRS carriers, with global resale authority to resell the
    international services of any common carrier, whether a U.S. or a
    foreign carrier, and to amend section 63.23 to allow all authorized
    resale carriers to resell services between the United States and all
    international points. We seek comment on these proposed changes to
    sections 63.18(e)(2) and 63.23.

## Commonly-controlled Subsidiaries

27. We seek comment on whether to amend our rules to allow a
    commonly-controlled subsidiary to provide service pursuant to its
    parent's international section 214 authorization. Currently only a
    wholly-owned subsidiary may provide international service pursuant
    to its parent corporation's authorization. A commonly-controlled
    subsidiary must obtain its own international section 214
    authorization.

28. Section 63.21(h) provides that any carrier authorized under section
    214 to provide international services may provide service through
    any wholly-owned subsidiaries.[^76] Under this rule, a carrier must
    notify the Commission within 30 days after the subsidiary begins
    providing service.[^77]

29. In the *2000 International Biennial Review Order,* the Commission
    considered a request from Cingular that section 63.21(h) be modified
    to allow commonly-controlled subsidiaries to use their parent's
    international section 214 authorization.[^78] The Commission
    declined to adopt that request. It stated that a controlling
    interest that does not amount to 100-percent ownership may raise
    issues that require separate review, such as additional foreign
    affiliations or minority ownership or beneficial interest by persons
    or entities that are barred from holding a Commission
    authorization.[^79] On the other hand, a wholly-owned subsidiary by
    definition does not have different affiliations than its parent and
    thus, any review of an application would provide no new information
    for the purpose of national security, law enforcement, foreign
    policy, or trade evaluation. The Commission found that the rationale
    for limiting the authority to use a carrier\'s international section
    214 authority to wholly-owned subsidiaries is still valid, and
    declined to expand the reach of section 63.21(h) to
    commonly-controlled subsidiaries.[^80]

30. In its comments in the 2002 biennial regulatory review proceeding,
    Cingular renewed its request that the Commission modify section
    63.21(h) to allow commonly-controlled subsidiaries to use their
    parent's authorization rather than having to obtain their own
    authorizations.[^81] Cingular argued that there is no
    competition-related basis for requiring a commonly-controlled CMRS
    subsidiary offering international service on a resale basis to
    obtain an international section 214 authorization when the parent
    already has such authorization.[^82] Cingular also questioned the
    rationale for requiring a separate authorization because the
    international section 214 application process only requires
    applicants to disclose information regarding minority interests of
    ten percent or more.[^83]

31. In the *2002 IB Biennial Review Staff Report,* the Bureau found that
    Cingular did not present any new arguments that warrant a change to
    section 63.21(h) at this time.[^84] The Bureau also stated that the
    basis for the rule is not affected by changes in the level of
    competition in the market. Accordingly, the Bureau concluded that
    section 63.21(h) remains necessary in the public interest and
    recommended against repeal or modification.[^85] The Bureau noted
    that applications for section 214 authority for a
    commonly-controlled subsidiary will usually be eligible for
    streamlined processing and thus will be approved within 14 days of
    public notice.[^86]

32. We recognize the concerns raised by the Bureau about Cingular's
    request. Nevertheless, we believe that it would be beneficial to
    develop a fuller record on this issue, and therefore seek comment on
    whether to amend section 63.21(h) to allow commonly-controlled
    subsidiaries to provide international service pursuant to their
    parent's international section 214 authorization. We seek comment on
    whether there is a maximum percent of differing ownership that
    should be allowed, e.g., 10 percent, 20 percent, before a subsidiary
    would be required to obtain its own authorization, if we allow
    commonly-controlled subsidiaries to provide service under their
    parent's authorization. We also seek comment on the potential
    national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, or trade issues
    that may be raised by allowing a commonly-controlled subsidiary to
    provide international service under its parent's authorization.
    Would a requirement that the subsidiary notify the Commission within
    30 days after beginning to provide service under its parent's
    authorization, as is currently required for wholly-owned
    subsidiaries,[^87] alleviate or diminish those concerns?

## Modification of Cable Landing License Rules

33. Section 1.767 of the Commission's rules provides procedures for
    Commission consideration of applications for cable landing
    licenses.[^88] We seek comment on whether to amend these rules to
    assure compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
    (CZMA).[^89] Under section 1.767(g)(9), the Commission reserves the
    right to require a licensee to file an environmental assessment
    under its rules implementing the National Environmental Policy Act
    of 1969. [^90] The CZMA is separate from the National Environmental
    Policy Act, with a different set of obligations triggered by a
    different threshold test. The Commission's rules, however, may not
    address adequately the responsibilities under the CZMA of an
    applicant for a cable landing license.

