# Before the

# Federal Communications Commission

# Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of )

)

2000 Biennial Regulatory Review )

)

Amendment of Parts 43 and 63 ) IB Docket No. 00-231

of the Commission\'s Rules )

# NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING

**Adopted: November 13, 2000 Released: November 30, 2000**

####### Comment Date: January 24, 2001

**Reply Comment Date: February 27, 2001**

By the Commission:

Table of Contents:

I. Introduction and Summary

II\. Discussion

A. *Pro Forma* Assignments and Transfers of Control

B. Settlement Rate Benchmark Conditions

C. Discontinuance of Service by Dominant Carriers

D. Other Rules

III\. Conclusion

IV\. Procedural Matters

V. Ordering Clauses

Appendix A: Proposed Rules

Appendix B: Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

**I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY**

1 The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act)[^1] 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),[^2] 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."[^3] 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.\"[^4]

2 In 1998, the Commission made numerous changes to its regulations as
part of the biennial regulatory review. In the context of international
telecommunications services, the Commission undertook two proceedings to
streamline and simplify its rules. In the *1998 International Biennial
Review Order*, the Commission streamlined its procedures for granting
Section 214 authorizations to provide international services, and
increased the categories of applications eligible for streamlined
processing.[^5] In the *ISP Reform Order*, the Commission adopted
sweeping changes to its International Settlements Policy (ISP), in large
part deregulating international settlement arrangements between U.S.
carriers and foreign non-dominant carriers and between U.S. carriers and
all foreign carriers on competitive routes.[^6]

3 As part of the 2000 biennial regulatory review, the Commission
reviewed all of its rules relating to international telecommunications
services to identify those rules that could be revised or
eliminated.[^7] In conjunction with this review, Commission staff also
met with interested parties, including the International Practice groups
of the District of Columbia Bar and the Federal Communications Bar
Association, and the Competitive Telecommunications Association
(Comptel), to discuss which rules could be modified or eliminated in
light of competition in international telecommunications services, and
which rules should be clarified to make it easier for practitioners and
other members of the public to understand and follow those rules. Based
on this review, we have identified a number of rules that we propose to
amend.

4 We have already begun this process in two areas that complement this
proceeding. First, we have recently released a Notice of Proposed Rule
Making regarding cable landing licenses.[^8] In that proceeding, we
propose pro-competitive streamlining that incorporates competitive
safeguards to allow for and encourage: (1) more certainty and
flexibility for participants in the application process; (2) increased
investment and infrastructure development by multiple providers; (3)
expansion of available submarine cable capacity; and (4) significantly
shorter application processing time. This streamlining effort will
benefit U.S. consumers by eliminating regulatory delay and enhancing the
competitiveness of U.S. service providers in the world market.[^9]
Second, we recently clarified and revised certain aspects of our foreign
carrier affiliation notification rule to respond to carrier concerns
about the purpose and application of our rule.[^10] In that proceeding,
we reduced the prior notification period from 60 to 45 days, and
exempted certain classes of foreign carriers from the requirement to
submit prior notification.[^11]

5 We have also recently initiated another 2000 biennial regulatory
review proceeding related to international telecommunications services.
In the *International Detariffing NPRM* we found that in recent years
there have been dramatic changes in the market for international
interexchange services, including a substantial increase in the level of
competition which has benefited consumers. [^12] Consequently in that
proceeding we proposed, pursuant to the forbearance authority provided
in Section 10 of the Act,[^13] to extend the complete detariffing regime
that we adopted for domestic, interexchange services to the
international services of non-dominant, interexchange carriers,
including U.S. carriers classified as dominant solely due to foreign
affiliations.[^14] We proposed complete detariffing of international
Commercial Mobile Radios Services (CMRS). In addition, we proposed to
amend the contract filing requirements to clarify that the rule only
applies to U.S. carrier contracts for common carrier service between
U.S. and foreign points involving: (1) a U.S. carrier that has been
classified as dominant for reasons on any route included in the
contract, except for carriers classified as dominant on that route
solely due to a foreign carrier affiliation,[^15] and (2) a foreign
carriers that posses market power in its market.[^16]

6 In this proceeding, we propose changes to several of our rules
relating to international telecommunications services. Specifically, we
propose to amend our rule concerning *pro forma* assignments and
transfers of control of international Section 214 authorizations to more
closely match those used for the assignment and transfer of control of
Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) licenses. We also tentatively
conclude that it is no longer necessary to apply the settlement rate
benchmarks condition to Section 214 authorizations to provide
facilities-based international private line services. We also propose to
modify our rules to relieve dominant international carriers of the
requirement to seek prior approval to discontinue service, except where
such carriers possess market power in the provision of international
service on the U.S. end of the route. Finally, we also propose to amend
several rules to clarify the intent of those rules and to eliminate
certain rules that no longer have any application. We believe that these
proposed changes are in the public interest and will remove unnecessary
burdens on the public and the Commission. We seek comment on the
proposals and tentative conclusions discussed below.

**II. DISCUSSION**

**A. *Pro Forma* Assignments and Transfers of Control**

7 Section 63.24 of the rules sets out the Commission\'s procedures for
review of *pro forma* assignments and transfers of control of
authorizations to provide international telecommunications service.[^17]
Since its adoption in the *1998 International Biennial Review
Order*,[^18] we have found that Section 63.24 does not explicitly
address many of the types of transactions that should be treated as *pro
forma.* Consequently, we propose to amend Section 63.24 to provide
greater flexibility and clarity regarding assignments and transfers of
control. We also find that many of the transactions that carriers are
entering into involve multiple services, and that having different
standards for review for the various services can add unnecessary
complexity and delay in the review of those transactions. We therefore
propose to amend the procedures for review of assignments and transfers
of control of international service authorizations to match more closely
those procedures used for other service authorizations, particularly
CMRS. We seek comment on these proposed changes.

8 Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act, the Commission
requires authorized international common carriers to obtain approval of
substantial assignments and transfers of control of Title II
authority.[^19] Currently, we have two rules addressing assignments and
transfers of control of international Section 214 authorizations. The
general rule providing applicants a procedure by which to seek prior
Commission approval of a substantial assignment or transfer of control
of an international Section 214 authorization is contained in Section
63.18(e)(3) of the Commission's rules.[^20] On the other hand, an
assignment or transfer of control not resulting in a change in the
carrier's ultimate control is addressed in Section 63.24, which refers
to such transactions as "*pro forma*."[^21] The rule sets forth six
types of transactions that are considered *pro forma* and therefore do
not require prior Commission approval.[^22]

9 We believe that the current regulatory structure may not be
sufficiently flexible for authorized international carriers in that it
does not explicitly apply the procedures of Section 63.24 to corporate
transactions that do not fall into one of the six enumerated categories,
but that nevertheless should be treated as *pro forma*.[^23] We propose
to amend our rules on transfers of control and assignments to allow more
flexibility to applicants in structuring transactions and provide
greater clarity to authorized international carriers regarding
assignments and transfers of control.

10 In addition, because an increasing number of transactions involve
authorizations for several different services and therefore require
review by multiple Bureaus, we believe it would ease the burden on
carriers if we better harmonize our rules for assignments and transfers
of control applicable to international services with similar rules for
other telecommunications services. Therefore, we propose to modify and
consolidate our current rules on assignments and transfers of control of
international Section 214 authorizations so that the new rule more
closely tracks the procedures applicable to CMRS, [^24] because many of
the transactions involving transfers of international Section 214
authorizations also include wireless authorizations.[^25]

11 The rule governing assignments and transfers of control of
authorizations for CMRS, found in Section 1.948 of the Commission's
rules, provides that a change from less than 50 percent ownership to 50
percent or more ownership shall always be considered a transfer of
control.[^26] In other situations, whether a controlling interest is
transferring is "determined on a case-by-case basis considering the
distribution of ownership, and the relationships of the owners,
including family relationships."[^27] We propose to adopt both of these
provisions as part of a consolidated rule that would govern all
international Section 214 assignments and transfers, whether substantial
or *pro forma* in nature. Under this approach, we would move the
provisions of Section 63.18(e)(3), which specify the procedures for
seeking prior approval of an assignment or substantial transfer of
control, to Section 63.24.

