Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 214 / Friday, November 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules 66215

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’)

Dated: October 30, 2000.

Margaret E. Lawless,

Deputy Associate Director for Mitigation.

[FR Doc. 00–28258 Filed 11–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–04–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 20, 42, 61, 63, and 64

[IB Docket No. 00–202, FCC 00–367]

Policy and Rules Concerning the

International Interexchange

Marketplace and 2000 Biennial

Regulatory Review

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rule making.

SUMMARY: This document solicits

comments on whether the Commission

should continue to require U.S. nondominant interexchange carriers to file

tariffs for international services

pursuant to the requirements of the

Communications Act. The Commission

initiated this proceeding to determine

whether to extend the complete

detariffing regime that it adopted for

domestic, interexchange services to the

international services of non-dominant

interexchange carriers, including U.S.

carriers classified as dominant due to

foreign affiliations. The Commission

believes that these proposals will foster

competition in the U.S. international

services market and bring lower rates to

U.S. consumers.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

November 17, 2000, and reply

comments are due on or before

December 4, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Secretary, 445 12th Street,

SW., Room TW–B204F, Washington, DC

20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa

Choi, Policy and Facilities Branch,

Telecommunications Division,

International Bureau, (202) 418–1460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, FCC 00–367,

adopted on October 12, 2000, and

released on October 18, 2000. The full

text of this document is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the Office of Media

Relations, Reference Operations

Division, (Room CY–A257) of the

Federal Communications Commission,

445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC

20554. The document is also available

for download over the Internet at http:/

/www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/

Notices/2000//fcc00367.doc. The

complete text of this document also may

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractor, International

Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036,

(202) 857–3800.

This NPRM contains proposed

information collections subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(PRA). It will be submitted to the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) for

review under the PRA. OMB, the

general public, and other Federal

agencies will be invited to comment on

the proposed information collections

contained in this proceeding.

Summary of Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

1. In 1996, the Commission adopted

policies and rules regarding the

detariffing of domestic interexchange

services (Domestic Detariffing Order)

(61 FR 59340, November 22, 1996). In

the Domestic Detariffing Order, the

Commission concluded that complete

detariffing with limited exceptions for

permissive detariffing, satisfies the

criteria set forth in section 10(a) of the

Communications Act. The Commission

made no determination as to whether

detariffing international, interexchange

services satisfied the requirements of

section 10, as competitive conditions in

the international marketplace may vary

from those in the domestic

interexchange marketplace.

2. On October 12, 2000, the

Commission adopted a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to

determine whether competitive

conditions in the international

interexchange marketplace support

detariffing non-dominant carriers’

provision of international services in

accordance with the criteria in section

10 of the Communications Act of 1996.

The Commission initiated this

proceeding in response to the

Communications Act of 1996, which

requires the Commission to review all

regulations 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. Since adopting the

Domestic Detariffing Order, there have

been dramatic changes in the market for

international interexchange services

resulting in increased competition.

Thus, the Commission commenced this

proceeding to examine whether to

continue to require U.S. non-dominant

interexchange carriers to file tariffs for

international services pursuant to the

requirements of section 203 of the Act.

The Commission solicits comments on

all of the proposals and tentative

conclusions contained in the NPRM.

3. The NPRM seeks comment on the

Commission’s tentative conclusion that

the Communications Act requires it to

forbear from applying section 203 of the

Act and to adopt a policy of complete

detariffing for international

interexchange services with limited

exceptions for permissive detariffing.

The NPRM seeks comment on the

Commission’s determination that its

proposals meet the statutory forbearance

criteria of section 10 of the

Communications Act.

4. The NPRM solicits comment on the

Commission’s tentative conclusion that

tariff filing requirements are not

necessary to ensure that the charges,

practices, classifications or regulations

for the international interexchange

services of non-dominant interexchange

carriers are just and reasonable, and are

not unjustly or unreasonably

discriminatory. The NPRM also solicits

comment on whether there remains a

justification to retain tariffs on certain

routes on which sufficient competition

may not exist. The Commission

tentatively concludes that its policies

and enforcement authority, in

conjunction with market forces will

generally ensure that the rates,

practices, and classifications of nondominant interexchange carriers for

international interexchange services

will be just and reasonable and not

unjustly or unreasonably

discriminatory.