34. The CZMA authorizes coastal states to develop coastal management
    plans, subject to federal approval through the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Under the CZMA, states with
    federally-approved programs are entitled to review for consistency
    with those programs any "required federal license or permit to
    conduct an activity, in or outside of the coastal zone, "affecting
    any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone of
    that state."[^91] It appears that, because a license is required to
    operate a cable landing station and because the landing of a cable
    potentially may affect coastal uses or resources, Commission
    issuance of a cable landing license could be subject to CZMA's
    federal consistency requirements. If submarine cable landing
    licenses are covered by the CZMA and a coastal state wishes to
    review such licenses, the CZMA would require an applicant to provide
    in its application to the Commission a certification that its
    proposed cable "complies with the enforceable policies of the
    state's approved program and such activity will be conducted in a
    manner consistent with its program" and with the approved program of
    any other states whose coastal zones will be affected.[^92] In
    addition, it would seem that the applicant must provide a copy of
    this certification to the state with supporting documentation.[^93]
    It appears further that the Commission would be required to provide
    the state an opportunity to concur or object to the certification
    and could not grant the license until the state has done so or has
    failed to do so within six months of receiving the certification
    from the cable landing license applicant.[^94]

35. We request comment on whether the CZMA applies to cable landing
    license applications, and, if so, whether we should modify section
    1.767 of the rules to ensure compliance with the CZMA. To the extent
    we modify our rules, any modification should be narrowly targeted to
    incorporate relevant CZMA obligations with minimal affect on
    Commission and applicant resources and timing of Commission action.
    Specifically, we request comments on two possible alternatives.
    First, we look to consider whether we should amend the rules so that
    we make explicit the obligation in the CZMA that applicants must
    provide with their application certification that the proposed cable
    will comply with the NOAA approved programs of any relevant
    states.[^95] Under this alternative, we also would amend our cable
    landing application processing rules to specify that the Commission
    cannot take action on such applications until all relevant states
    have notified the Commission that they concur with or object to the
    applicant's certification (or, alternatively, until the six months
    default period expires). As a second option, we seek comment on
    whether applicants should be required under our rules to file both
    the certifications required by the CZMA and a certification that the
    relevant states have concurred with the certification (or,
    alternatively, proof that all relevant states have failed to act on
    any appropriate certifications). In both cases we would anticipate
    that applicants would have been working in consultation with the
    states as to such issues well in advance of presenting an
    application to the Commission.[^96] We further request comment or
    proposals on any alternative approaches to assure compliance with
    the CZMA.

## Other Rules

### Change to Less than 50 Percent Ownership

36. We propose to amend section 63.24 to clarify that an international
    section 214 authorization holder must notify the Commission of a
    change from more than 50 percent ownership to 50 percent or less but
    still controlling ownership interest. Currently, the rule states
    that a change from less than 50 percent ownership to 50 percent or
    more ownership shall always be considered a transfer of
    control.[^97] Consistent with that concept, we clarify that an
    ownership change in the other direction, to less than 50 percent
    ownership, but still with control, should also be considered a
    transfer of control. When an owner's interest drops below 50
    percent, it loses *de jure* control of the carrier. Where an owner
    retains *de facto* control of the carrier (based on a case-by-case
    determination pursuant to section 63.24), [^98] it is important for
    the Commission to be aware of such transactions to ensure that the
    owner has maintained *de facto* control. As long as the owner
    maintains control, this would constitute a *pro forma* transfer, and
    under the rule the applicant would notify the Commission after the
    transfer was completed. We seek comment on this proposed
    clarification of section 63.24.

### Asset Acquisitions 

37. We propose to clarify our rules that an asset acquisition that will
    not result in a loss of service for customers should be treated as
    an assignment of assets rather than a discontinuance of
    service.[^99] Consistent with the procedures used for the
    acquisition of domestic wireline assets,[^100] the International
    Bureau advises carriers to file a transfer of control application
    with the Commission when carriers undertake to sell their customers,
    or portions thereof, to another carrier. [^101] As we noted when we
    changed the rules for domestic carriers, requiring a carrier to send
    out notices of discontinuance to customers when there is an asset
    sale and customers will not lose service is both misleading and
    confusing to customers.[^102] In addition, having consistent rules
    for both domestic and international services should benefit both
    carriers and customers. We tentatively conclude that it would be in
    the public interest to amend section 63.24 to make it clear that
    whenever a carrier undertakes to sell its customers, or portions
    thereof, to another carrier, the sale of assets should be treated as
    an assignment.[^103] We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

# Conclusion

38. In this proceeding, we seek comment on whether to amend several of
    the Commission's rules regarding the provision of international
    telecommunications service. We seek comment on whether to amend the
    procedures for discontinuing an international service to be more
    consistent with the procedures for discontinuance of a domestic
    service. We also seek comment on whether to establish blanket
    international section 214 authority for CMRS carriers to provide
    international resale service subject to their notifying the
    Commission within 30 days of when they begin to provide
    international service. We propose to amend our rules to clarify that
    carriers with global resale authority can resell the U.S.-inbound
    service of either a U.S. carrier or a foreign carrier. We seek
    comment on whether to amend our rules to allow commonly-controlled
    subsidiaries to use their parent's section 214 authorization to
    provide international service. We propose to require carriers to
    notify us when there is a change of ownership to a less than 50
    percent but still controlling interest. Additionally, we seek
    comment on whether to amend section 1.767 of the Commission's
    rules[^104] in order to assure compliance with the CZMA. We also
    propose to clarify that an asset acquisition that does not result in
    the loss of service for customers should be treated as a transfer of
    control. These proposals, if adopted, will permit the Commission to
    ensure that consumer's interests are protected, while reducing
    carriers' filing burdens.