12 In the case of a non-substantial or *pro forma* transfer or
assignment under Section 1.948, advance filing of the application is not
required under most circumstances.[^28] Rather than list the specific
types of transactions that are considered *pro forma*, as our rules
currently do, we believe it is preferable to adopt the approach used for
CMRS, which allows for a case-by-case determination of whether an
assignment or transfer of control is substantial or *pro forma*. We
propose to amend our rules governing assignments and transfers of
control of international Section 214 authorizations to allow a
case-by-case determination based on the guidance set forth in previous
Commission precedent on the issue.[^29]

13 The Commission adopted its guidelines for determining when an
assignment or transfer of control of a license for CMRS may be
considered *pro forma* in an order ruling on a forbearance petition
filed by the Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA).[^30] In
defining when a transfer of control has occurred and whether it is
substantial or *pro forma*, the *FCBA Forbearance Order* distinguishes
between the presence of *de facto* and *de jure* control. If there is a
change in *de facto* control, the transfer is considered substantial,
and prior Commission approval is required. A change in *de jure* control
is generally considered substantial, but if there is an indication that
*de facto* control has not changed, the transfer may be considered *pro
forma*, and prior approval is not required. The inquiry is fact specific
and done on a case-by-case basis.

14 *De jure* control is control as a matter of law and is based on who
holds the equity shares of an entity.[^31] *De jure* control is present
where equity-holders voting together own or control fifty percent or
more of the licensee's voting shares. *De jure* control of a partnership
is similarly based on holding a fifty percent or greater voting interest
in the partnership. The presence of *de facto* control is a separate,
independent determination from that of *de jure* control. As the
Commission found in the *FCBA Forbearance Order*, *de facto* control is
defined as actual control of the licensee, and rests with the party or
entity in question that has the power to control or dominate management
of the licensee.[^32]

15 Because it inherently involves issues of fact, *de facto* control
must be determined on a case-by-case basis and may vary with the
circumstances presented by each licensee.[^33] In the *FCBA Forbearance
Order*, the Commission identified certain factors that may be relevant
to a finding of *de facto* control. These factors include, but are not
limited to: (1) power to constitute or appoint more than fifty percent
of the board of directors or partnership management committee; (2)
authority to appoint, promote, demote and fire senior executives that
control the day-to-day activities of the licensee; (3) ability to play
an integral role in major management decisions of the licensee; (4)
authority to pay financial obligations, including expenses arising out
of operations; (5) ability to receive monies and profits from the
facility's operations; and (6) unfettered use of all facilities and
equipment.[^34] We seek comment on whether we should use these, or
other, factors to determine whether there has been a transfer of control
of an international Section 214 authorization and whether that transfer
is substantial or *pro forma*.

16 Under the analysis adopted in the *FCBA Forbearance Order*, if a new
individual or entity acquires *de jure* control over a licensee, then a
transfer of control has occurred, but the transfer can be substantial or
*pro forma*, depending on an analysis of the relevant factors. The
Commission stated that, in the absence of some other indication that *de
facto* control has not changed, a change in the *de jure* control of a
licensee is generally considered a substantial change in control.
However, the Commission also noted that there can be no "bright line"
test to determine whether a change in *de jure* control constitutes a
substantial change in control and concluded that this inquiry must be
made on a case-by-case basis.[^35] We tentatively conclude that we
should adopt the same case-by-case approach for determining whether
transfers of control of international Section 214 authorizations are
substantial or *pro forma*. We also propose that the six types of
transactions that are currently listed in our rules as *pro forma* be
considered illustrative, not comprehensive. For the sake of consistency,
our intent is to adopt and apply the analysis used for determining when
assignments and transfers of control for CMRS are *pro forma*.

17 We propose to make a number of changes to Section 63.24 so that it
more closely tracks the procedures used for CMRS. Specifically, we
propose that within 30 days after consummation of a *pro forma*
transaction, the licensee must file an application with the Secretary,
with a copy to the Chief of the Telecommunications Division of the
International Bureau. The application may be in the form of a letter. We
propose that the Section 214 authorization holder be required to certify
in the letter that the transfer of control or assignment was *pro
forma*, and, together with all other previous *pro forma* transactions,
this transfer of control or assignment does not result in a change in
the actual controlling party. The letter must also contain the name,
address of the transferee/assignee, contact points, and updated
ownership information. If the Commission determines that the application
is acceptable for filing, it will issue a public notice of the *pro
forma* assignment or transfer of control as granted. Any interested
party who objects to the assignment or transaction may, within 30 days
from release of the public notice, file a petition seeking
reconsideration. The Commission will retain the authority to rescind its
approval of any purported *pro forma* transaction that it determines
involves a substantial change of control.

18 We also propose to make a number of other amendments to Section
63.24. First, currently under Section 63.24, a carrier may notify the
Commission of a *pro forma* assignment by filing a written letter to the
Commission within 30 days after the transaction is consummated.
Notification is not required for a *pro forma* transfer of control under
the present rule. We propose that the rule clearly state that both *pro
forma* transferees and *pro forma* assignees are required to notify the
Commission of either a *pro forma* transfer of control or assignment,
which may be done by letter 30 days after the transaction. Second, we
propose to add definitions and explanatory language regarding
assignments and transfers of control to enhance clarity. Finally, we
propose to add a section to the rule addressing the procedure to be
followed in the event of an involuntary assignment or transfer of
control.

19 We note that under our proposed rule changes applicants continue to
be responsible in each instance, as they are currently, for determining
whether a proposed transaction is *pro forma* or substantial and for
complying with the relevant rules and procedures that govern Commission
approval of such transactions. Applications must continue to include the
information currently required under Section 63.18(e)(3) for a
substantial transfer of control or assignment. We also retain the
authority to determine that a particular transaction characterized by
the applicants as *pro forma* is, in fact, a substantial change of
control and therefore should be subject to the appropriate review. In
that case we will rescind the grant of the purported *pro forma*
assignment or transfer of control.

20 We tentatively conclude that revising our rules on assignments and
transfers of control of international Section 214 authorizations to more
closely track the rule used for CMRS will reduce the regulatory burden
on Section 214 authorization holders.[^36] We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion and whether the proposed rule will fulfill our
stated objectives of providing greater flexibility to Section 214
authorization holders and expanding the possible range of transactions
that qualify for filing on a *pro forma* basis.

**B. Settlement Rate Benchmark Conditions**

21 In the *Benchmarks Order*, the Commission established benchmarks that
govern the international settlement rates that U.S. carriers may pay
foreign carriers to terminate international traffic originating in the
United States.[^37] Above-cost settlement rates raise two concerns that
the Commission sought to address in its *Benchmarks Order*.[^38] First,
above-cost settlement rates contribute to the inflated prices paid by
U.S. consumers for international services. Second, the above-cost
margins in settlement rates can be used to finance strategies that
create competitive distortions in the market for U.S. international
services. To address the Commission's concern about potential
distortions in the U.S. market created by above-cost settlement rates,
the Commission adopted benchmark conditions for certain types of Section
214 authorizations.

22 One of the benchmarks conditions applies to authorizations to provide
international facilities-based switched or private line service between
the United States and an affiliated market. The condition requires 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.[^39] The Commission adopted the
condition for facilities-based switched service to affiliated markets to
address the potential for a carrier to engage in a predatory price
squeeze, *i.e.*, to price below the level of its imputed costs when
providing U.S. facilities-based switched service between the United
States and a foreign market where it has an affiliate. Because we now
believe that the burdens placed on some carriers by the policy outweigh
the benefits of the policy, we propose to discontinue the application of
the benchmark rates to services provided over facilities-based private
lines.

23 As applied to authorizations to provide facilities-based private line
service, the benchmark condition serves to limit the ability of carriers
to circumvent the condition by sending facilities-based switched traffic
over private lines. The Commission's concern about the ability of U.S.
carriers to engage in a price squeeze on routes where they are
affiliated with a foreign carrier with market power is not relevant for
facilities-based private line service because private line service is
not subject to the accounting rate system. Rather, we applied the
benchmarks condition to services over private lines to prevent cheating
to avoid the condition as it applies to services subject to the
accounting rate system.

24 Since the adoption of the benchmarks condition for facilities-based
service in the *Benchmarks Order,* we have become concerned that
application of the condition to facilities-based private line service is
unnecessarily burdensome and could prevent the development of innovative
services. As currently applied, the condition prevents carriers,
including those who do not provide facilities-based switched services on
a route, from providing facilities-based private line service on that
route if they are affiliated with a dominant foreign carrier whose
settlement rates are above the benchmark rates. At the same time, we
question whether application of the condition to facilities-based
private line service is necessary to prevent carriers from evading the
condition as it applies to facilities-based switched services. We
consider it unlikely that a carrier could evade the condition by sending
a substantial portion of its facilities-based switched traffic over
facilities-based private lines without detection by the Commission and
other carriers on the route. Carriers are required under Section 43.61
of the Commission\'s rules to file traffic reports detailing traffic and
revenue data for all services they provide.[^40] Any substantial shift
of traffic from facilities‑based switched services to facilities‑based
private lines would be evident based on the data filed in the reports.
Thus, the Commission could detect the evasion of the benchmarks
condition and commence enforcement proceedings if warranted.