5. Comments are requested on the

Commission’s tentative conclusion that

tariffs are not necessary for the

protection of consumers of

interexchange services. The

Commission tentatively concludes that

tariffs are not necessary for the

protection of consumers. Rather, the

Commission believes that tariff filing

requirements may harm consumers by

undermining the development of

competition and possibly leading to

higher rates by stifling price reductions

66216 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 214 / Friday, November 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules

and marketing innovations. The

Commission tentatively concludes that

detariffing will benefit consumers by

permitting carriers to respond to price

and service changes in an unregulated

manner. The NPRM also discusses the

‘‘filed-rate’’ doctrine and seeks comment

on the Commission’s tentative

conclusion that only with complete

detariffing can the Commission be

certain to avoid the uncertainty,

confusion, and potential harm to

consumers associated with the ‘‘filerate’’ doctrine. The NPRM seeks

comment on whether detariffing will

protect consumer harm.

6. The NPRM also seeks comment on

the Commission’s tentative conclusion

that complete detariffing for

international interexchange services

will enhance competition among

providers of such services, promote

competitive market conditions, and

achieve other objectives that are in the

public interest. The NPRM sets forth the

Commission’s analysis on the benefits of

complete detariffing and how it meets

the statutory forbearance criteria, and

comments are requested on these issues

whether complete detariffing is in the

public interest. In the Domestic

Detariffing Order, the Commission

found that permissive detariffing, as

opposed to complete detariffing,

satisfied the public interest and is

warranted in two instances: (1)

international interexchange direct-dial

services to which end-users obtain

access by dialing a carrier access code;

and (2) international interexchange

services provided during the initial

forty-five days of service or until there

is a written contract between the carrier

and the customer. The NPRM addresses

these exceptions, and comments are

solicited on the Commission’s

conclusions and whether there are

limited exceptions for permissive

detariffing.

7. The Commission believes that

consumers must have adequate

information concerning carriers’ rates,

terms and conditions to ensure carrier

compliance with requirements and for

consumers to determine the most

appropriate rate plans available. The

Commission proposes to require nondominant interexchange providers of

international services to disclose

information about their rates, terms and

conditions to the public, maintain price

and service information regarding the

international offerings that can be

submitted to the agency upon request,

and post information about their

offerings on their Internet websites. The

Commission proposes that carriers

provide the same information that is

currently provided in tariffs, and the

information must be available to the

public in at least one location during

regular business hours. The Commission

also proposes that carriers with Internet

websites post this information on-line in

a timely and easily accessible manner

with regular updates. The NPRM solicits

comments on the proposals regarding

maintenance of price and service

information and the public disclosure

requirements.

8. The NPRM also addresses the issue

of price squeeze behavior, and it seeks

comment on whether complete

detariffing will affect the Commission’s

ability to monitor potential price

squeeze behavior on international routes

where U.S. carriers are affiliated with

foreign carriers that possess market

power.

9. The NPRM also seeks comments on

the proposal that the Commission revisit

its previous conclusion that permissive

detariffing of CMRS providers of

international services on unaffiliated

routes is in the public notice.

10. The NPRM discusses the carrierto-carrier contract filing requirement in

§ 43.51 of the Commission’s rules and

solicits comments on the Commission’s

tentative conclusions and proposals to

limit the requirement to contracts

between an authorized carrier and: (1)

An authorized carrier classified as

dominant for reasons other than a

foreign affiliation; and (2) a foreign

carrier possessing market power.

Procedural Matters

11. Ex Parte Presentations. This

proceeding shall be treated as a ‘‘permitbut-disclose’’ proceeding in accordance

with the Commission’s Ex Parte rules.

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. Other rules pertaining to oral

and written presentations are set for

section 1.120(b) of the Commission’s

rules as well.

12. Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis. As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603, the

Commission has prepared this present

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA) of the possible significant

economic impact on small entities by

the policies and rules proposed in this

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

herein, including this IRFA, to the Chief

Counsel for the Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration. In addition,

the NPRM and IRFA comments will be

published in the Federal Register.

13. Need for, and Objectives, of, the

Proposed Rules: The Commission is

issuing this NPRM to review our

regulatory regime for international

interexchange telecommunications

services, and to implement certain

provisions of the 1996 Act. In light of

the dramatic changes in the market for

international interexchange services

resulting from increased privatization

and liberalization of foreign markets, the

World Trade Organization (WTO) Basic

Telecom Agreement, decreasing

settlement rates and increased

competition in the U.S. international

services market, we believe it is timely

for us to review our requirement that

U.S. carriers file tariffs for international

interexchange services under section

203 of the Act. Because tariffs can limit

the flexibility necessary for all U.S.

carriers, including smaller carriers, to

offer new services in a competitive

market and may harm consumers

through the effect of the ‘‘filed rate

doctrine,’’ we propose requiring

complete or mandatory detariffing, with

limited exceptions, in this NPRM for the

international interexchange services

provided by non-dominant carriers.