# Administrative Matters 

## Ex Parte Presentations

39. This proceeding shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose"
    proceeding in accordance with the Commission's *ex parte*
    rules.[^105] Persons making oral *ex parte* presentations are
    reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain
    summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a
    listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence
    description of the views and arguments presented is generally
    required.[^106] Other rules pertaining to oral and written
    presentations are set forth in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's
    rules as well.

## Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification

40. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA)[^107]
    requires that a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis be prepared for
    notice-and-comment rule making proceedings, unless the agency
    certifies that "the rule will not, if promulgated, have a
    significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
    entities."[^108] The RFA generally defines the term "small entity"
    as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small
    organization," and "small governmental jurisdiction."[^109] In
    addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the term
    "small business concern" under the Small Business Act.[^110] A
    "small business concern" is one which: (1) is independently owned
    and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
    satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
    Administration (SBA).[^111]

41. In this Notice, the Commission seeks comment on possible changes to
    its international section 214 authorization process, cable landing
    license process, and the rules relating to the provision of
    U.S.-international telecommunications services. As discussed above,
    the Commission has continually reviewed its rules regarding the
    authorization of international services under section 214 of the
    Act.[^112] Through this review, we have sought to: facilitate the
    introduction of new services; provide customers with more choices,
    innovative services, and competitive prices; improve our processing
    of authorization applications and regulation of international
    services; and lessen regulatory burdens placed on carriers. As part
    of our 2002 biennial regulatory review proceeding, the Commission
    received comments on proposed changes to the rules contained in
    Part 63. This proceeding reviews several rules in Part 63.

42. The rule changes discussed in the Notice, if adopted, would make the
    international discontinuance rules more consistent with domestic
    service rules. In addition, we seek comment on whether to eliminate
    the requirement for CMRS carriers to apply for section 214 authority
    to provide international service to their customers through the pure
    resale of the switched services of other U.S. carriers. The proposal
    in the Notice would remove confusion as to whether a CMRS carrier
    requires authority to resell U.S. inbound service of a foreign
    carrier for the U.S.-CMRS carrier's customers that are roaming in a
    foreign country. We also seek comment on whether to amend section
    1.767 of its rules to assure compliance with the CZMA. Finally, the
    Notice seeks comment on whether to expand the authority of a
    carrier's international section 214 authority to commonly-controlled
    subsidiaries.

43. We believe that the proposals are in the public interest and will
    lessen the burdens on all carriers providing international common
    carrier service pursuant to section 214 of the Act, including those
    carriers that are small entities. Therefore, we certify that the
    proposals in this Notice, if adopted, will not have a significant
    economic impact on a substantial number of entities. If commenters
    believe that the proposals discussed in the Notice require
    additional RFA analysis, they should include a discussion of the
    issues in their comment and label them as RFA comments. The
    Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including this initial
    certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration.[^113] In addition, summaries of the Notice
    and initial certification will be published in the Federal
    Register.[^114]

## Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

44. This Notice contains either proposed and/or modified information
    collections. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to
    reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office
    of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information
    collections contained in this Notice, as required by the Paperwork
    Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments
    are due 60 days from date of publication of the Notice in the
    Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed
    collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
    the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
    shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
    burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
    clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
    burden of the collection of information on the respondents,
    including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms
    of information technology.

## Comment Filing Procedures

45. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or
    before \[45 days after Federal Register publication\], and reply
    comments on or before \[75 days after Federal Register
    publication\]. Comments may be filed using the Commission's
    Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies.
    Parties are strongly encouraged to file electronically. *See
    Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings*, 63 Fed.
    Reg. 24,121 (1998).

46. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file
    via the Internet to <http://www.fcc/gov/cgb/ecfs.html>. Generally,
    only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple
    docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this Notice,
    however, commenters must transmit one copy of their comments to each
    docket or rulemaking number referenced in the Notice. In completing
    the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name,
    U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or
    rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by
    Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments,
    commenters should send an e-mail to <ecfs@fcc.gov> and should
    include the following words in the body of the message, "get form."
    A sample form and directions will be sent in reply.

47. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four
    copies of each filing. Each filing should also include an electronic
    version of the comments filed. If more than one docket or rulemaking
    number appears in the caption of this Notice, commenters must submit
    two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking
    number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
    commercial overnight courier, or by first class or overnight U.S.
    Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in
    receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's mail
    contractor, Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or
    messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at
    236 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Suite 110, Washington, D.C. 20002.
    The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All
    hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or
    fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the
    building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
    Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
    Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class
    mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445
    12^th^ Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. All filings must be
    addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
    Federal Communications Commission.