25 We therefore tentatively conclude that we should no longer apply the
benchmarks condition to authorizations to provide services over
facilities-based private lines. We believe that this proposed change
will relieve an unnecessary burden without adversely affecting
competitive safeguards. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
Comments should address the likelihood that a carrier could successfully
evade application of the condition by sending facilities-based switched
traffic over facilities-based private lines.

**C. Discontinuance of Service by Dominant Carriers**

26 Section 63.19 of the rules specifies the procedures for
discontinuances of service by U.S. international common carriers.[^41]
This rule requires that non-dominant international carriers provide
affected customers with 60 days notice of a planned discontinuance,
reduction or impairment of service and file with the Commission a copy
of the notification on or after the date on which notice has been given
to all affected customers. Dominant international carriers, by contrast,
must seek prior Commission approval for any such discontinuance of
service by filing an application under Section 63.500.[^42] For the
reasons discussed below, we propose to modify Section 63.19 to relieve
dominant international carriers of the requirement to seek such prior
approval, except where such carriers possess market power on the U.S.
end of the route.

27 Section 63.19 defines the terms \"non-dominant\" and \"dominant\" as
these terms are defined in Section 63.10 of the rules.[^43] Section
63.10 sets forth our framework for classifying and regulating U.S.
international carriers as dominant or non-dominant on particular U.S.
international routes based on whether the U.S. carrier is affiliated
with a carrier that has sufficient market power on *the foreign end* of
a U.S. international route to affect competition adversely in the U.S.
market.[^44] Section 63.10 does not address the classification or
regulation of a U.S. international carrier as dominant based on its
possessing market power on *the U.S. end* of a particular route.[^45]
Thus, Section 63.19 on its face requires prior Commission approval
before a discontinance of service by a U.S. international carrier that
is classified as dominant on a particular route due to an affiliation
with a carrier possessing market power on the foreign end of that route.
It does not, by its terms, require prior approval by a U.S.
international carrier that may be classified as dominant due to the
existence of market power in the provision of international service on
the U.S. end of a route.[^46] This is an incongruous result. We propose
to amend the rule to require prior approval for discontinuances by a
U.S. international carrier only for those routes and services for which
the carrier is classified as dominant due to its having market power in
the provision of that international service on the U.S. end of the
route.

28 Requiring prior approval for a discontinuance of service is a means
to protect against the \"unreasonable termination or reduction of
service to customers.\"[^47] This requirement is one of several
regulations that have been \"associated with dominant carrier
classification due to the market power of a U.S. carrier on the U.S. end
of a route.\"[^48] The concern the discontinuance rule addresses is that
consumers will not have adequate alternatives available if a dominant
carrier discontinues service. The safeguards that apply to carriers
regulated as dominant due to an affiliation with foreign carriers
possessing market power in foreign markets, on the other hand, address a
different concern. These safeguards are designed to prevent a foreign
carrier with market power from leveraging that market power into the
U.S. market.[^49] We find no clear intention in the portion of the *1996
Streamlining Order* which adopted Section 63.19 to apply the requirement
for prior approval of discontinuances of U.S. international service by
carriers regulated as dominant on particular routes due only to an
affiliation with a foreign carrier with market power. Therefore, we
tentatively conclude that the requirement should apply only to U.S.
carriers regulated as dominant due to market power in the U.S.

29 We find no reason to require prior Commission approval of
discontinuances of service by U.S. carriers regulated as dominant merely
by operation of Section 63.10 of the rules. We therefore propose to
amend Section 63.19 to clarify that the less burdensome prior
notification procedure of that rule applies to these carriers. We seek
comment on this proposal. Commenters should address under what
circumstances, if any, prior Commission approval should be required
before a U.S. carrier regulated as dominant under Section 63.10 can
discontinue service.

**D. Other Rules**

**1. Control and Application of the Multiplier**

30 We propose to clarify the explanatory notes in Sections 63.09 and
63.18 regarding attribution of indirect ownership interests in U.S. and
foreign carriers.[^50] These notes explain that attribution of such
interests is determined through the use of a multiplier. The notes,
however, are unclear about how to apply the multiplier to an ownership
interest of less than 50 percent but nonetheless represents actual
control. The International Bureau has recently interpreted these notes
to mean that any ownership interest greater than 50 percent or that
constitutes a controlling interest will be treated as if it were a 100
percent ownership interest for purposes of applying the multiplier.[^51]
We tentatively conclude that it would be in the public interest to amend
the notes in Sections 63.09 and 63.18 so that they are clear on their
face that whenever an ownership percentage exceeds 50 percent or
represents actual control it shall be treated as a 100 percent interest
for purposes of applying the multiplier. [^52] We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion.

**2. Conveying Transmission Capacity in Submarine Cables**

31 In the *1996 Streamlining Order*, the Commission eliminated the
requirement that U.S. carriers regulated as dominant because of the
existence of market power in the provision of U.S. international service
obtain Section 214 authority prior to conveying transmission capacity in
submarine cables. As a result, we adopted the notification requirement,
codified in Section 63.21(h) of the rules.[^53] Since adoption of
Section 63.21(h), we have found, with one limited exception, that the
U.S. international carriers that were classified as dominant at the time
of the order no longer possess market power in the provision of U.S.
international services.[^54] Comsat is the only U.S. international
carrier that continues to be regulated as dominant on particular routes
in its provision of particular services because of the existence of
market power on the U.S. end of those routes.[^55] Because these
services are limited to those provided by Comsat over INTELSAT
satellites and do not include submarine cable facilities,[^56] there are
no U.S. carriers to which Section 63.21(h) currently applies. Even if we
find it necessary at some future date to regulate a U.S. carrier as
dominant due to its ability to exercise market power in the provision of
U.S. international service, we tentatively conclude that it would be
preferable to take a fresh look at that time at the safeguards that
should apply to that carrier. We can undertake such a review in the
context of a rulemaking or adjudicatory proceeding at a future date. We
therefore propose to eliminate Section 63.21(h).

**3. Reports of Carriers Owned by Foreign Telecommunications Entities**

32 Section 43.81 of our rules requires certain foreign-owned carriers to
file with the Commission annual revenue and traffic reports with respect
to all common carrier telecommunication services they offer in the
United States.[^57] The purpose of the reporting requirement is to allow
the Commission to monitor whether carriers owned by foreign
telecommunications entities are using their market power to influence
the price of U.S. international telecommunications services or the
development of competition in the U.S. international services
market.[^58] As originally adopted in 1988, the rule required quarterly
reports from all foreign-owned carriers.[^59] The rule was subsequently
amended to require annual reports from a limited number of
carriers.[^60] In addition, the rule requires the filings for only three
years -- 1988, 1989 and 1990 -- and contained a "sunset" provision,
meaning that the requirement would automatically expire after three
years absent a specific determination that an extension of the
requirement was appropriate.[^61] Although no such determination was
made and the time period for filing the reports has expired, the rule
still remains in the Code of Federal Regulations. We tentatively
conclude that we should remove this obsolete rule.

**4. Permitted Facilities**

33 Section 63.22 of our rules sets out the conditions which apply to
facilities-based international carriers.[^62] In adopting this section
in the *1998 International Biennial Review Order*,

the Commission sought to provide that facilities-based carriers with a
global Section 214 authorization may use any facilities in their
provision of authorized services except as provided on the \"Exclusion
List for International Section 214 Authorizations\" (Exclusion
List).[^63] The rule, however, does not specifically address the use of
U.S. cross-border facilities which are not licensed under Title III or
the Submarine Cable Landing License Act, such a land-line fiber optic
cable. This has lead to some confusion as to whether carriers are
allowed to use such facilities. We want to clarify that carriers are
authorized to use such facilities, as long as they are not included on
the Exclusion List. We propose to amend Section 63.22(b) to clarify that
a facilities-based carrier may provide service over U.S. facilities
which are not subject to authorization by the Commission, as long as
those facilities are not on the Exclusion List. We seek comment on this
proposal.

34 Section 63.22(b) also addresses the ability of carriers to use U.S.
earth stations to access non-U.S.-licensed satellite systems.[^64] In
general, a carrier may not use U.S. earth stations to access
non-U.S.-licensed satellite systems unless the Commission has
specifically approved the use of those satellites and indicates such on
the Exclusion List. In addition, Section 63.22(b) allows carriers to use
those approved satellite systems to provide service only to specific
countries identified on the Exclusion List. The International Bureau,
however, considers non-U.S.-licensed satellites on the Permitted Space
Station List[^65] to be approved satellite systems for purposes of the
Exclusion List,[^66] and the Permitted Space Station List does not list
specific countries for which the approved satellites may be used to
provide U.S. international services. This inconsistency can be
confusing. We propose to amend Section 63.22(b) by removing the general
reference to a list of countries in the Exclusion List. To the extent
that a non-U.S.-based satellite system is permitted for use by U.S.
earth stations, those satellites may be used to provide service to any
countries accessible by the satellites unless specifically excluded.
Such limitations on the use of an approved non-U.S.-licensed satellite
system will be listed in the Permitted Space Station List. We seek
comment on this proposal.

