WPC#G 2BJECourier3|I8 (TT)ix6X@`7X@ S'#&I\  P6Q &P#X@  2ED3T ZR3|I7 Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)6Q &P#HP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MXdd) RM 813-AHPLA5SMX.WRSC\  P6Q,,,"XPTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)2" 0ZwvpGkXN\  PXPx9 Z6Times New Roman RegularXA\  PPx9 Z6Times New Roman RegularA\  PPx9 Z6Times New Roman RegularA\  PPx9 Z6Times New Roman RegularA\  PPx9 Z6Times New Roman RegularA\  PPx9 Z6Times New Roman RegularA\  PPx9 Z6Times New Roman RegularA\  PPx9 Z6Times New Roman Regulara8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2N kT  vd t a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2    I a1for ordersenter, tab, parnum, two spaces'cM0 I. a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 23 ' ca4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2Le>>a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 2~,ya2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a2IndentedLeft-indented textC S'A.` ` 2F3Ra7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:,,a1TechnicalTechnical Document Style0F!<  ?  I.   a1IndentedLeft-indented text16n ? I.Xa1InterrogatoresStarts with A. at margin, 1 at first indent2UZZI."5^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777C7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSx]AN:*KS7JSSSSS.4}}S2~~S}277JJS77SS7J72N7[[^C`^SS`*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZv7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7~.S^7~SC[227`K*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSS2:/X2Z5 8"5^.=K\\!==\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc.====I=\\QQQQQzzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3\\\\\\\\\\Q\\\\\f\\QQzQzQpQpQpQ\\\\\I\=\===\G\fGN@.S\=Q\\\\\39\7\7==QQ\==\\=Q=7N=ddgIig\\i.=K\\!==\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc=\Q\\=f===QQ@\=G=.=\\\\%\=3\g=\Id77=iS.=79\Qzpppp====gf\QQQQQQzQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\d\\\\\\\y.C8*X/C\  P6QP2I=.X &I\  P6Q&P.2N=.X&N4  pQ&P,%XJ,\  P6QJP==\\=\=7N=ddhIih\\i.=f\\3==\h.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==hhh\zzpG\zpfzz=3=j\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_=\\\\=f===\\@\=G=.=\\\\(\=7\h=\Id77=ic.=7=\\zzzzGGGGhpf\\\\\\QQQQQ3333\f\\\\\d\ffff\fy.C8*X/C\  P6QP2I=.X &I\  P6Q&P.2N=.X&N4  pQ&P,%XJ,\  P6QJPI(!X,(\  P6Q,P{,C8*X3VC*f9 xQX0J=.X3L&J*f9 xQ&X"5^.=f\\3==\h.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==hhh\zzpG\zpfzz=3=j\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_.====I=\f\\\\\QzQzQzQzQG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffff\\f\\\\pf\\\QQzQzQzQ\\\ffIfGfG=Gf\\fGN@.c\=\\\\\\7=\7\7==\\\==\\=\=7N=ddhIih\\i.=f\\3==\h.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==hhh\zzpG\zpfzz=3=j\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_=\\\\=f===\\@\=G=.=\\\\(\=7\h=\Id77=ic.=7=\\zzzzGGGGhpf\\\\\\QQQQQ3333\f\\\\\d\ffff\f2C/;>A@`"5^%-77[U%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777U7777%+77O77155;%%%%,%77O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1C1C1C1O7O7O7O7O7,7%7%%%7+O7bO=+N&27%177777"RR7!SS7R!%%117n%%77ln%1n%!N%<<>,?>77?%-77[U%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777U7777%+77O77155;N%71n77%n=%b%%11&7n%l+%OO%77777%S7>%S7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<7777777"5^!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006!!!!(!22H,H,H,H,H,YCC,=,=,=,=,!!!!H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H2H2H2H282H2H,H,C,C,=,=,=,H2H2H2H2H2(2!2!!!2'H2YH8'N#-2!,22222KK2LL2K!!,,2d!!22bd!,d!N!778(98229!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006G!2,d22!d8!Y!!,,#2d!b'!HH!22222!L28!L2(7!9-!2KKK,HHHHHHYC====!!!!HHHHHHH8HHHHHH82,,,,,,C,,,,,222222272222222"5^*7FSS$77Sp*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77pppSffoxffxx7Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS7SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ*7777C7SSfSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSfSoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS7S777SJxSoSAN:*WSASSSSSS.4}}S2~~S}277]]S77SS7]72N7[[pC`pSS`*7FSS$77Sp*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77pppSffoxffxx7Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS7SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZv7S]SS7S777]]:S7A7o]*ASSSS.S7~.Sp7~SC[227`W*724S}}}Sffffffoffff7777xoxxxxxpxxxxx]fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSJS21DZ!G"5^.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic.====I=\\p\p\p\p\p\zzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3z\\\\\\\\\fQp\\\\fQ\p\p\p\p\zQzQpQpQpQ\\\\\I\=\===\Q\z\GN@.`\G\\\\\\39\7\7==ff\==\\=f=7N=dd|Ii|\\i.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic=\f\\=\===ff@\=G=zf.G\\\\2\=3\|=\Id77=i`.