48. Comments submitted on diskette should be on a 3.5 inch diskette
    formatted in an IBM-compatible format using Word for Windows or
    compatible software. The diskette should be clearly labeled with the
    commenter's name, proceeding (including the docket number in the
    caption of this Notice), type of pleading (comment or reply
    comment), date of submission, and the name of the electronic file on
    the diskette. The label should also include the following phrase
    "Disk Copy -- Not an Original." Each diskette should contain only
    one party's pleadings, preferably in a single electronic file.

49. All parties must file one copy of each pleading electronically or by
    paper to each of the following:

\(1\) The Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, 445
12^th^ Street, S.W., Room CY-B402, Washington, D.C. 20554; e-mail:
<qualexint@aol.com>; facsimile: (202) 863-2898; phone (202) 863-2893.

\(2\) James Ball, Chief, Policy Division, International Bureau, 445
12^th^ Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554; e-mail:
<James.Ball@fcc.gov>.

\(3\) David Krech, Senior Legal Advisor, Policy Division, International
Bureau, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554; e-mail:
<David.Krech@fcc.gov>.

\(4\) Belinda E. Nixon, Attorney, Policy Division, International Bureau,
445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554; e-mail:
<Belinda.Nixon@fcc.gov>.

50. Comments and reply comments and any other filed documents in this
    matter may be obtained from Qualex International, in person at 445
    12^th^ Street, S.W., Room CY-B402, Washington, D.C. 20554, via
    telephone at (202) 863-2893, via facsimile at (202) 863-2898, or via
    e-mail at <qualexint@aol.com>. The pleadings will be also available
    for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in
    the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 Twelfth
    Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554 and through the Commission's
    Electronic Filing System (ECFS) accessible on the Commission's World
    Wide Website, [www.fcc.gov](http://www.fcc.gov/).

51. Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise summary
    of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments and
    reply comments must also comply with section 1.49 and all other
    applicable sections of the Commission's rules.[^115] All parties are
    encouraged to utilize a table of contents, to include the name of
    the filing party and the date of the filing on each page of their
    comments' length of their submission. We also strongly encourage
    that parties track the organization set forth in this Notice in
    order to facilitate our internal review process.

52. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified
    information collections are due 60 days from the date of publication
    of the Notice in the Federal Register. Written comments must be
    submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and
    other interested parties on the proposed and/or modified information
    collections on or before 60 days after the date of publication in
    the Federal Register of the Notice. In addition to filing comments
    with the Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, a copy of any comments on the
    information collection(s) contained herein should be submitted to
    Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804,
    445 12^th^ Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to
    Judith.BHerman@fcc.gov and to Kim A. Johnson, OMB Desk Officer, Room
    10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the
    Internet to <Kim_A._Johnson@omb.eop.gov>.

53. Commenters that file what they consider to be proprietary
    information may request confidential treatment pursuant to section
    0.459 of the Commission's rules. Commenters should file both their
    original comments for which they request confidentiality and
    redacted comments, along with their request for confidential
    treatment. Commenters should not file proprietary information
    electronically. *See* *Examination of Current Policy Concerning the
    Treatment of Confidential Information Submitted to the Commission*,
    Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 24816 (1998), Order on Reconsideration,
    14 FCC Rcd 20128 (1999). Even if the Commission grants confidential
    treatment, information that does not fall within a specific
    exemption pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) must be
    publicly disclosed pursuant to an appropriate request. *See* 47
    C.F.R.§ 0.461; 5 U.S.C. § 552. We note that the Commission may grant
    requests for confidential treatment either conditionally or
    unconditionally. As such, we note that the Commission has the
    discretion to release information on public interest grounds that
    does fall within the scope of a FOIA exemption.

## Further Information

54. For further information regarding this proceeding, contact James
    Ball, Chief, Policy Division, International Bureau, David Krech,
    Senior Legal Advisor, Policy Division, International Bureau, or
    Belinda Nixon, Attorney, Policy Division, International Bureau
    at (202) 418-1460. Information regarding this proceeding and others
    may also be found on the Commission's website at
    [www.fcc.gov](http://www.fcc.gov/).

# ordering clauses

55. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained
    in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j) 11, 201-205, 211, 214, 219, 220, 303(r),
    309, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
    U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 161, 201-205, 21, 214, 219,
    220303(r), 309 and 403, and sections 34-39 of the Cable Landing
    License Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 34-39, this NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
    IS HEREBY ADOPTED and COMMENTS ARE REQUESTED as described above.

56. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and
    Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL
    SEND a copy of this NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING, including the
    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification, to the Chief
    Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in
    accordance with section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
    U.S.C. § 601 *et seq.*

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>
> Marlene H. Dortch
>
> Secretary

[^1]: 47 U.S.C. § 214 (2002).

[^2]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.767 (2002).

[^3]: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. § 1456 (1972).

[^4]: 47 U.S.C. § 214.

[^5]: *Streamlining the International Section 214 Authorization Process
    and Tariff Requirements*, IB Docket No. 95-118, Report and Order, 11
    FCC Rcd 12884 (1996) (*1996 Streamlining Order*). The Commission had
    begun the international Section 214 streamlining process in 1985.
    *See International Competitive Carrier Policies*, CC Docket No.
    85-107, Report and Order, 102 FCC 2d 812 (1985); *recon.* *denied*,
    60 RR2d 1435 (1986); *modified*, *Regulation of International Common
    Carrier Services*, CC Docket No. 91-360, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd
    7331 (1992).