> **5.** **Duplicative Notes**

35 Section 63.09 contains the definitions that apply to the Part 63
rules for international common carriers.[^67] The Commission created
this definitional section in the *1998 International Biennial Review
Order* in order to simplify its part 63 rules for international common
carriers and make those rules easier to follow.[^68] We propose in this
proceeding to eliminate unnecessary duplication in Section 63.09 and
Section 63.18,[^69] which specifies the contents required for
international Section 214 applications. Specifically, we propose to
eliminate the first three explanatory notes to Section 63.18(h).

36 The first note to Section 63.18(h) defines the term \"control.\"[^70]
We propose to delete this note as unnecessarily duplicative because
\"control\" is defined in Section 63.09(b).[^71] Similarly, we propose
to delete the second note to Section 63.18(h).[^72] This note defines
the term \"facilities-based carrier\" and is now codified in Section
63.09(a).[^73] The third note we propose to delete from Section 63.18
explains the meaning of \"capital stock\"[^74] which is also defined in
Section 63.09.[^75] We find it unnecessary for the definition to appear
both sections. We propose to maintain note 4 to Section 63.18(h).[^76]
This note, which also appears in Section 63.09, explains the method for
attributing indirect ownership interests in U.S. and foreign
carriers.[^77] It is used both for determining whether a Section 214
applicant is \"affiliated\" with a U.S. or foreign carrier (within the
meaning of Section 63.09(e)) and for determining the applicant\'s 10
percent or greater shareholders (pursuant to Section 63.18(h)). We
therefore propose to maintain this note in both sections. As discussed
above, we also propose in this proceeding to clarify the substance of
this note.[^78]

**6. Applications for Supplementary Facilities**

37 Section 63.20 of the rules contains procedures for filing
international Section 214 applications and related pleadings, as well as
the requirements for public notice and comment on these
applications.[^79] We tentatively conclude that we should delete from
paragraph (a) of this section the provision that specifies the number of
copies required to be filed where an application involves \"only the
supplementation of existing international facilities, and the issuance
of a certificate is not required....\"[^80] Applications to supplement
already-authorized facilities are no longer required to be filed by U.S.
international carriers.[^81] Therefore, this provision can be deleted as
unnecessary.

**7. Filings on Diskettes**

38 Section 63.53(b) sets forth procedures for the submission of Section
214 applications on computer diskettes.[^82] As part of the
Commission\'s on-going efforts to process applications as quickly and
efficiently as possible, the Commission established the International
Bureau Filing System (IBFS).[^83] Since February 10, 1999, applicants
have been able to use the IBFS to file electronically numerous
applications, including international Section 214 applications. Given
the ability of applicants to use the IBFS to file international Section
214 applications, we no longer find it in the public interest to have
applicants file international Section 214 applications on computer
diskettes. We therefore tentatively conclude that Section 63.53(b)
should be deleted. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and
whether there is any reason to continue to allow international Section
214 applications to be filed on computer diskettes.

39 Similarly, Section 63.10(d) sets forth requirements that reports
filed by dominant carriers pursuant to paragraphs 63.10(c)(3), (c)(4),
and (c)(5), must be filed on diskettes. We do not find there to be any
reason to continue to require these reports to be filed on diskettes,
and tentatively conclude Section 63.10(d) should be amended to remove
this requirement. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and
whether there is any reason to continue to require these reports be
filed on computer diskettes.

**III. CONCLUSION**

40 In this proceeding we propose to amend several of the Commission\'s
rules regarding the provision of international telecommunications
service. We propose to amend our rule concerning *pro forma* assignments
and transfers of control of international Section 214 authorizations. We
also tentatively conclude that that is no longer necessary to apply the
settlement rate benchmarks condition to Section 214 authorizations to
provide services over international private lines. We also propose to
modify our rules to relieve \"dominant\" international carriers of the
requirement to seek prior approval to discontinue service, except where
such carriers possess market power on the U.S. end of the route.
Finally, we propose to amend several rules to clarify the intent of
those rules and to eliminate certain rules that no longer have any
application. We find that these proposed changes will remove unnecessary
burdens from both the public and the Commission. We seek comment on
those proposals and tentative conclusions.

**IV. Procedural Matters**

**A. Ex Parte Procedures**

41 This NPRM is a permit but disclose notice and comment rulemaking
proceeding. *Ex parte* presentations are permitted, except during the
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the
Commission's rules.[^84]

**B. Comment Filing Procedures**

42 Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,[^85]
interested parties may file comments on or before **January 24, 2001**
and reply comments on or before **February 27, 2001**. Comments may be
filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS)[^86] or by filing paper copies.

43 Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via
the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Only one copy of an
electronic submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal
screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal Service
mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties
may also submit an electronic copy 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 \<your e-mail address\>." A sample form and
directions will be sent in reply.

44 Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four
copies of each filing. All paper filings must be sent to the
Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street S.W., Room
TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554.

45 Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their comments
on diskette to Peggy Reitzel, Telecommunications Division, International
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street S.W., Room
6-A822, Washington, DC 20554. Such a submission should be on a 3.5 inch
diskette formatted in an IBM-compatible format using Microsoft Word for
Windows, or a compatible software. The diskette should be accompanied by
a cover letter and should be submitted in "read-only" mode. The diskette
should be clearly labeled with the commenter's name, proceeding,
including the lead docket number in the proceeding (IB Docket No.
00-231), 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. In addition, commenters should
sent diskette copies to the Commission's copy contractor, International
Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th

St. N.W., Washington DC 20037.

**C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis**

46 The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires a Regulatory
Flexibility Act analysis whenever an agency publishes a notice of
proposed rulemaking or promulgates a final rule, unless the agency
certifies that the proposed or final rule will not have "a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities," and includes
the factual basis for such certification.[^87] Pursuant to Section 603
of the RFA, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on small entities by the policies and actions considered in this NPRM.
The text of the IRFA is set forth in Appendix B. Written public comments
are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to
the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM
provided above in paragraph 41 -- comments may be filed on or before
**January 24, 2001**, and reply comments on of before **February 27,
2001**. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including the IRFA,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.[^88] In addition, summaries of the NPRM and IRFA will be
published in the Federal Register.[^89]

> **D. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis**

47 This NPRM contains either a new or modified information collection.
It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under the Paperwork Reduction Act. As part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we will invite the general public
and the OMB, and other federal agencies, to take the opportunity to
comment on the information collections contained in this NPRM, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13.
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.

#### V. Ordering Clauses

48 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained
in Sections 1, 4, 11, 214, 218, 219, 220, and 403 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154, 161, 214, 218, 219, 220,
403, this NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING IS HEREBY ADOPTED and COMMENTS
ARE REQUESTED as described above.

49 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information
Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this NOTICE
OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis, 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
>
> Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

APPENDIX A

Proposed Rules

1\. We propose to remove Section 43.81.

2\. We propose to amend Note 2 of Section 63.09 to read as follows
(deletions are struck out, additions are in bold):

> Note 2: Ownership and other interests in U.S. and foreign carriers
> will be attributed to their holders and deemed cognizable pursuant to
> the following criteria: Attribution of ownership interests in a
> carrier that are held indirectly by any party through one or more
> intervening corporations will be determined by successive
> multiplication of the ownership percentages for each link in the
> vertical ownership chain and application of the relevant attribution
> benchmark to the resulting product, except that wherever the ownership
> percentage for any link in the chain exceeds 50 percent **or
> represents actual control, it shall be treated as if it were a 100
> percent interest.** ~~, it shall not be included~~ ~~for purposes of
> this multiplication.~~ For example, if A owns 30 percent of company X,
> which owns 60 percent of company Y, which owns 26 percent of
> "carrier,\'" then X\'s interest in "carrier\'" would be 26 percent
> (the same as Y\'s interest because X\'s interest in Y exceeds 50
> percent), and A\'s interest in "carrier\'" would be 7.8 percent (0.30
> x 0.26). Under the 25 percent attribution benchmark, X\'s interest in
> "carrier\'" would be cognizable, while A\'s interest would not be
> cognizable.