Complete detariffing will reduce

carriers’ filing costs, and, on balance,

the public disclosure and maintenance

of information requirements proposed

in this item are minimal and do not

outweigh the benefits to all U.S. carriers

and U.S. consumers to be gained from

detariffing. The objective of the NPRM

is to provide an opportunity for public

comment and to provide a record for a

Commission decision on the issues

stated above.

14. Legal Basis: We tentatively

conclude that section 10 of the

Communications Act requires the

Commission to forbear completely from

the tariff requirements contained in

section 203 of the Communications Act.

In addition, section 11 of the

Communications Act directs the

Commission to undertake a biennial

review of its regulations concerning the

operations or activities of any provider

of telecommunications services. Thus,

the NPRM is adopted pursuant to

sections 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 201–205, 218,

220, 226, 303(g), 303(r) and 332 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended. 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 160,

161, 201–205, 215, 218, 220, 226, 303(g),

303(r) and 332.

15. Description and Estimate of the

Number of Small Entities To Which the

Proposed Rules Will Apply: The RFA

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 214 / Friday, November 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules 66217

directs agencies to provide a description

of, and, where feasible, an estimate of

the number of small entities that may be

affected by the proposed rules, if

adopted. 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. 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. Any rule changes that might occur

as a result of this proceeding could

impact entities which are small business

entities, as defined in section 601(3) of

the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The

proposed rules in this NPRM will

reduce regulatory burdens on all nondominant providers of international

interexchange services, including small

business entities.

16. 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. According to the SBA’s

definition, a wireline telephone

company is a small business if it

employs no more than 1,500 persons.

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.

17. Specifically, the proposals

contained in the NPRM apply to entities

seeking authorization to provide

international service. The proposals,

however, may affect other entities as

well. The Commission, therefore,

encourages interested parties to

comment on the proposals in the NPRM.

The proposals contained in the NPRM

are intended to improve market

efficiency by permitting carriers to

respond to the dynamics of the

marketplace and further the goals of the

Communications Act. At this time, we

are not certain as to the number of small

entities that will be affected by the

proposals. Agency data indicates there

has been a steady increase in the

number of section 214 applications filed

with the Commission. The total number

of licensees is difficult to determine,

because many licenses are jointly held

by several licensees. Based on agency

data, we would estimate that there

could be 800 applicants that might be a

small entity.

18. Description of Projected

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other

Compliance Requirements: We believe

that the proposed rules will reduce

significantly the reporting burdens

placed on small entities. The proposed

rules would eliminate the requirement

of filing tariffs for non-dominant

interexchange carriers. These carriers

would be required to retain business

records containing price and service

information regarding their

international interexchange offerings.

This information, however, is

maintained by carriers in the normal

course of business. The proposed rules

only impose a requirement that

providers of international interexchange

services maintain this information for a

period of at least two years and six

months. It is likely that carriers

maintain this information for this

specific time period, as a normal

business practice.

19. We propose that carriers adopt a

public disclosure requirement to make

information available to the public

concerning current rates, terms, and

conditions for all of their international

interexchange services, in at least one

location during regular business hours.

For those carriers with Internet

websites, we propose that the carriers

make the information available on their

websites. In lieu of tariffs, the public

disclosure requirement will ensure that

the information is readily available to

the public in an accessible format.

20. The rules also propose to modify

the requirement for filing carrier-tocarrier contracts, thereby reducing the

filing burden on most carriers. We

propose to simplify and modify our

rules and set forth specific criteria that

would trigger the carrier contract filing

requirement.

21. The proposals should enhance

competition among providers of

services, promote competitive market

conditions and achieve benefits for the

consumers while reducing the

regulatory burdens on all non-dominant

providers of international interexchange

services, including small business

entities.

22. 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.

23. We believe that the proposals will

facilitate the development of increased

competition in the international

telecommunications marketplace and

provide more flexibility for carriers to

respond to the dynamics of the

marketplace. Accounting rate reform

policies, market forces, and increased

competitive entry into the U.S. market

have led to substantial reductions in

consumer rates for international

interexchange services. We believe that

tariffs are no longer necessary to ensure

that charges, practices, classification or

regulations are just and reasonable and

are not unjustly or unreasonably

discriminatory. In addition, we believe

that our proposals will contribute to

market efficiency by permitting carriers

to respond to the dynamics of the

marketplace.

24. In considering alternatives for

small entities, we believe that the

proposals contained in the NPRM are

the least burdensome on small entities.

We do not propose to standardize the

requirements because the information is

unique to the carrier and may be

maintained in a manner that is

consistent with the carrier’s business

practices. We propose to reduce the

administrative costs to small entities by

eliminating the tariff filing requirement.