[^6]: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act), Pub. L. No.
    104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996), directs the Commission to undertake,
    in every even-numbered year beginning in 1998, a review of all
    regulations issued under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
    (Communications Act), 47 U.S.C. §§ 151 *et seq.* (2002)*,* that
    apply to operations or activities of any provider of
    telecommunications service, and to repeal or modify any regulation
    it determines to be "no longer necessary in the public interest." 47
    U.S.C. § 161 (2002). In particular, the 1996 Act directs the
    Commission to determine whether any such regulation is no longer
    necessary \"as the result of meaningful economic competition between
    providers of such service.\" 47 U.S.C. § 161(a)(2).

[^7]: *1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Review of International Common
    Carrier Regulations*, IB Docket 98-118, Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd
    4909 (1999) (*1998 International Biennial Review Order*).

[^8]: *2000 Biennial Regulatory Review: Amendment of Parts 43 and 63 of
    the Commission's Rules*, IB Docket 00-231, Report and Order, 17 FCC
    Rcd 11416 (2002) (*2000 International Biennial Review Order*),
    *aff'd sub nom. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless v. FCC &
    USA*, No. 02-1262 (D.C. Circuit Feb 13, 2004).

[^9]: *2000* *International Biennial Review Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 11418,
    ¶ 4.

[^10]: In the *Benchmarks Order*, the Commission established benchmarks
    that govern the international settlement rates at or below which
    U.S. carriers may pay foreign carriers to terminate international
    traffic originating in the United States. *See* *International
    Settlement Rates*, IB Docket No. 96-261, Report and Order, 12 FCC
    Rcd 19806 (1997) (*Benchmarks Order*), *aff'd sub nom*. *Cable and
    Wireless Plc v. FCC*, 166 F.3d 1224 (D.C. Cir. 1999), Report and
    Order on Reconsideration and Order Lifting Stay, 14 FCC Rcd 9256
    (1999) (*Benchmarks Reconsideration Order*). In that Order, the
    Commission also adopted a condition requiring that, before a U.S.
    carrier may provide facilities-based switched or private line
    service on a route where it is affiliated with a carrier with market
    power on the foreign end of the route, the foreign affiliate must
    offer all U.S. carriers on the route a rate for settling traffic
    that is at or below the relevant benchmark rate. In the *2000 IB
    Biennial Review Order*, the Commission found that application of the
    benchmarks condition to facilities-based private line service was no
    longer necessary to prevent carriers from evading the condition as
    it applies to facilities-based switched service. *2000 International
    Biennial Review Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 11417-19, ¶¶ 11-16.

[^11]: *2002 Biennial Regulatory Review*, GC Docket No. 02-390, Report,
    18 FCC Rcd 4726 (2003).

[^12]: *International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
    Biennial Regulatory Review 2002,* IB Docket No. 03-309, GC Docket
    02-390, 18 FCC Rcd 4196 (2003) (*2002 IB Biennial Review Staff
    Report*).

[^13]: 47 U.S.C. § 161.

[^14]: *2002 IB Biennial Review Staff Report,* 18 FCC Rcd at 4197, ¶ 3
    and *in passim*.

[^15]: *2002 IB Biennial Review Staff Report*, 18 FCC Rcd at 4211, ¶¶
    35-36, 4236-39, ¶¶ 12-19. We will consider the other recommendations
    in the staff report relating to the reporting requirements of
    carriers providing U.S.-international services in a separate
    proceeding. *See* *id.* at 4210-11, ¶ 34, 4232, ¶¶ 13-14.

[^16]: *Commission Seeks Public Comments in 2002 Biennial Regulatory
    Review of Telecommunications Regulations within the Purview of the
    International Bureau*, Public Notice, IB Docket No. 09-309, 17 FCC
    Rcd 18929 (2002). Parties also commented on the continued need for
    other regulations within the purview of the International Bureau in
    response to the Public Notice. *See 2002 IB Biennial Review Staff
    Report*, 18 FCC Rcd 4196.

[^17]: Cingular comments, IB Docket No. 02-309, at 7.

[^18]: Cingular comments, IB Docket No. 02-309, at 8-12.

[^19]: Verizon comments, IB Docket No. 02-309, at 11-12.

[^20]: *2002 IB Biennial Review Staff Report*, 18 FCC Rcd at 4236, ¶ 12.

[^21]: *Id.* at 4211, ¶ 36, 4238, ¶ 16.

[^22]: *Id.* at 4211, ¶ 36, 4237-38, ¶ 15.

[^23]: *Id.* at 4211, ¶ 36, 4238, ¶ 17.

[^24]: *Id.* at 4211, ¶ 35, 4239, ¶ 19.

[^25]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.19 (2002).

[^26]: For the purpose of this discussion, a "non-dominant"
    international carrier is a carrier that does not have market power
    on the U.S.-end of the international route. *Compare with* 47 C.F.R.
    § 63.10 (non-dominant carrier is one that is not affiliated with a
    foreign carrier with market power on the foreign-end of the
    U.S.-international route) (2002).