=79\\ppppppzpppp====z|fp\\\\\\\zQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\d\\\\\Q\ S'H S' Federal Communications Commission`(#kDA 98628 ă   yxdddy   `2Ԋ Before the  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 2&Washington, D.C. 20554   S`'\ In the Matter of) ) CABLE & WIRELESS, INC.) ) Application for Authority Pursuant to)  Sp'Section 214 of the Communications Act)ppFile No. ITC97290 of 1934, as Amended, to Provide Resold and) FacilitiesBased Switched and Private Line) Service between the United States and Russia) and to Be Held Nondominant for All Services) on This Route.)  SX' ORDER, AUTHORIZATION, AND CERTIFICATE  S'iAdopted: April 1, 1998 Released: April 2, 1998 By the Chief, International Bureau:  Sh' PI. Introduction ă  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. a. i.(1)(a)(i) 1) a)for orderscMa1for orders 1. In this Order, we grant Cable & Wireless, Inc. (CWI) authority to provide facilitiesbased switched and private line international telecommunications services between the United States and Russia. We classify CWI as a dominant carrier in its provision of service to the Sakhalin Island region of Russia.  SP' mOII. Background ă cMa1for orders 2. CWI is a common carrier that is authorized to provide international switched and private line services on a resale basis between the United States and numerous countries throughout the world, including Russia. Presently, CWI is classified as a dominant carrier in its provision of resold private line service to Russia. CWI also is authorized to provide switched and private line services on a facilities basis to numerous countries, but not yet to Russia. cMa1for orders 3. CWI requests authority, pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to operate as a facilitiesbased carrier for the provision of international telecommunications  S!'services between the United States and Russia.! yO($'ԍXCable & Wireless, Inc., Application, File No. ITC97290 (filed May 20, 1997).(#Ƈ CWI also requests that it be granted unlimited private line resale authority or, in the alternative, that it be classified as a nondominant carrier for the provision of international services on the U.S.!Russia route. Under Commission rules in effect at the time the application was filed, CWI's classification as a dominant carrier prohibited it from adding"H$X0*''88r#"  S'capacity on the U.S.!Russia route without seeking prior Commission approval.f& {Oh'ԍXSee 47 C.F.R. 63.10(c)(3) (1997). However, Commission rules that became effective on February 9,  {O2'1998, eliminate that restriction. See Rules and Policies on Foreign Participation in the U.S.  {O'Telecommunications Market, IB Docket No. 97142, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration,  {O'FCC 97398 (rel. Nov. 26, 1997) (Foreign Participation Order), recon. pending. Subsequent citations to the Commission's rules refer to the rules in effect as of February 9.(#f We placed CWI's  S'application on public notice, and no comments were received.u& {O'ԍXSee Public Notice, Report No. TEL86B (June 4, 1997).(#u  S'P III. Discussion ă cMa1for orders  S8'4. The rules and standards adopted in the Commission's recent Foreign Participation Order  S'apply to this application.& {O 'ԍXSee Order, FCC 9810 (Jan. 29, 1998) (announcing that February 9, 1998, would be the effective date of  {O'the Foreign Participation Order).(# Because Russia is not a member of the World Trade Organization, CWI's application is subject to the Commission's "effective competitive opportunities" (ECO) test if it is affiliated within the meaning of Section 63.18(h)(1)(i)(B) of the Commission's rules with a carrier with  S'sufficient market power in Russia to affect competition adversely in the U.S. market.n & {O'ԍXSee 47 C.F.R. 63.18(h)(1)(i)(B), (h)(5); see infra   ECO11 .(#Ƙ If we grant CWI's Section 214 authorization to provide facilitiesbased service to Russia, we also must determine whether to regulate CWI as dominant along the route due to the market power of an affiliated carrier operating in Russia. Because both inquiries involve an initial evaluation of the market power of CWI's Russian affiliates, we discuss this issue first.  S ' A. Market Power of Affiliates Operating in Russia cMa1for orders 5. CWI certifies that it has five affiliates operating in Russia that meet the Commission's  S2'definition of "affiliation":AFFILIATES2 & yO'ԍXCWI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cable & Wireless Holdings, Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cable & Wireless plc (C&W plc). CWI states that C&W plc possesses direct and indirect  {Ob'ownership interests of greater than 25 percent in those five carriers. AFFILIATESFNSee 47 C.F.R.  63.18(h)(1)(A)  {O,'(defining affiliation to include "[a] greater than 25 percent ownership of the capital stock, or a controlling interest at any level, by ... any entity that directly or indirectly controls [the applicant] ... in a foreign carrier or in any entity that directly or indirectly controls a foreign carrier").