In addition, the public disclosure

requirement should not impose burdens

on small entities because the

information is maintained in the normal

course of business.

25. In this NPRM, we are proposing to

extend the policies and rules regarding

the detariffing of domestic

interexchange services to the

international interexchange services of

non-dominant carriers. We request

comment on whether small entities

would be adversely affected by the

proposals herein and whether the

proposals will enable small entities to

respond to the demands of the market

66218 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 214 / Friday, November 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules

with minimum regulatory oversight,

delays, and expenses. We believe that

our proposals would have either no

impact, or would reduce, any economic

burdens on small entities. After

evaluating the comments in this

proceeding, the Commission will further

examine the impact of any rule changes

on small entities and set forth findings

in the Final Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis.

26. Federal Rules Which Overlap,

Duplicate or Conflict with the

Commission’s Proposal: None.

27. Paperwork Reduction Act. The

NPRM contains either new or modified

information collections subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(PRA). The Commission will submit the

proposed information collections to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review under the PRA. Upon

submission to OMB, comments from

OMB, the general public, and other

federal agencies will be invited on the

proposed information collections

contained in the proceeding.

Ordering Clauses

28. Pursuant to sections 1, 4, 10, 11,

201–205, 211, 218, 220, 226, 303(g),

303(r) and 332 of the Communications

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–

154, 160, 161, 201–205, 211, 218, 220,

226, 303(g), 303(r) and 332 the Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking is hereby

adopted.

29. The Commission’s Consumer

Information Bureau, Reference

Information Center, shall send a copy of

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

including the regulatory flexibility

certification, to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration, in accordance with

paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, Public Law 96–354, 94

Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (1981).

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 20

Communications common carriers.

47 CFR Parts 42, 61, 63, and 64

Communications common carriers,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

Proposed Rule Changes

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Federal Communications

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR

parts 20, 42, 61, 63 and 64 as follows:

PART 20—COMMERCIAL MOBILE

RADIO SERVICES

1. The authority citation for part 20

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 160, 251–254,

303, and 332 unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 20.15 is amended by

revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to read

as follows:

§ 20.15 Requirements under Title II of the

Communications Act.

* * * * *

(c) Commercial mobile radio service

providers shall not file tariffs for

international and interstate service to

their customers, international and

interstate access service, or international

and interstate operator service. Sections

1.771–1.773 and part 61 of this chapter

are not applicable to international and

interstate services provided by

commercial mobile radio service

providers. Commercial mobile radio

service providers shall cancel tariffs for

international and interstate service to

their customers, international and

interstate access service, and

international and interstate operator

service.

(d) Nothing in this section shall be

construed to modify the Commission’s

rules and policies on the provision of

international service under Part 63 of

this chapter. A commercial mobile radio

service provider is required to comply

with the requirement in § 42.11 if it

provides international service to

markets where it has an affiliation with

a foreign carrier that possesses market

power and that collects settlement

payments from U.S. carriers. For

purposes of this paragraph, affiliation is

defined in § 63.18(h)(1)(i) of this

chapter.

* * * * *

PART 42—PRESERVATION OF

RECORDS OF COMMUNICATIONS

COMMON CARRIERS

3. The authority citation for part 42

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Section 4(i), 48 Stat. 1066, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(I). Interprets or

applies sections 219 and 220, 48 Stat. 1077–

78, 47 U.S.C. 219, 220.

4. Section 42.10 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 42.10 Public availability of information

concerning interexchange services.

(a) A nondominant interexchange

carrier (IXC) shall make available to any

member of the public, in at least one

location, during regular business hours,

information concerning its current rates,

terms and conditions for all of its

international and interstate, domestic,

interexchange services. Such

information shall be made available in

an easy to understand format and in a

timely manner. Following an inquiry or

complaint from the public concerning

rates, terms and conditions for such

services, a carrier shall specify that such

information is available and the manner

in which the public may obtain the

information.

* * * * *

5. Section 42.11 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 42.11 Retention of information

concerning detariffed interexchange

services.

(a) A nondominant IXC shall

maintain, for submission to the

Commission and to state regulatory

commissions upon request, price and

service information regarding all of the

carrier’s international and interstate,

domestic, interexchange service

offerings. A commercial mobile radio

service provider of international service

shall only maintain such price and

service information about its

international service offerings and only

for those routes on which the

commercial mobile radio service

provider is affiliated with a foreign

carrier that possesses market power. The

price and service information

maintained for purposes of this

paragraph shall include documents

supporting the rates, terms, and

conditions of the carrier’s international

and interstate, domestic, interexchange

offerings. The information maintained

pursuant to this section shall be

maintained in a manner that allows the

carrier to produce such records within

ten business days.