[^27]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.19(a)(1).

[^28]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.19(a)(2).

[^29]: In the *2000 International Biennial Review Order,* the Commission
    clarified that the requirement for prior approval before
    discontinuance, impairment, or reduction of an international service
    applies only to a carrier classified as dominant due to its having
    market power in the provision of that international service on the
    U.S.-end of the route and not due to classification as a dominant
    carrier pursuant to section 63.10. *2000 International Biennial
    Review Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 11423-24, ¶ 18.

[^30]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.19(b). If such a carrier only seeks to retire
    international facilities, or dismantle or remove international trunk
    lines, but does not discontinue, reduce, or impair the dominant
    services being provided through these facilities, it does not need
    prior approval but must provide customers at least 60 days written
    notice, and file a copy of the notice with the Commission. *Id.*

[^31]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.19(c).

[^32]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.71 (2002). Section 63.63 describes the procedures
    to be followed in exceptional cases involving an emergency
    discontinuance. 47 C.F.R. § 63.63 (2002).

[^33]: The Commission has forborne from exercising its section 214
    authority on CMRS carriers for domestic services. *See
    Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act;
    Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services*, GN Docket 93-252, Second
    Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1411, 1481, ¶ 182 (1994). Thus, section
    63.71, unlike section 63.19, does not specifically address the
    applicability of the discontinuance procedures to CMRS carriers.

[^34]: There are two similar statements that are to be used depending on
    whether the carrier is dominant or non-dominant for the service
    being discontinued, reduced, or impaired. The statement for a
    non-dominant carrier is:

    > The FCC will normally authorize this proposed discontinuance of
    > service (or reduction or impairment) unless it is shown that
    > customers would be unable to receive service or a reasonable
    > substitute from another carrier or that the public convenience and
    > necessity is otherwise adversely affected. If you wish to object,
    > you should file your comments within 15 days after receipt of this
    > notification. Address them to the Federal Communications
    > Commission, Washington, DC 20554, referencing the Sec. 63.71
    > Application of (carrier\'s name). Comments should include specific
    > information about the impact of this proposed discontinuance (or
    > reduction or impairment) upon you or your company, including any
    > inability to acquire reasonable substitute service.

    47 C.F.R. § 63.71(a)(5)(i). The language for a dominant carrier is
    similar, except that it states that a customer has 30 days to file
    comments. 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(a)(5)(ii).

[^35]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(b).

[^36]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(a).

[^37]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c).

[^38]: *Id.*

[^39]: Verizon comments, IB Docket No. 02-309, at 11.

[^40]: *Id.* at 12.

[^41]: *2002 IB Biennial Review Staff Report*, 18 FCC Rcd at 4239, ¶ 19.

[^42]: *Id.* (finding that modification of the rule may be in the public
    interest for reasons other than the development of competition, and
    thus outside the scope of 47 U.S.C. § 161).

[^43]: Verizon comments, IB Docket No. 02-309, at 11.

[^44]: *1996 Streamlining Order,* 11 FCC Rcd 12905, ¶ 49.

[^45]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.19(a)(1).

[^46]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(c).

[^47]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 63.71(a)(5)(i), (ii).

[^48]: *See* Cingular comments, IB Docket No. 02-309, at 5.

[^49]: Carriers providing "pure resale" of international service switch
    traffic to (and resell the switched services of) underlying
    facilities-based U.S. carriers. The underlying carriers control the
    circuit that carries the traffic to the international point, arrange
    for termination of the traffic, and report the traffic to the
    Commission on a country-by-country basis. *See, e.g.,* 2001
    International Telecommunications Data, Industry Analysis &
    Technology Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission (Jan. 2003), available at
    www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/stats (2001 International Telecommunications
    Data), at 4.

[^50]: Section 63.09 defines when a carrier is affiliated with another
    carrier. 47 C.F.R. § 63.09(e) (2002).

[^51]: A CMRS carrier intending to provide international service through
    other means, e.g., as a facilities-based carrier, or that has an
    affiliation with a foreign carrier with market power at the foreign
    end of the route and would resell the switched services of a U.S.
    carrier with which it has an affiliation, would continue to seek
    authority through our current procedures. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 63.12,
    63.18.

[^52]: *Personal Communications Industry Association's Broadband
    Personal Communications Services Alliance's Petition for Forbearance
    for Broadband Personal Communications Services,* WT Docket 98-100,
    13 FCC Rcd 16857, 16881-84, ¶¶ 45-54 (1998) (*PCIA Forbearance
    Order*).

[^53]: *Id.* at 16882, ¶ 50.

[^54]: *Id.* at 16883, ¶ 52.

[^55]: *Id*. at 16883, ¶ 51.

[^56]: *Id.* at 16883-84, ¶ 52.

[^57]: *Id.* at 16881, ¶ 48.