3\. We propose to amend Section 63.10 to read as follows (deletions are
struck out, additions are in bold):

> \(d\) A carrier classified as dominant under this section shall file
> an original and two copies of each report required by paragraphs
> (c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(5) of this section with the Chief,
> International Bureau. ~~The carrier shall include with its filings
> separate computer diskettes for the reports required by paragraphs
> (c)(3) and (c)(5), in the format specified by the Sec. 43.61 and Sec.
> 43.82 filing manuals, respectively.~~ The carrier shall also file one
> ~~paper~~ copy of these reports~~,~~ ~~accompanied by the appropriate
> computer diskettes,~~ with the Commission\'s copy contractor. The
> transmittal letter accompanying each report shall clearly identify the
> report as responsive to the appropriate paragraph of Sec. 63.10(c).
>
> 4\. We propose to delete subsection (e)(3) of Section 63.18, and
> redesignate subsection (e)(4) as (e)(3).

5\. We propose to amend Section 63.18 by deleting Notes 1, 2, and 3,
redesignating Note 4 as Note 1 and revising it to read as follows
(deletions are struck out, additions are in bold):

> Note 1 to paragraph (h): Ownership and other interests in U.S. and
> foreign carriers will be attributed to their holders and deemed
> cognizable pursuant to the following criteria: Attribution of
> ownership interests in a carrier that are held indirectly by any party
> through one or more intervening corporations will be determined by
> successive multiplication of the ownership percentages for each link
> in the vertical ownership chain and application of the relevant
> attribution benchmark to the resulting product, except that wherever
> the ownership percentage for any link in the chain exceeds 50 percent
> **or represents actual control, it shall be treated as if it were a
> 100 percent interest.** ~~, it shall not be included~~ ~~for purposes
> of this multiplication.~~ For example, if A owns 30 percent of company
> X, which owns 60 percent of company Y, which owns 26 percent of
> "carrier," then X\'s interest in "carrier" would be 26 percent (the
> same as Y\'s interest because X\'s interest in Y exceeds 50 percent),
> and A\'s interest in "carrier" would be 7.8 percent (0.30 x 0.26).
> Under the 25 percent attribution benchmark, X\'s interest in "carrier"
> would be cognizable, while A\'s interest would not be cognizable.

6\. We propose to amend Section 63.19 to read as follows (deletions are
struck out, additions are in bold):

**§ 63.19 Special procedures for discontinuances of international
services.**

\(a\) **With the exception of those international carriers described in
paragraph (b) of this section, a** ~~A~~ny ~~non-dominant~~
international carrier ~~as this term is defined in~~ ~~§. 63.10~~ that
seeks to discontinue, reduce or impair service, including the retiring
of international facilities, dismantling or removing of international
trunk lines, shall be subject to the following procedures in lieu of
those specified in §§ 63.61 through 63.601:

\(1\) The carrier shall notify all affected customers of the planned
discontinuance, reduction or impairment at least 60 days prior to its
planned action. Notice shall be in writing to each affected customer
unless the Commission authorizes in advance, for good cause shown,
another form of notice.

\(2\) The carrier shall file with this Commission a copy of the
notification on or after the date on which notice has been given to all
affected customers.

\(b\) **The following procedures shall apply to a**~~A~~ny ~~dominant~~
international carrier ~~as this term~~ ~~is defined in § 63.10~~ **that
the Commission has classified as dominant in the provision of a
particular international service because the carrier possesses market
power in the provision of that service on the U.S. end of the route. Any
such carrier** that seeks to retire international facilities, dismantle
or remove international trunk lines, and the **dominant** service~~s~~
being provided through these facilities **is** ~~are~~ not being
discontinued, reduced or impaired, shall only be subject to the
notification requirements of paragraph (a) of this section. If such
carrier discontinues, reduces or impairs **the dominant** service ~~to a
community~~ or retires facilities that impair or reduce **the** service
~~to a community~~, the ~~dominant~~ carrier shall file an application
pursuant to §§ 63.62 and 63.500.

7\. We propose to amend Section 63.20 to read as follows (deletions are
struck out):

**§ 63.20 Copies required; fees; and filing periods for international
service providers.**

\(a\) Unless otherwise specified the Commission shall be furnished with
an original and five copies of applications filed for international
facilities and services under Section 214 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended. ~~Provided, however, that where applications involve
only the supplementation of existing international facilities, and the
issuance of a certificate is not required, an original and two copies of
the application shall be furnished.~~ Upon request by the Commission,
additional copies of the application shall be furnished. Each
application shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed in subpart G of
part 1 of this chapter.

\*\*\*\*

8\. We propose to delete subsection (h) of Section 63.21 and redesignate
subsections (i) and (j) of Section 63.21 as subsections (h) and (i)
respectively.

9\. We propose to amend Section 63.22 to read as follows (deletions are
struck out):

**§ 63.22 Facilities-based international common carriers**.

The following conditions apply to authorized facilities-based
international carriers:

\*\*\*\*

\(b\) The carrier may provide service using half-circuits on any
~~appropriately licensed~~ U.S. common carrier and non-common carrier
facilities ~~(under either Title III of the Communications~~ ~~Act of
1934, as amended, or the Submarine Cable Landing License Act, 47 U.S.C.
34- 39)~~ that do not appear on an exclusion list published by the
Commission. Carriers may also use any necessary non-U.S.-licensed
facilities, including any submarine cable systems, that do not appear on
the exclusion list. Carriers may not use U.S. earth stations to access
non-U.S.-licensed satellite systems unless the Commission has
specifically approved the use of those satellites and so indicates on
the exclusion list~~, and then only for service to the countries~~
~~indicated thereon~~. The exclusion list is available from the
International Bureau\'s World Wide Web site at http://www.fcc.gov/ib.

10\. We propose to amend Section 63.24 to read as follows:

**§ 63.24 Assignments and transfers of control**

(a) General.

> Except as otherwise provided in this section, an international section
> 214 authorization may be assigned, or control of such authorization
> may be transferred by the transfer of control of any entity holding
> such authorization, to another party, whether voluntarily or
> involuntarily, directly or indirectly, only upon application to and
> prior approval by the Commission.

(b) Assignments.

> For purposes of this section, an assignment of an authorization is a
> transaction in which the authorization is assigned from one entity to
> another entity. Following an assignment, the authorization is held by
> an entity other than the one to which it was originally granted.

(c) Transfers of control.

> For purposes of this section, a transfer of control is a transaction
> in which the authorization remains held by the same entity, but there
> is a change in the entity or entities that control the authorization
> holder. A change from less than 50% ownership to 50% or more ownership
> shall always be considered a transfer of control. In all other
> situations, whether the interest being transferred is controlling must
> be determined on a case-by-case basis with reference to the factors
> listed in Note 1.

(d) *Pro forma* assignments and transfers of control.

> Transfers of control or assignments that do not result in a change in
> the actual controlling party are considered non-substantial or *pro
> forma*. Whether there has been a change in the actual controlling
> party must be determined on a case-by-case basis. The types of
> transactions listed in Note 1 to paragraph (d) shall be considered
> presumptively *pro forma* and prior approval from the Commission need
> not be sought.

[Note 1 to paragraph (]{.smallcaps}d[):]{.smallcaps} If a transaction is
one of the types listed below, the transaction is presumptively *pro
forma* and prior approval need not be sought. In all other cases, the
relevant determination shall be made on a case-by-case basis.

(1) Assignment from an individual or individuals (including
    partnerships) to a corporation owned and controlled by such
    individuals or partnerships without any substantial change in their
    relative interests;

(2) Assignment from a corporation to its individual stockholders without
    effecting any substantial change in the disposition of their
    interests;

(3) Assignment or transfer by which certain stockholders retire and the
    interest transferred is not a controlling one;

(4) Corporate reorganization that involves no substantial change in the
    beneficial ownership of the corporation (including re-incorporation
    in a different jurisdiction or change in form of the business
    entity);

(5) Assignment or transfer from a corporation to a wholly owned direct
    or indirect subsidiary thereof or vice versa, or where there is an
    assignment from a corporation to a corporation owned or controlled
    by the assignor stockholders without substantial change in their
    interests; or

(6) Assignment of less than a controlling interest in a partnership.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(e) Applications for substantial transactions.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(1) In the case of an assignment or transfer of control of an
    international Section 214 authorization that is not *pro forma*, the
    proposed assignee or transferee must apply to the Commission for
    authority prior to consummation of the proposed assignment or
    transfer of control.

(2) The application shall include the information requested in
    paragraphs (a) through (d) of Rule 63.18 for both the
    transferor/assignor and the transferee/assignee. The information
    requested in paragraphs (h) through (p) of Rule 63.18 is required
    only for the transferee/assignee. At the beginning of the
    application, the applicant shall include a narrative of the means by
    which the proposed transfer or assignment will take place.