* * * * *

PART 43—REPORTS OF

COMMUNICATION COMMON

CARRIERS AND CERTAIN AFFILIATES

6. The authority citation for part 43

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154;

Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law

104–104, sec. 402(b)(2)(B), (c), 110 Stat. 56

(1996) as amended unless otherwise noted.

47 U.S.C. 211, 219, 220 as amended.

7. Section 43.51 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 43.51 Contracts and concessions.

(a) (1) Any carrier set forth in

paragraph (b) of this section must file

with the Commission within 30 days of

execution a copy of each contract,

agreement, concession, license,

authorization, operating agreement or

other arrangement to which it is a party

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 214 / Friday, November 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules 66219

and amendments thereto with respect to

the following:

(i) The exchange of services; and,

(ii) The interchange or routing of

traffic and matters concerning rates,

accounting rates, division of tolls, or the

basis of settlement of traffic balances,

except as provided in paragraph (c) of

this section.

(2) If the contract, agreement,

concession, license, authorization,

operating agreement or other

arrangement and amendments thereto is

made other than in writing, a certified

statement covering all details thereof

must be filed by at least one of the

parties to the agreement. Each other

party to the agreement which is also

subject to these provisions may, in lieu

of also filing a copy of the agreement,

file a certified statement referencing the

filed document. The Commission may,

at any time and upon reasonable

request, require any communication

common carrier not subject to the

provisions of this section to submit the

documents referenced in this section.

(b) The following carriers must

comply with the requirements of

paragraph (a) of this section:

(1) A communications common

carrier that is engaged in domestic

communications and has not been

classified as non-dominant pursuant to

§ 61.3 of this chapter,

(2) A U.S. common carrier, other than

a provider of commercial mobile radio

services, that enters into a contract,

agreement, concession, license,

authorization, operating agreement or

other arrangement and amendments

thereto with a foreign carrier that has

market power in a foreign market, or

(3) A U.S. carrier that has been

classified as dominant on any of the

international routes included in the

contract, except for carriers classified as

dominant on a particular route due only

to a foreign carrier affiliation under

§ 63.10 of this chapter.

(c) With respect to contracts coming

within the scope of paragraph (a)(1)(ii)

of this section between subject

telephone carriers and connecting

carriers, except those contracts related

to communications with foreign or

overseas points, such documents shall

not be filed with the Commission; but

each subject telephone carrier shall

maintain a copy of such contracts to

which it is a party in appropriate files

at a central location upon its premises,

copies of which shall be readily

accessible to Commission staff and

members of the public upon reasonable

request therefor; and upon request by

the Commission, a subject telephone

carrier shall promptly forward

individual contracts to the Commission.

(d) Any U.S. carrier that interconnects

an international private line to the U.S.

public switched network, at its switch,

including any switch in which the

carrier obtains capacity either through

lease or otherwise, shall file annually

with the Chief of the International

Bureau a certified statement containing

the number and type (e.g., a 64-kbps

circuit) of private lines interconnected

in such a manner. The certified

statement shall specify the number and

type of interconnected private lines on

a country specific basis. The identity of

the customer need not be reported, and

the Commission will treat the country of

origin information as confidential.

Carriers need not file their contracts for

such interconnections, unless they are

specifically requested to do so. These

reports shall be filed on a consolidated

basis on February 1 (covering

international private lines

interconnected during the preceding

January 1 to December 31 period) of

each year. International private lines to

countries for which the Commission has

authorized the provision of switched

basic services over private lines at any

time during a particular reporting

period are exempt from this

requirement.

(e) International settlements policy.

(1) If a U.S. carrier files an operating

agreement (whether in the form of a

contract, concession, license, etc.) with

a foreign carrier with market power in

that foreign market to begin providing

switched voice, telex, telegraph, or

packet-switched service between the

United States and a foreign point and

the terms and conditions of such

agreement relating to the exchange of

services, interchange or routing of traffic

and matters concerning rates,

accounting rates, division of tolls, the

allocation of return traffic, or the basis

of settlement of traffic balances, are not

identical to the equivalent terms and

conditions in the operating agreement of

another carrier providing the same or

similar service between the United

States and the same foreign point, the

carrier must also file with the

International Bureau a modification

request § 64.1001 of this chapter. Unless

a carrier is providing switched voice,

telex, telegraph, or packet-switched

service between the United States and a

foreign point pursuant to an operating

agreement that is exempt from the

international settlements policy, the

carrier shall not bargain for or agree to

accept more than its proportionate share

of return traffic.