[^58]: *1998 International Biennial Review-Review of International
    Common Carrier Regulations*, IB Docket 98-118, Notice of Proposed
    Rule Making, 13 FCC Rcd 13713, 13745 (1998) (*1998 International
    Biennial Review NPRM)*, Section 63.25 (a proposed rule entitled
    Special Procedures for Non-dominant International Common Carriers).

[^59]: *Id.* In tentatively concluding that grant of blanket section 214
    authority would be a better approach than forbearance from
    regulating international section 214 authorizations for any class of
    applicants, the Commission noted the importance of continuing to
    require that service be provided only pursuant to an authorization
    that can be conditioned or revoked. *See id.* at 13718, ¶ 10.

[^60]: *Id.* at 13719, ¶ 11.

[^61]: Reply Comments of the Secretary of Defense, IB Docket No. 98-118
    (filed Aug. 28, 1998), at 3 (disagreeing with proposal); Comments of
    the Federal Bureau of Investigation, IB Docket No. 98-118 (filed
    Aug. 13, 1998), at 3 ("strongly opposing" the proposal). *See also
    1998 International Biennial Review Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4914-15, ¶
    14 (noting that Federal Bureau of Investigation had raised concerns
    that national security and law enforcement could be jeopardized by
    provision of service by entities whose interests may be contrary to
    those of the United States, such as where carrier has relationship
    with subject of investigation).

[^62]: *1998 International Biennial Review Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4911, ¶
    5 (noting that the Commission had worked with representatives of the
    Executive Branch to reconcile public interest concerns while
    granting industry regulatory relief) and 4915, ¶ 15 (stating that
    new streamlined procedures would allow the Executive Branch
    appropriate opportunity to raise national security, law enforcement,
    foreign policy, and trade policy considerations in context of
    individual applications). The Commission found that the public
    interest reasons for maintaining prior review of all international
    section 214 applications applied equally to CMRS carriers, and
    concluded that applications from CMRS carriers would be eligible for
    the new streamlined procedures. *See id*. at 4926, ¶ 38. The
    Commission also found that the decision not to forbear from
    requiring section 214 authorizations for any class of applications
    applied equally to CMRS providers. The Commission stated that
    although forbearance might further enhance competition in the CMRS
    market, the extent to which forbearance would enhance competition
    was substantially outweighed by public interest considerations,
    particularly that prior review is needed to address national
    security and law enforcement concerns raised by the Executive
    Branch. *See id.* at 4927, ¶ 39.

[^63]: *Id.* at 4238, ¶ 16.

[^64]: *E.g.,* 47 C.F.R. §§ 63.10 (regulatory classification of U.S.
    international carriers), 63.11 (foreign carrier affiliation
    notifications), 63.21 (conditions applicable to all international
    section 214 authorizations), 63.23 (resale-based international
    common carriers), 63.24 (assignments and transfers of control)
    (2002).

[^65]: *2002 IB Biennial Review Staff Report*, 18 FCC Rcd at 4238, ¶ 16.
    *See also Rules and Policies on Foreign Participation in the U.S.
    Telecommunications Market*, Report and Order and Order on
    Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 23891, 23919-21, ¶¶ 61-66 (1997)
    (*Foreign Participation Order*) (Commission accords deference to the
    expertise of the Executive Branch regarding issues of national
    security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy related
    to an international section 214 application), Order on
    Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 18158 (2000).

[^66]: *2002 IB Biennial Review Staff Report*, 18 FCC Rcd at 4238, ¶ 16.

[^67]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 63.09(e) (defining affiliation with a foreign
    carrier) (2002). *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 63.10(a)(4) (reseller that
    resells affiliated U.S. facilities-based carrier's international
    switched services presumptively is deemed dominant carrier). The
    carrier may rely on the Commission's "List

    of Foreign Telecommunications Carriers that Are Presumed to Possess
    Market Power in Foreign

    Telecommunications Markets." *See The International Bureau Revises
    and Reissues the Commission's List of Foreign Telecommunications
    Carriers that Are Presumed to Possess Market Power in Foreign
    Telecommunications Markets*, Public Notice, DA-03-1812 (rel June 5,
    2003) (available on the FCC website at
    <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1812A1.pdf>
    ).

[^68]: *1998 International Biennial Review NPRM*, 13 FCC Rcd at
    13718-19, ¶ 10 (notification necessary to review foreign
    affiliations, enforce requirements, and review any national security
    concerns). *See also PCIA Forbearance Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at
    16883-84, ¶ 52 (authorization that can be conditioned or revoked is
    needed to ensure that rates and conditions of service are just,
    reasonable, and nondiscriminatory and to protect consumers).

[^69]: We also observe that the Communications Act specifically provides
    the Commission with authority to refrain from applying certain Title
    II provisions to CMRS carriers. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(1)
    (treating CMRS licensees as common carriers but providing
    Commission, under three prongs of section 332(c)(1) test, the
    authority to specify by regulation that any Title II provision,
    except any provision of sections 201, 202, and 208, is inapplicable
    to CMRS carriers) (2002).

[^70]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 63.18(e)(2), 63.23 (2002).

[^71]: *2002 IB Biennial Review Staff Report*, 18 FCC Rcd at 4211, ¶ 36,
    4238, ¶ 17.