(3) The Commission reserves the right to request additional information
    as to the particulars of the transaction to aid it in making its
    public interest determination.

(4) An assignee or transferee shall notify the Commission no later than
    30 days after either consummation of the proposed assignment or
    transfer of control, or a decision not to consummate the proposed
    assignment or transfer of control. The notification may be made by
    letter (sending one copy to the Office of the Secretary and one copy
    to the Telecommunications Division of the International Bureau) and
    shall identify the file numbers under which the initial
    authorization and the authorization of the assignment or transfer of
    control were granted.

\(f\) Applications for non-substantial or *pro forma* transactions

(1) In the case of a *pro forma* assignment or transfer of control, the
    applicant is not required to seek prior Commission approval.

(2) A *pro forma* assignee or transferee shall file an application with
    the Commission no later than 30 days after the assignment or
    transfer is completed. The application may be made by letter
    (sending one copy to the Office of the Secretary and one copy to the
    Chief of the Telecommunications Division of the International
    Bureau). The applications must contain the following:

> \(i\) The information requested in paragraphs (a) through (d) and (h)
> of Rule 63.18 for the transferee/assignee,
>
> \(ii\) A certification that the transfer of control or assignment was
> *pro forma* and that, together with all previous *pro forma*
> transactions, does not result in a change in the actual controlling
> party.
>
> A single letter may be filed for an assignment of more than one
> authorization if each authorization is identified by the file number
> under which it was granted.
>
> \(3\) Upon release of a public notice granting a *pro forma*
> assignment or transfer of control, petitions for reconsideration under
> Section 1.106 of this chapter or applications for review under Section
> 1.115 of this chapter of the Commission's rules may be filed within 30
> days. Petitioner should address why the assignment or transfer of
> control in question should have been filed under paragraph (e) of this
> section rather than under paragraph (f) of this section.

\(g\) Involuntary assignments or transfers of control.

> An involuntary assignment or transfer of control is one that occurs by
> operation of law. In the case of an involuntary assignment or transfer
> of control, the applicant must make the appropriate filing no later
> than 30 days after the event causing the involuntary assignment or
> transfer of control.

11\. We propose to delete subsection (b) of Section 63.53 and
redesignate subsection (c) of Section 63.53 as subsection (b).

**APPENDIX B**

**Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^90] the Commission
has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the
policies proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Written
public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified
as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments
on the NPRM provided above in Section IV, Subpart C. The Commission will
send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.[^91] In addition, the
NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal
Register.[^92]

1\. *Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules:* The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act)[^93] 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),[^94] 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."[^95] 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.\"[^96]

As part of the year 2000 biennial regulatory review, the Commission
reviewed all of its rules relating to international telecommunications
services to identify those rules that could be revised or eliminated. In
this proceeding, we propose changes to several of our rules relating to
international telecommunications services. Specifically, we propose to
amend our rule concerning *pro forma* assignments and transfers of
control of international Section 214 authorizations to more closely
match those used for the assignment and transfer of control of
Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) licenses. We also tentatively
conclude that it is no longer necessary to apply the settlement rate
benchmarks condition to Section 214 authorizations to provide
facilities-based international private line services. We also propose to
modify our rules to relieve dominant international carriers of the
requirement to seek prior approval to discontinue service, except where
such carriers possess market power in the provision of international
service on the U.S. end of the route. Finally, we also propose to amend
several rules to clarify the intent of those rules and to eliminate
certain rules that no longer have any application. We believe that these
proposed changes are in the public interest and will remove unnecessary
burdens on the public and the Commission.

2\. *Legal basis*: The NPRM is adopted pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 11,
214, 218, 219, 220, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154, 161, 214, 218, 219, 220, 403.

3\. *Description and estimate of the number of small entities to which
the proposals will apply:* RFA directs agencies to provide a description
of, and, where feasible, estimate of the number of small entities that
may be affected by the proposals, if adopted.[^97] The Regulatory
Flexibility Act defines the term "small entity" as having the same
meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small
business concern" under Section 3 of the Small Business Act.[^98] 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 SBA.[^99]

The SBA has developed a definition of small entities for telephone
communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies.
The Census Bureau reports that there were 2,321 such companies that had
been operating for at least one year at the end of 1992.[^100] According
to the SBA\'s definition, a wireline telephone company is a small
business if it employs no more than 1,500 persons.[^101] All but 26 of
the 2,321 wireline companies listed by the Census Bureau were reported
to have fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, even if all 26 of those
companies had more than 1,500 employees, there would still be 2,295
wireline companies that might qualify as small entities or small
incumbent LECs. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers
are not independently owned and operated, we are unable at this time to
estimate with greater precision the number of wireline carriers and
service providers that would qualify as small business concerns under
the SBA\'s definition. Consequently, we estimate that fewer than 2,295
of these wireline companies are small entities that might be affected by
these proposals.

Specifically, we propose to amend our rule concerning *pro forma*
assignments and transfers of control of international Section 214
authorizations to more closely match those used for the assignment and
transfer of control of Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) licenses.
We also tentatively conclude that it is no longer necessary to apply the
settlement rate benchmarks condition to Section 214 authorizations to
provide facilities-based international private line services. We also
propose to modify our rules to relieve dominant international carriers
of the requirement to seek prior approval to discontinue service, except
where such carriers possess market power in the provision of
international service on the U.S. end of the route. We also propose to
amend several rules to clarify the intent of those rules and to
eliminate certain rules that no longer have any application. At this
time, we are not certain as to the number of small entities that will be
affected by the proposals. We seek comment on the number of small
entities that will be affected by the proposals set forth in the NPRM.

4\. *Description of projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements:* The proposals made in the NPRM will reduce the
recordkeeping and compliance requirements of all companies providing
international telecommunications services, including small entities.

In the NPRM, the Commission proposes to provide greater flexibility and
clarity regarding assignments and transfers of control. Many of the
transactions that carriers are entering into involve multiple services.
In the NPRM the Commission proposes procedures regarding *pro forma*
assignments and transfers of control of international Section 214
authorizations that more closely follow those used for the assignment
and transfer of control of Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS)
licenses. This should reduce the burdens placed on carriers filing
transfers of control or assignments by having similar requirements for
both Section 214 authorizations and CMRS licenses. Under the proposed
rule carriers will continue to be required to file an application, which
can be in the form of a letter, with the Commission no later that thirty
days after the assignment or transfer is completed. The application must
contain a certification that the transfer of control or assignment was
*pro forma*, and, together with all other previous *pro forma*
transactions, this transfer of control or assignment does not result in
a change in the actual controlling party. The letter must also contain
the name, address of the transferee/assignee, contact points, and
updated ownership information.

The Commission also proposes to remove the settlement rate benchmarks
condition to Section 214 authorizations to provide facilities-based
international private line services. The Commission also proposes to
modify its rules to relieve dominant international carriers of the
requirement to seek prior approval to discontinue service, except where
such carriers possess market power in the provision of international
service on the U.S. end of the route. Only one carrier \-- Comsat \-- is
currently regulated as dominant on particular routes in its provision of
particular services due to the existence of market power on the U.S. end
of those routes. Other carriers that are classified dominant solely due
to affiliations with foreign carriers will no longer be required to seek
prior approval before discontinuing service.

The other proposals in the NPRM will clarify the intent of certain rules
and to eliminate other rules that no longer have any application. We
believe that these proposed changes are in the public interest and will
remove unnecessary burdens on the public and the Commission.

5\. *Steps taken to minimize significant economic impact on small
entities, and significant alternatives considered:* The RFA requires an
agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered
in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives: (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into account the resources
available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or
simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule
for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part
thereof, for small entities.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act)[^102] 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),[^103] 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."[^104] 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.\"[^105] As part of the 2000 biennial
regulatory review, the Commission reviewed all of its rules relating to
international telecommunications services to identify those rules that
could be revised or eliminated.[^106] In this proceeding the Commission
proposes changes to several of its rules relating to international
telecommunications services. The Commission believes that the proposals
in the NPRM will reduce the economic burdens placed on all companies
providing international telecommunications services, including small
entities.

6\. *Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed rules:* None.

[^1]: Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).

[^2]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 151 *et seq.*

[^3]: 47 U.S.C. § 161.

[^4]: 47 U.S.C. § 161(a)(2).

[^5]: *See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review-Review of International
    Common Carrier Regulations*, IB Docket No. 98-118, Report and Order,
    14 FCC Rcd 4909 (1999) (*1998 International Biennial Review Order*),
    recon. pending.