(# Sakhalin Telekom (ST) and Sakhalin Svjaz' (SS), operating exclusively in the Sakhalin Island region; Peterstar and Baltic Communications Ltd. (BCL), operating in St. Petersburg; and Nakhodka Telekom (NT), operating in the Nakhodka and Vladivostok region bordering on North Korea and China. cMa1for orders 6. The Commission defines market power as a carrier's ability to raise price by restricting the output of its services. In the international context, our regulatory approach addresses the ability of a"B|0*&&88" carrier operating in a foreign market to discriminate against unaffiliated carriers through the control of an input that is necessary for the provision of international services. The relevant input markets on the foreign end of a U.S. international route are the markets that involve services or facilities necessary for the provision of U.S. international services. Those relevant markets generally include international transport facilities or services, intercity facilities or services, and local access facilities or services at  S8'the foreign end. The Commission recognized in the Foreign Participation Order that, for purposes of identifying relevant input markets on the foreign end, it may be appropriate in some instances to  S'examine a discrete geographic region rather than the national market of a foreign country.y& {OR'ԍXSee Foreign Participation Order  144!145.(#y cMa1for orders  S'7. In the Foreign Participation Order, the Commission concluded that it is appropriate to presume, subject to rebuttal, that a foreign carrier with less than 50 percent market share in each of the relevant input markets on the foreign end of a U.S. international route lacks sufficient market power to affect competition adversely in the U.S. market. If an applicant demonstrates that its foreign carrier affiliate lacks 50 percent market share in the international transport and local access markets on the  S 'foreign end of the route, the applicant is presumptively classified as nondominant. Z& {O'ԍX47 C.F.R. 63.10(a)(3); see Foreign Participation Order  161, 232.(#Ɠ In the absence of such a demonstration, however, the applicant is presumptively classified as dominant on a route where it has an affiliation. cMa1for orders 8. In the instant case, competitive characteristics in the Sakhalin Island region are sufficiently distinct from the Russian national market to warrant treating the region as a distinct geographic market for purposes of our market power analysis. Both ST and SS operate exclusively in the Sakhalin Island region and together control 70 percent of international traffic in that region. SS also controls the local PSTN. We are concerned that, in these circumstances, ST and SS may have sufficient market power in that region to affect competition adversely in the U.S. market. cMa1for orders 9. ST, which is 60 percent owned by C&W plc, is licensed to provide local and international services through an access code to the local PSTN or dedicated network in the Sakhalin Island region, and it has approximately 50 percent of the market share of international traffic originating and terminating in that region. ST transmits international traffic through the AsiaSat2 satellite system,  S|'which hubs traffic through Hong Kong to international destinations.y |& {O'ԍXSee Supplemental Filing of CWI at 2 (filed Jan. 22, 1998).(#y ST terminates U.S. international service in Sakhalin, and its current settlement rate " which it negotiates separately with U.S. carriers " is $1.00. This rate has not changed since service to Sakhalin was initiated in 1992. SS controls the local PSTN and has approximately 20 percent of the market share of the international traffic that  S'originates and terminates on Sakhalin. ~& yO"'ԍXSS is controlled by the Svyazinvest, the governmentcontrolled holding company for telecommunications assets. CWI's parent, C&W plc, holds a 37 percent interest in SS.(# By law, SS must send its international traffic through Rostelecom, the governmentcontrolled longdistance and international operator that has direct" 0*&&88" connectivity to the United States. U.S. carriers may also route traffic to Sakhalin via Rostelecom  S'(whose settlement rate is $1.06) or Kriljon,] Z& yO@'ԍXIn addition to SS and ST, Sakhalin's international telecommunications market is served by Kriljon, an international carrier operated through a U.S./Russia joint venture. A fourth international carrier  {O'withdrew from the market in 1997. See Supplemental Filing at 2.