(2) If a carrier files an amendment to

an existing operating agreement with a

foreign carrier with market power in

that foreign market to provide switched

voice, telex, telegraph, or packetswitched service between the United

States and a foreign point, and other

carriers provide the same or similar

service to the same foreign point, and

the amendment relates to the exchange

of services, interchange or routing of

traffic and matters concerning rates,

accounting rates, division of tolls, the

allocation of return traffic, or the basis

of settlement of traffic balances, the

carrier must also file with the

International Bureau a modification

request § 64.1001 of this chapter.

(3) A carrier that enters into a

contract, including an operating

agreement, with a carrier in a foreign

point for the provision of a common

carrier service between the United

States and that point is not subject to

the requirements of this subsection if

the foreign point appears on the

Commission’s list of international routes

that the Commission has exempted from

the international settlements policy.

Note to § 43.51(e)(3): The Commission’s list

of international routes exempted from the

international settlements policy is available

from the International Bureau’s World Wide

Web site at http://www.fcc.gov/ib. A party

that seeks to add a foreign market to the list

of markets that are exempt from the

international settlements policy must show

that U.S. carriers are able to terminate at least

50 percent of U.S.-billed traffic in the foreign

market at rates that are at least 25 percent

below the benchmark settlement rate adopted

for that country in IB Docket No. 96–261,

Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 19,806, 62 FR

45758 (Aug. 29, 1997). A party that seeks to

remove a foreign market from the list of

markets that are exempt from the

international settlements policy must show

that U.S. carriers are unable to terminate at

least 50 percent of U.S.-billed traffic in the

foreign market at rates that are at least 25

percent below the benchmark settlement rate

adopted for that country in IB Docket No. 96–

261.

(f) Confidential treatment. (1) A

carrier providing service on an

international route that is exempt from

the international settlements policy

under paragraph (e)(3) of this section,

but that is otherwise required by

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section to

file a contract covering that route with

the Commission, may request

confidential treatment under § 0.457 of

this chapter for the rates, terms and

conditions that govern the settlement of

U.S. international traffic.

(2) Carriers requesting confidential

treatment under this paragraph must

include the information specified in

§ 64.1001(c) of this chapter. Such filings

shall be made with the Commission,

with a copy to the Chief, International

Bureau. The transmittal letter

accompanying the confidential filing

66220 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 214 / Friday, November 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules

shall clearly identify the filing as

responsive to § 43.51(f).

Note 1 to § 43.51: To the extent that a

foreign government provides

telecommunications services directly through

a governmental organization, body or agency,

it shall be treated as a carrier for the purposes

of this section.

Note 2 to § 43.51: Carriers may rely on the

Commission’s list of foreign carriers that do

not qualify for the presumption that they lack

market power in particular foreign points for

purposes of determining which foreign

carriers are subject to the contract filing

requirements set forth in this section. The

Commission’s list of foreign carriers that do

not qualify for the presumption that they lack

market power in particular foreign points is

available from the International Bureau’s

World Wide Web site at http://www.fcc.gov/

ib. The Commission will include on the list

of foreign carriers that do not qualify for the

presumption that they lack market power in

particular foreign points any foreign carrier

that has 50 percent or more market share in

the international transport or local access

markets of a foreign point. A party that seeks

to remove such a carrier from the

Commission’s list bears the burden of

submitting information to the Commission

sufficient to demonstrate that the foreign

carrier lacks 50 percent market share in the

international transport and local access

markets on the foreign end of the route or

that it nevertheless lacks sufficient market

power on the foreign end of the route to

affect competition adversely in the U.S.

market. A party that seeks to add a carrier to

the Commission’s list bears the burden of

submitting information to the Commission

sufficient to demonstrate that the foreign

carrier has 50 percent or more market share

in the international transport or local access

markets on the foreign end of the route or

that it nevertheless has sufficient market

power to affect competition adversely in the

U.S. market.

PART 61—TARIFFS

8. The authority citation for part 61

continues to read as follows:

Authority: sections 1, 4(I), 4(j), 201–205,

and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934,

as amended 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(I), 154(j),

201–205, and 403 unless otherwise noted.

9. Section 61.3 is amended by revising

paragraph (u) to read as follows:

§ 61.3 Definitions.

* * * * *

(u) Non-dominant carrier. A carrier

not found to be dominant. The

nondominant status of providers of

international interexchange services for

purposes of this subpart is not affected

by a carrier’s classification as dominant

as defined in § 63.10 of this chapter.

* * * * *

10. Section 61.19 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 61.19 Detariffing of international and

interstate, domestic interexchange

services.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in

paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, or

by Commission order, carriers that are

nondominant in the provision of

international and interstate, domestic

interexchange services shall not file

tariffs for such services.