[^6]: *See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review: Reform of the International
    Settlements Policy and Associated Filing Requirements,* IB Docket
    Nos. 98-148 and 95-22, CC Docket No. 90-337 (Phase II), Report and
    Order and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 7963 (1999) *(ISP
    Reform Orde*r).

[^7]: *See* Federal Communications Commission, Biennial Regulatory
    Review 2000, Staff Report, September 19, 2000, CC Docket 00-175;
    Biennial Review 2000 Staff Report Released, Public Notice, FCC
    00-346 (rel. Sep. 19, 2000).

[^8]: *Review of Commission Consideration of Applications under the
    Cable Landing License* *Act*, IB Docket No. 00-106, Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making, 15 FCC Rcd 20789 (2000).

[^9]: *Id.*

[^10]: *Rules and Policies on Foreign Participation in the U.S.
    Telecommunications Market*, IB Docket 97-142, Order on
    Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 18158 (2000).

[^11]: *Id.*

[^12]: *2000 Biennial Regulatory Review; Policy and Rules Concerning the
    International Interexchange Marketplace*, IB Docket No. 00-202,
    Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 15 FCC Rcd 20008 (2000)
    (*International Detariffing NPRM*).

[^13]: 47 U.S.C. § 160.

[^14]: *International Detariffing NPRM* at *¶¶* 29-31*.*

[^15]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 63.10.

[^16]: *International Detariffing NPRM* at ¶¶ 32-40.

[^17]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.24.

[^18]: *See 1998 International Biennial Regulatory Review*, 14 FCC Rcd
    at 4927-29 ¶¶ 41-45, 4965-66 Appendix B.

[^19]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 214, providing in relevant part: "No carrier
    shall ... acquire or operate any line or extension thereof ...
    unless and until there shall first have been obtained from the
    Commission a certificate that the present or future public
    convenience and necessity require ... the operation ... of such
    additional line." This is the statutory authority for requiring that
    applicants seek Commission approval before assigning or transferring
    control of a Title II authorization.

[^20]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 63.18(e)(3).

[^21]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 63.24(a); *see also* Black's Law Dictionary
    1091 (5^th^ ed. 1979) (defining *pro forma* "As a matter of form or
    for the sake of form.").

[^22]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 63.24(a)(1)-(6).

[^23]: Applicants seeking *pro forma* treatment of transactions not
    identified within Section 63.24 have, on occasion, requested and
    been granted such treatment on a case-by-case basis.

[^24]: We do not propose in this proceeding to modify our current
    procedures for notifying the Commission of the consummation of
    substantial assignments or transfers of control of international
    section 214 authorizations. *See* 47 C.F.R. Sec. 63.18(e)(3). This
    provision is the subject of a petition for reconsideration of the
    *1998 International Biennial Review Order* and will be addressed in
    a separate order on reconsideration.

[^25]: *See, e.g., Qwest Communications International Inc. And U S WEST,
    Inc. Applications for Transfer of Control of Domestic and
    International Sections 214 and 310 Authorizations and Applications
    to Transfer Control of a Submarine Cable Landing License*, CC Docket
    No. 99-272, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 00-231 (rel. June 26,
    2000); *GTE Corporation, Transferor, and Bell Atlantic Corporation,
    Transferee; For Consent to Transfer Control of Domestic and
    International Sections 214 and 310 Authorizations and Application to
    Transfer Control of a Submarine Cable Landing License*, CC Docket
    No. 98-184, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 00-221 (rel. June 16,
    2000); *Aerial Communications Inc,* *Transferor, and VoiceStream
    Wireless Holding Corporation, Transferee, For Consent to Transfer of
    Control of Licenses and Authorizations*, WT Docket No. 00-3;
    *Voicestream PCS III License L.L.C., Waiver of Section 20.6 of the
    Commission\'s Rules and VoiceStream Wireless Corporation,
    VoiceStream Wireless Holding Corporation, Telephone and Data Systems
    Inc., and Aerial Communications, Inc., Request for Declaratory
    Ruling -- Compliance with Section 20.6 of the Commission\'s Rules*,
    File No. CWD 98-89, Memorandum opinion and Order, DA 00-730 (WTB/IB
    rel. Mar. 31, 2000); *Vodafone AirTouch, Plc, and Bell Atlantic
    Corporation, For Consent to Transfer of Control or Assignment of
    Licenses and Authorizations*, File Nos. 0000032969, *et al*., DA
    99-2451, File Nos. 0000046624, 0000046639, WTB Rpt No. 371,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 00-721 (WTB/IB rel. Mar. 30, 2000).

[^26]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.948(b)(1) (providing that "\[a\] change from less
    than 50% ownership to 50% or more ownership shall always be
    considered a transfer of control.").

[^27]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.948(b)(2).

[^28]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.948(c)(1) ("In the case of a non-substantial
    (*pro forma*) transfer or assignment involving a telecommunications
    carrier as defined in § 153(44) of the Communications Act, filing of
    the Form 603 and Commission approval in advance of the proposed
    transaction is not required . . . .").

[^29]: *See, e.g., Federal Communications Bar Association's Petition for
    Forbearance from Section 310(d) of the Communications Act Regarding
    Non-Substantial Assignments of Wireless Licenses and Transfers of
    Control Involving Telecommunications Carriers*, Memorandum Opinion
    and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 6293, 6297-99, ¶¶ 7-9 (1998) (*FCBA
    Forbearance Order*); *see also* Stephen F. Sewell, Assignments and
    Transfers of Control of FCC Authorizations Under Section 310(d) of
    the Communications Act of 1934, 43 Fed. Comm. L.J. 277 (1991).

[^30]: *See* *FCBA Forbearance Order*. The assignment and transfer of
    control rules for the various wireless services were later
    consolidated into a single rule, Section 1.948, in the Commission
    proceeding to facilitate the development and use of the Universal
    Licensing System (ULS). *See* *Biennial Regulatory Review --
    Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 13, 22, 24, 26, 27, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97, and
    101 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Development and Use
    of the Universal Licensing System in the Wireless Telecommunications
    Services*, 13 FCC Rcd 21027 at ¶ 109 (1998). In the *FCBA
    Forbearance Order*, the Commission granted the FCBA petition seeking
    forbearance from the application of the prior notification and
    approval requirements for *pro forma* assignments and transfers of
    control of licenses for all wireless telecommunications carriers:
    carriers licensed under Part 21 (domestic public fixed radio
    services), Part 22 (public mobile radio service), Part 24 (personal
    communications services), Part 27 (wireless communications
    services), Part 90 (private land mobile radio service), and Part 101
    (fixed microwave services) of the Commission's rules. *FCBA
    Forbearance Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 6306 ¶¶ 23-24.

[^31]: *See* *FCBA Forbearance Order,*13 FCC Rcd at 6297-98 ¶ 7; *see
    also* Black's Law Dictionary 382 (5^th^ ed. 1979) (defining *de
    jure* as "\[d\]escriptive of a condition in which there has been
    total compliance with all requirements of law; of right; legitimate;
    lawful.").

[^32]: *See FCBA Forbearance Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 6297-98 ¶ 7; *see
    also* Black\'s Law Dictionary 374 (5^th^ ed. 1979) (defining *de
    facto* as \"in fact, in deed, actual.\")

[^33]: *See FCBA Forbearance Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 6297-98 ¶ 7; *see,
    e.g., Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and International Bureau
    Complete Review of Proposed Investment by Telefonos de Mexico, S.A.
    de C.V. in Parent of Cellular Communications of Puerto Rico*, Public
    Notice, DA 99-2286 (rel. Oct. 29, 1999) (finding that the transfer
    of control was *pro forma* because specific facts showed there was
    no change in de facto control, despite the change in *de jure*
    control when Telmex acquired a 50% interest in Cellular
    Communications of Puerto Rico).

[^34]: *See FCBA Forbearance Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 6298-99 ¶ 8.

[^35]: *See FCBA Forbearance Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 6298-99 ¶ 8.

[^36]: We note that the proposed rule amends our process only with
    respect to assignments and transfers of control of international
    Section 214 authorizations and does not affect the process with
    respect to assignments and transfers of control of cable landing
    licenses, which continue to be governed by Section 1.767.

[^37]: *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*).

[^38]: *See* *Benchmarks Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 19806 ¶ 2.

[^39]: The condition is codified at 47 C.F.R. § 63.10(e).

[^40]: 47 C.F.R. § 43.61.

[^41]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.19.

[^42]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.500. *See Streamlining the International Section
    214 Authorization Process and Tariff* *Requirements*, IB Docket No.
    95-118, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 12,884, 12,905 ¶ 50 (1996)
    (*1996 Streamlining Order*).

[^43]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.10.