(#] both of which must also terminate their traffic via SS. Thus, if we grant CWI's authorization, it will be able to provide facilitiesbased service to a region where it has one affiliate that terminates 50 percent of the international switched traffic and another affiliate that terminates 20 percent of the international switched traffic and controls the PSTN. We are concerned that, in these circumstances, SS and ST may have the ability and incentive to discriminate in favor of CWI in its provision of service between the United States and the Sakhalin Island region and that this discrimination could harm competition in the U.S. market. We conclude that CWI has not shown that its affiliates operating in Sakhalin lack sufficient market power to affect competition adversely in the U.S. market. cMa1for orders  10. By contrast, CWI's three other affiliates, Peterstar, BCL, and NT, do not possess sufficient market share or control of bottleneck facilities in their areas of operation to enable them to discriminate against unaffiliated U.S. carriers. The St. Petersburg market is highly competitive. Peterstar is one of approximately one dozen local overlays, i.e., competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), in that city. Peterstar PBCLNT  does not operate the local public switched telephone network (PSTN) but has interconnection agreements in order to provide local and longdistance service. BCL is a dedicated international operator that does not connect to the local PSTN but handles local traffic between subscribers on its limited network in St. Petersburg. It is one of five similar carriers operating in St. Petersburg. Finally, NT does not control the PSTN and is one of many carriers  S'offering competitive local and international service in the Nakhodka and Vladivostok region.Y & {Oj'ԍXSee Application at 3!4.(#Y  S' B. Section 214 Authorization cMa1for orders  11. The Commission applies the ECO ECOtest to Section 214 applications to serve nonWTO countries where the applicant, or a company that owns more than 25 percent of the applicant, owns a  S'controlling interest in a carrier that has market power in that nonWTO country.~ |& {O 'ԍXSee Foreign Participation Order  128, 139!140.(#~ The Commission has found that such affiliations with carriers that hold market power in a destination market raise the greatest potential of anticompetitive conduct, particularly if U.S. carriers are not allowed to compete  Sx'effectively in their markets.yx& {O&!'ԍXSee Foreign Carrier Entry Order  100!102.(#y The Commission also recently found that continuing to apply the ECO test to nonWTO countries may encourage some of those countries to take steps toward opening their"P0*&&88"  S'markets to competition.n& {Oh'ԍXSee Foreign Participation Order  125.(#n Because C&W plc owns a controlling interest in ST, we consider whether to apply the ECO test to CWI's application. cMa1for orders  S' 12. We find that it would not serve the purposes of the ECO test to apply it in these circumstances. Although we find that CWI's affiliates may have market power within a region on the foreign end of the U.S.!Russia route, waiving the ECO requirement will best serve the public  S'interest.Z& {O 'ԍXSee 47 C.F.R. 1.3 (allowing the Commission to waive any provision of the rules for good cause).(#ƣ ST's and SS's market power is confined to a small area of a very large country: Russia has approximately 150 million potential customers, but the licensed operating area of ST and SS includes  S'no more than 700,000 potential customers.!Z& {OL 'ԍXSee Application at 4. KRILJON  U.S. carriers reported 130,931,538 minutes of traffic between the United States and Russia in 1996. According to CWI, no more than 720,000 minutes, 0.5 percent, were to or from Sakhalin.(#! Furthermore, according to CWI, Rostelecom, the governmentcontrolled carrier that operates the longdistance and international backbone, controls over 75 percent of Russia's international traffic. In these circumstances, denying CWI's authorization to provide facilitiesbased service to Russia because of its affiliates' market power in such a small region would deny U.S. consumers the benefits of an additional carrier serving the large Russian market. If we were to limit our application of the ECO test to the Sakhalin region and deny the authorization on that ground, that denial would impose an unnecessary burden on CWI by increasing its costs to hand  S 'off traffic bound for Sakhalin to another carrier. & {OV'ԍXSee Telstra, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 20,428  13 (1996) (waiving application of the ECO test to Kiribati).