(b) Carriers that are nondominant in

the provision of international and

domestic, interstate, interexchange

services are permitted to file tariffs for

dial-around 1+ services. For the

purposes of this paragraph, dial-around

1+ calls are those calls made by

accessing the interexchange carrier

through the use of that carrier’s carrier

access code.

(c) Carriers that are nondominant in

the provision of international and

domestic, interstate, interexchange

services are permitted to file a tariff for

such services applicable to those

customers who contact the local

exchange carrier to designate an

interexchange carrier or to initiate a

change with respect to their primary

interexchange carrier. Such tariff will

enable the interexchange carrier to

provide service to the customer until the

interexchange carrier and the customer

consummate a written agreement, but in

no event shall the interexchange carrier

provide service to its customer pursuant

to such tariff for more than 45 days.

11. Section 61.28 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 61.28 International dominant carrier tariff

filing requirements.

(a) Any carrier classified as dominant

for the provision of particular

international communications services

on a particular route for any reason

other than a foreign carrier affiliation

pursuant to § 63.10 of this chapter shall

file tariffs for those services pursuant to

the notice and cost support

requirements for tariff filings of

dominant domestic carriers, as set forth

in subpart E of this part.

(b) Other than the notice and cost

support requirements set forth in

paragraphs (a) of this section, all tariff

filing requirements applicable to all

carriers classified as dominant for the

provision of particular international

communications services on a particular

route for any reason other than a foreign

carrier affiliation pursuant to § 63.10 of

this chapter are set forth in subpart C of

this part.

12. Section 61.74 is amended by

removing paragraph (d) and

redesignating paragraphs (e) and (f) as

paragraphs (d) and (e).

PART 63—EXTENSION OF LINES, NEW

LINES AND DISCONTINUANCE,

REDUCTION, OUTAGE AND

IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE BY

COMMON CARRIERS; AND GRANTS

OF RECOGNIZED PRIVATE

OPERATING AGENCY STATUS

13. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Section 1, 4(I), 4(j), 10, 11, 201–

205, 214, 218, 403 and 651 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as amended,

47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 160, 201–205,

214, 218, 403, and 571, unless otherwise

noted.

14. Section 63.10 is amended by

revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as

follows:

§ 63.10 Regulatory classification of U.S.

international carriers.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) Authorized carriers regulated as

dominant for the provision of

international communications services

on a particular route for any reason

other than a foreign carrier affiliation

pursuant to this section shall file tariffs

for those services as set forth in § 61.28

of this chapter.

* * * * *

15. Section 63.17 is amended by

revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as

follows:

§ 63.17 Special provisions for U.S.

international common carriers.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) Authorized carriers filing tariffs

pursuant to §§ 61.19 or 61.28 of this

chapter that route U.S.-billed traffic via

switched hubbing shall tariff their

service on a ‘‘through’’ basis between

the United States and the ultimate point

of origination or termination;

* * * * *

16. Section 63.21 is amended by

revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read

as follows:

§ 63.21 Conditions applicable to all

international Section 214 authorizations.

* * * * *

(b) Carriers must file copies of

operating agreements entered into with

their foreign correspondents that

possess market power within 30 days of

their execution, and shall otherwise

comply with the filing requirements

contained in § 43.51 of this chapter.

(c) Carriers regulated as dominant for

the provision of international

communications services on a particular

route for any reason other than a foreign

carrier affiliation under § 63.10 shall file

tariffs pursuant to section 203 of the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 214 / Friday, November 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules 66221

Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 203,

and part 61 of this chapter. Carriers

regulated as non-dominant, as defined

in § 61.3 of this chapter, and providing

detariffed interexchange services

pursuant to § 61.19 of this chapter must

comply with all applicable public

disclosure, and maintenance of

information requirements in §§ 42.10,

and 42.11 of this chapter.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–28060 Filed 11–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–10–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Parts 224 and 226

[Docket No. 001025297-0297-01; I.D.

101000E]

RIN 0648-XA58

Listing Endangered and Threatened

Species and Designating Critical

Habitat: Petition To List Lower

Columbia River Coho Salmon

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of finding and request for

information.

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a petition

to list the lower Columbia River

populations of coho salmon

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) on an

emergency basis and to designate

critical habitat under the Endangered

Species Act (ESA). NMFS determines

that the petition presents substantial

scientific information indicating that a

listing may be warranted, but that there

is insufficient evidence to support an

emergency listing. NMFS solicits

information and comments pertaining to

these coho salmon populations and

their habitats, and seeks suggestions

from the public for peer reviewers for

any proposed listing determination that

may result from the agency’s status

review of the species.