[^44]: *See Rules and Policies on Foreign Participation in the U.S.
    Telecommunications Market*, IB Docket No. 97-142, *Market Entry and
    Regulation of Foreign-Affiliated Entities*, IB Docket No. 95-22,
    Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 23891,
    23987, ¶ 215 (1997) (*Foreign Participation* *Order*) *recon*. FCC
    00-339 (rel. Sep. 19, 2000). Section 63.09(e) of the rules provides,
    inter alia, that \"\[t\]wo entities are affiliated with each other
    if one of them, or an entity that controls one of them, directly or
    indirectly owns more than 25 percent of the capital stock of, or
    controls, the other one.\" 47 C.F.R. § 63.09(e).

[^45]: *See Foreign Participation Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 23987 n. 434*.*

[^46]: Comsat is the only U.S. international carrier that continues to
    be regulated as dominant on particular routes in its provision of
    particular services due to the existence of market power on the U.S.
    end of those routes. *See Petition Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, for Forbearance from
    Dominant Carrier Regulation and for Reclassification as a
    Non-Dominant Carrier,* File No. 60-SAT-ISP-97, *Policies and Rules
    for Alternative Incentive Based Regulation of Comsat* *Corporation*,
    IB Docket No. 98-60, Order and Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 13
    FCC Rcd 14083 (1998) (*Comsat Reclassification Order*).

[^47]: *See 1996 Streamlining Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 12890 ¶ 13.

[^48]: *Foreign Participation Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 23987 n.434 (citing
    *Regulatory Treatment of LEC Provision* *of Interexchange Services
    Originating in the LEC\'s Local Exchange Area and Policy and Rules
    Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace*, Second Report
    and Order in CC Docket No. 96-149 and Third Report and Order in CC
    Docket No. 96-61, 12 FCC Rcd 15756, 15804-5 ¶¶ 85-86 (*LEC
    Regulatory Treatment Order*)); *Motion of AT&T Corp. to be Declared
    Non-Dominant for International* *Service*, Order, 11 FCC Rcd 17963,
    17972-73 ¶¶ 26-28 (1996) (AT&T International Non-Dominance Order),
    *recon. denied*, 13 FCC Rcd 21501; *Petition of GTE Hawaiian
    Telephone Company, Inc. for* *Reclassification as a Non-dominant
    IMTS Carrier*, Order, 11 FCC Rcd 20354, 20357 ¶ 8 (IB 1996) (*GTE*
    *Hawaii Non-Dominance Order*).

[^49]: *Foreign Participation Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 23987 n.434 (quoting
    *LEC Regulatory Treatment Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 15804 ¶ 85).

[^50]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 63.09 note 2, 63.18 note 4.

[^51]: *See Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc., Application
    for Authority Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of
    1934, as Amended, for Authority to Operate as an International
    Facilities-Based and Resale Carrier*, File No.
    ITC-214-20000127-00027, 15 FCC Rcd 11718 at ¶ 21(TD/IB 2000) (citing
    *Amendment of the Commission\'s Rules to Establish New Narrowband
    Personal* *Communications Services*, Gen Docket No. 90-314, ET
    Docket No. 92-100, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd
    4519, 4522 ¶ 16 (1994)).

[^52]: We note this interpretation is consistent with the rules for CMRS
    licensees. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 20.6(d)(8), 24.101(b).

[^53]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.21(h). *See 1996 Streamlining Order*, 11 FCC Rcd
    at 12905 ¶¶ 49-50.

[^54]: *See AT&T International Non-Dominance Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 17963;
    *GTE Hawaii Non-Dominance Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 20354.

[^55]: *See Comsat Reclassification Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 14083.

[^56]: *Id*.

[^57]: 47 C.F.R. § 43.81.

[^58]: *See Regulatory Policies and International Telecommunications*,
    CC Docket No. 86-494, Order on Reconsideration, 4 FCC Rcd 323, 337
    ¶¶ 75 (1989).

[^59]: *See Regulatory Policies and International Telecommunications*,
    CC Docket No. 86-494, Report and Order and Supplemental Notice of
    Inquiry, 4 FCC Rcd 7387, 7430, ¶ 80, 7446, Appendix B (1988).

[^60]: *See Regulatory Policies and International Telecommunications*,
    CC Docket No. 86-494, Order on Reconsideration, 4 FCC Rcd 323, 337
    ¶¶ 72-73 (1989).

[^61]: *Id.* at ¶ 73.

[^62]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.22.

[^63]: *1998 International Biennial Review Order*¸14 FCC Rcd at 4933 ¶
    58.

[^64]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.22(b).

[^65]: As discussed above, a global international Section 214
    authorization enables a facilities-based common carrier to use any
    facilities except those listed on the Exclusion List. Originally,
    all non-U.S.-licensed satellites were included in the Exclusion
    List. Subsequently, the Commission developed the Permitted Space
    Station List to streamline Title III earth station licensing
    procedures. Originally, an ALSAT Title III earth station license
    authorized the earth station operator to communicate with all
    U.S.-licensed satellites, but was required to apply for a
    modification to its license to communicate with a non-U.S.-licensed
    satellite. Now, an ALSAT earth station operator may communicate with
    all U.S. satellites, and all non-U.S.-licensed satellites on the
    \"Permitted Space Station List.\" For more information on the
    Permitted List, see *Amendment of the* *Commission\'s Regulatory
    Policies to Allow Non-U.S. Licensed Space Stations to Provide
    Domestic and* *International Satellite Service in the United
    States*, First Order on Reconsideration, IB Docket No. 96-111, 15
    FCC Rcd 7207 (1999).

[^66]: Specifically, the International Bureau interprets the Exclusion
    List to exclude any non-U.S.-licensed satellite that has been added
    to the Permitted Station List. Thus, a facilities-based common
    carrier with a global international Section 214 authorization is
    authorized to use non-U.S.-licensed satellites on the Permitted
    Station List*. See International Bureau Announces Process for
    Providing Service Under Global International Section 214
    Authorizations Using Approved Non-U.S.-Licensed Satellite Systems
    Listed on the Permitted Space Station List*, Public Notice, DA
    99-2844 (rel. Dec. 17, 1999).

[^67]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.09.

[^68]: *1998 International Biennial Review Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4941 ¶
    78.

[^69]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.18.

[^70]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.18 Note 1.

[^71]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.09(b).

[^72]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.18 Note 2.

[^73]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.09(a).

[^74]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.18 Note 3.

[^75]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.03 Note 1.

[^76]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.18 Note 4.

[^77]: See 47 C.F.R. § 63.09 Note 2.

[^78]: *See ¶ 30, supra*.

[^79]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.20.

[^80]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.20(a).

[^81]: The Commission eliminated this category of applications in the
    1996 Streamlining Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 12891-92 ¶ 13*. See also
    Implementation of Section 402(b)(2)(A) of the Telecommunications Act
    of 1996, Petition for Forbearance of the Independent Telephone and
    Telecommunications Alliance*, Report and Order in CC Docket No.
    97-11 and Second Memorandum Opinion and Order in AAD File No. 98-43,
    14 FCC Rcd 11364, 11369 ¶ 7, 11386, Appendix B (1999) (eliminating
    section 63.03 relating to small projects for supplementing of
    facilities by dominant, domestic interstate and international
    carriers).

[^82]: 47 C.F.R. § 63.53(b).

[^83]: *See* *International Bureau On-Line Reports and Electronic Filing
    Pilot Program*, Report No. IBFS-99-0001, Public Notice (Feb. 10,
    1999). Information about the IBFS may also be found on the
    Commission\'s web-site at www.fcc.gov/ib.

[^84]: *See generally* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).

[^85]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415 and 1.419.

[^86]: *See* *Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings*,
    GC Docket No. 97-113, Report and Orde*r*, 13 FCC Rcd 11322 (1998).

[^87]: 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et. seq*., amended by the Contract with America
    Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996)
    (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory
    Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^88]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^89]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^90]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et seq*.,
    has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of
    the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^91]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^92]: *Id*.

[^93]: Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).

[^94]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 151 *et seq.*

[^95]: 47 U.S.C. § 161.

[^96]: 47 U.S.C. § 161(a)(2).

[^97]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^98]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^99]: 5 U.S.C. § 632.

[^100]: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 Census
    of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities: Establishment and
    Firm Size, at Firm Size 1‑123 (1995).

[^101]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
    Code 4812.

[^102]: Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).

[^103]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 151 *et seq.*

[^104]: 47 U.S.C. § 161.

[^105]: 47 U.S.C. § 161(a)(2).

[^106]: *See* Federal Communications Commission, Biennial Regulatory
    Review 2000, Staff Report, September 19, 2000, CC Docket 00-175;
    Biennial Review 2000 Staff Report Released, Public Notice, FCC
    00-346 (rel. Sep. 19, 2000).