(#ƫ We see no evidence that either the traffic volumes to Sakhalin or the community of interest in the United States for calls to Sakhalin is great enough to warrant application of the ECO test to Sakhalin. We are confident that, in these circumstances, our regulatory safeguards described below will be sufficient to prevent any anticompetitive effects that might otherwise result. Also, in these circumstances, application of the ECO test would not advance the Commission's goal of promoting the opening of foreign markets because denying CWI's application to serve Sakhalin would be unlikely to encourage the Russian government to change any relevant market entry policies. cMa1for orders  S@' 13. Finally, we consider other public interest factors that may weigh in favor of, or against, granting the application. These factors include the general significance of the proposed entry to the promotion of competition in the U.S. telecommunications market, any national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, or trade concerns raised by the Executive Branch, and the presence of costbased accounting rates. The Executive Branch has not raised any national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, or trade concerns with this application, and we know of no other countervailing public interest considerations. Although we are concerned by the high accounting rates of carriers that terminate international traffic in Russia, we do not believe that concern warrants denying CWI's authorization. The Commission's benchmark settlement rate condition, together with the Commission's other competitive safeguards, sufficiently address our concerns raised by the high"0*&&88" accounting rates on the U.S.!Russia route. We believe that CWIs entry will increase competition in the United States and Russian markets and thus benefit U.S. consumers. Consequently, we find that the public interest would be served by granting CWI Section 214 authority to provide facilitiesbased telecommunications services between the United States and Russia.  S8' C. Regulatory Classification cMa1for orders  S' 14. Pursuant to Section 63.10(a)(3) of the Commissions rules, an authorized carrier that is affiliated with a foreign carrier that is not a monopoly in a destination country and that seeks to be regulated as nondominant on that route bears the burden of submitting information sufficient to demonstrate that its foreign affiliate lacks sufficient market power on the foreign end of the route to  SH 'affect competition adversely in the U.S. market.H & {O 'ԍX47 C.F.R.  63.10(a)(3); see also Foreign Participation Order  161, 232.(#Ƙ cMa1for orders  S '15. We have found that CWI's affiliates may have sufficient market power in the Sakhalin Island region to affect competition adversely in the U.S. market. We therefore find, on the record before us, sufficient basis to warrant regulating CWI as dominant in its provision of switched and private line service between the United States and the Sakhalin Island region. We classify CWI as nondominant in its provision of service to all other regions of Russia. This dominance classification requires only that CWI be structurally separate from SS and ST and that it file certain reports on a  S'quarterly basis regarding its provision of service along the U.S.!Sakhalin route.Z& {O'ԍXSee 47 C.F.R. 63.10(c); Foreign Participation Order  215!292. We note that, under these new rules, there is no longer a restriction on CWI's authorization to add circuits on the route.(# cMa1for orders  S'16. Until CWI initiates switched service to Sakhalin as a facilitiesbased carrier, it is entitled to a presumption of nondominance for its provision of switched services along that route so long as it provides switched services to Sakhalin only through the resale of unaffiliated U.S. carriers'  S@'international switched services.^@& {O'ԍXSee 47 C.F.R. 63.10(a)(4).(#^ Therefore, our classification of CWI as dominant for its provision of switched services along the route will not take effect until CWI actually initiates facilitiesbased switched service on the route. However, because CWI is affiliated with a carrier that we find may have sufficient market power to affect competition adversely in the U.S. market and that collects settlement payments from U.S. carriers, it is required to file quarterly traffic reports for its switched  Sx'resale service to Sakhalin pursuant to Section 43.61(c).QxF& yO^ 'ԍX47 C.F.R. 43.61(c).(#Q cMa1for orders"P0*&&88"Ԍ S'17. Furthermore, because we find that ST and SS have sufficient market power to affect the provision of U.S. international service to Sakhalin, no U.S. carrier may agree to accept special  S'concessions from those carriers with respect to the services that they provide in the Sakhalin region.y& {O'ԍXSee Foreign Participation Order  150!170.(#y  S`' D. Benchmark Settlement Rate Condition cMa1for orders  S'18. In the Benchmarks Order, the Commission adopted a benchmark settlement rate condition, effective January 1, 1998, for authorizations to provide facilitiesbased switched or private line services  S'to destination markets where the authorized carrier is affiliated with a foreign carrier.~\Z& {O 'ԍXSee International Settlement Rates, IB Docket No. 96261, Report and Order, FCC 97280 (rel. Aug. 18,  {O '1997), recon. and appeals pending (Benchmarks Order). The settlement rates refers to each carrier's portion of the accounting rate, which is normally half of the accounting rate.