DATES: Information and comments must

be received by January 2, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Information and comments

on this action should be submitted to

Chief, Protected Resources Division,

NMFS, 525 NE Oregon Street - Suite

500, Portland, OR 97232. Comments

will not be accepted if submitted via email or the Internet. However,

comments may be sent via fax to (503)

230-5435.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Garth Griffin, NMFS, Northwest Region,

(503) 231-2005 or Chris Mobley, NMFS,

Office of Protected Resources, (301) 713-

1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

Reference materials regarding this

rule can also be obtained from the

internet at www.nwr.noaa.gov.

Background

On July 24, 2000, NMFS received a

petition from Oregon Trout, Native Fish

Society, and Oregon Council of Trout

Unlimited to list wild populations of

lower Columbia River coho salmon as

endangered under the ESA. The

petitioners further requested that NMFS

list these populations on an emergency

basis and concurrently designate critical

habitat for them in accordance with the

ESA. Copies of this petition are

available from NMFS (See ADDRESSES).

Lower Columbia River coho salmon

populations have been the subject of

two previous ESA status reviews. The

first review resulted from a June 7, 1990,

petition from Oregon Trout and several

co-petitioners requesting ESA protection

for lower Columbia River coho salmon.

NMFS accepted the petition but later

determined that listing was not

warranted because available information

was inconclusive and did not allow the

agency to identify a distinct population

segment (hence a ‘‘species’’) under the

ESA (56 FR 29553, June 27, 1991). In

1993, NMFS received additional

petitions which prompted a more

comprehensive status review of coho

salmon in California, Oregon, Idaho,

Washington, and southern British

Columbia (60 FR 38011, July 25, 1995).

This status review identified six distinct

population segments (referred to as

Evolutionarily Significant Units or

‘‘ESUs’’) of coho salmon, three of which

were subsequently listed as threatened

species–the central California coast ESU

(61 FR 56138, October 31, 1996);

southern Oregon/northern California

coasts ESU (62 FR 24588, May 6, 1997),

and Oregon coast ESU (63 FR 42587,

August 10, 1998). NMFS determined

that listing was not warranted for three

other ESUs - the Olympic Peninsula

ESU, Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia

ESU, and southwest Washington/lower

Columbia River ESU - but that the latter

two ESUs should be classified as

candidate species due to specific risk

factors and concerns about the overall

health of the ESUs. The agency

committed to re-assessing these

candidate ESUs to determine if listing

proposals were warranted (60 FR 38011,

38022, July 25, 1995).

In 1996, NMFS’ West Coast Coho

Salmon Biological Review Team (BRT)

updated the 1995 status review and

produced a draft document that was

distributed to co-managers for review

and comment in December 1996 (NMFS,

1996). In this draft update, the BRT

reached preliminary conclusions

regarding the stock structure of coho

populations in the candidate ESUs.

With respect to Columbia River coho

salmon populations, the BRT concluded

that the southwest Washington/lower

Columbia River ESU may warrant

splitting into separate southwest

Washington and lower Columbia River

ESUs, but the level of risk faced by these

separate ESUs was still in question.

Since the time of these preliminary

conclusions, NMFS has continued to

update and compile data via meetings

with comanagers and coho salmon

experts in the Pacific Northwest but has

not proposed any changes to the ESA

status of the candidate ESUs.

Analysis of Petition

Section 4(b)(3) of the ESA contains

provisions concerning petitions from

interested persons requesting the

Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to

list species under the ESA (16 U.S.C.

1533(b)(3)(A)). Section 4(b)(3)(A)

requires that, to the maximum extent

practicable, within 90 days after

receiving such a petition, the Secretary

must make a finding whether the

petition presents substantial scientific

information indicating that the

petitioned action may be warranted.

This includes determining whether

there is evidence that the subject

populations may qualify as a ‘‘species’’

under the ESA, in accordance with

NMFS’ Policy on Applying the

Definition of Species under the

Endangered Species Act to Pacific

Salmon (56 FR 58612, November 20,

1991).

NMFS’ ESA implementing regulations

define ‘‘substantial information’’ as the

amount of information that would lead

a reasonable person to believe that the

measure proposed in the petition may

be warranted. In evaluating a petitioned

action, the Secretary considers several

factors, including whether the petition

contains detailed narrative justification

for the recommended measure,

describing, based on available

information, past and present numbers

and distribution of the species involved

and any threats faced by the species (50

CFR 424.14(b)(2)(ii)). In addition, the

Secretary considers whether the petition

provides information regarding the

status of the species over all or a

significant portion of its range (50 CFR

424.14(b)(2)(iii)).