[^72]: 47 U.S.C. § 214; 47 C.F.R. § 63.18.

[^73]: The CMRS carrier is reselling the service of the foreign carrier.
    That foreign carrier may provide the termination of the in-bound
    U.S. call if it has its own international section 214 authority or
    it may hand the call off to its U.S.-correspondent carrier to
    terminate the call in the United States.

[^74]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.18(e)(2), (3). Under section 63.18(e)(3), a
    carrier may apply for authority to provide services not covered in
    paragraphs (e)(1) -- global facilities-based authority -- and (e)(2)
    -- global resale authority. 47 C.F.R. § 63.18(e)(3).

[^75]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.23.

[^76]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.21(i).

[^77]: *Id.*

[^78]: *2000 International Biennial Review Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 11433,
    ¶ 41.

[^79]: *2000 International Biennial Review Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 11433 ¶
    41, citing *1998 International Biennial Review Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    4932-33, ¶ 56. The provisions of section 63.21(h) were contained in
    section 63.21(i) when the Commission reviewed the requirement in the
    *2000 International Biennial Review Order.*

[^80]: The D.C. Circuit has upheld the Commission's decision in the
    *2000 International Biennial Review Order* to retain the rule.
    *Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless v. FCC & USA*, No.
    02-1262, slip op. at 23-24 (D.C. Circuit Feb 13, 2004).

[^81]: Cingular comments, IB Docket No. 02-309, at 8-12.

[^82]: *Id.* at 9.

[^83]: *Id.* at 10.

[^84]: *2002 IB Biennial Regulatory Review Staff Report*, 18 FCC Rcd at
    4237-38, ¶ 15.

[^85]: *Id.* at 4238, ¶ 15.

[^86]: *Id.*

[^87]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.21(h).

[^88]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.767. We note that consideration of whether to amend
    section 1.767 to assure compliance with the CZMA does not fall
    within the 2002 biennial regulatory review proceeding. Cable landing
    licenses are issued pursuant to the Cable Landing License Act, and
    not under the Communications Act, thus, they do not fall under the
    biennial review directive of the 1996 Act. Furthermore, our review
    of section 1.767 is not prompted by "the result of meaningful
    economic competition between providers of such service," but, rather
    by our desire to be in compliance with all applicable statutes.

[^89]: 16 U.S.C. § 1456 (1972).

[^90]: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
    §§ 4321-4335 (1969).

[^91]: 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(3)(A).

[^92]: *Id.*

[^93]: *Id.*

[^94]: *Id*. The CZMA would require the state to inform the Commission
    of its concurrence or objection at the earliest practicable time,
    but also would provide that the state's concurrence can be
    conclusively presumed if the state fails to notify the Commission
    within six months of receipt of a copy of the applicant's
    certification.

[^95]: 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(3)(A) *.*

[^96]: Prior consultation with the affected state to satisfy coastal
    management plan concerns would be critical to enable Commission
    processing of eligible applications under either the Commission\'s
    streamlined procedures (45 days of public notice) or non-streamlined
    procedures ( 90 days from public notice ). *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    1.767(i).

[^97]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.24(c).

[^98]: An ownership change where the current owner goes from greater
    than 50 percent ownership to less than 50 percent ownership and
    relinquishes control is a transfer of control that requires prior
    authorization from the Commission. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 63.24(e).

[^99]: Where an asset acquisition will result in the loss of service,
    the procedures under section 63.19 regarding discontinuance,
    reduction, or impairment of service continue to apply. 47 C.F.R. §
    63.19.

[^100]: *See Implementation of Further Streamlining for Domestic Section
    214 Authorizations*, CC Docket 01-150, Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd
    5517, 5547-49, ¶¶ 59-64 (2002) (*Domestic Section 214 Streamlining
    Order*). We note that the rules governing the acquisition of
    domestic wireline assets refer to these transactions as transfers of
    control and require the filing of a transfer of control application.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 63.03, 63.04. The International Bureau, by
    contrast, has characterized such transactions as assignments
    because, historically, the international section 214 certificate
    under which the selling carrier provides international service is
    one of the assets being acquired by the buyer.

[^101]: The transfer of control may be a substantive transfer or a *pro
    forma* transfer; carriers would be required to follow the guidelines
    set forth in section 63.24 to make that determination. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 63.24(d) Notes 1 and 2.

[^102]: *Domestic Section 214 Streamlining Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 5548, ¶
    64.

[^103]: The carrier must continue to comply with the streamlined
    procedures for verification of orders for telecommunications
    service. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(e) (2002).

[^104]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.767.

[^105]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200, 1.1206 (2002); *Amendment of 47 C.F.R. §
    1.1200 et seq. Concerning Ex Parte Presentations in Commission
    Proceedings*, GC Docket No. 95-21, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 7348
    (1997).

[^106]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2).

[^107]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 -- 602, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Publ. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^108]: 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^109]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^110]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small-business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. §
    632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such terms which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
    Register."

[^111]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^112]: *See* *infra* at II.

[^113]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^114]: *Id.*

[^115]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.49 (2002).