(#~ The  S'Benchmarks Order requires that we condition these authorizations on the affiliated foreign carrier offering U.S. international carriers a settlement rate for the affiliated market that is at or below the  SL 'relevant benchmark settlement rate adopted in that order.L ~& {Oj'ԍXId.  231. The Commission reaffirmed this condition in the Foreign Participation Order,  211. (#ƫ cMa1for orders  S '19. The competitive harm that this condition addresses is the ability of a foreignaffiliated carrier to engage in predatory price squeeze behavior on the affiliated route when it provides facilitiesbased service to a market in which its affiliated foreign carrier provides the terminating service and  S 'collects abovecost settlement rates. As the Commission explained in the Benchmarks Order, a price squeeze refers to a particular, welldefined strategy of predation that would involve the foreign carrier setting "high" (abovecost) international settlement rates while its U.S. affiliate offers "low" prices for domestic international message telephone service ("IMTS") in competition with other carriers. Because the foreign carrier's international termination services are a necessary input for providing IMTS, the foreign carrier can create a situation where the relationship between its "high" international settlement rates and its affiliate's "low" prices for IMTS forces competing carriers either to lose money  Sn'or to lose customers even if they are more efficient than the affiliate.cn& {O'ԍXSee Benchmarks Order  208.(#c cMa1for orders  S'20. In the Benchmarks Order, the Commission used the term "affiliated market" to refer to a  S'market in which an affiliated carrier provides terminating service and collects settlement rates.L& {O: 'ԍXSee id.(#L We find that, for this purpose, a "market" is not necessarily an entire country but may be the geographic region served by a particular carrier or group of carriers, particularly where that region maintains a distinct accounting rate with U.S. carriers. Otherwise, the benchmarks condition would preclude CWI from providing facilitiesbased service to all of Russia merely because it has affiliations with carriers"X4 0*&&88" that terminate international traffic only in small parts of Russia and have settlement rates above the Commission's benchmark. cMa1for orders  S'21. There is a risk of predatory price squeeze behavior only to the extent CWI terminates U.S. international traffic in regions served by affiliates that terminate U.S. international traffic "  S8'Sakhalin, St. Petersburg, Nakhodka, and Vladivostok8& yO'ԍXST, NT, and BCL have operating agreements with U.S. carriers and negotiate their accounting rates separately.(#Ʀ " and collect abovecost settlement rates from unaffiliated U.S. rivals. We also find a risk of predatory price squeeze behavior to the extent CWI routes U.S. international traffic through those affiliated markets to other regions of Russia. There is no risk of price squeeze behavior, however, where CWI otherwise routes U.S. international traffic to unaffiliated regions of Russia, because in its provision of facilitiesbased service to those regions, its settlement payments are made to unaffiliated carriers. Thus, we authorize CWI to provide facilitiesbased service between the United States and Sakhalin, St. Petersburg, Nakhodka, Vladivostok, and beyond subject to the condition that CWI's affiliates terminating international traffic in each of those regions offer to U.S. carrier correspondents settlement rates at or below $0.19, the benchmark  S 'settlement rate established for Russia in the Benchmarks Order. CWI's provision of facilitiesbased  S 'service to unaffiliated markets in Russia will not be subject to such a condition.: & {Oj'ԍXCWI will be under a continuing obligation to comply with the condition in the Benchmarks Order, that is, it may provide facilitiesbased service to or through markets in Russia that are served by an affiliate that terminates U.S. international switched traffic only if that affiliate has in effect a settlement rate with its U.S. international carrier correspondents that is at or below the Commission's relevant benchmark for  {O'Russia. See Benchmarks Order  228, 231.(#: cMa1for orders  SZ'22. We recognize that this approach will result in CWI not being able to serve some parts of Russia using its own facilities, but we believe it is necessary to prevent anticompetitive conduct. We also believe this narrowly tailored approach is a sounder policy than treating all of Russia as a single market for purposes of applying the benchmarks condition, which would require that CWI not serve any part of Russia on a facilities basis until its affiliates' settlement rates are at or below the benchmark. Because of CWI's small presence in Russia, the potential that it could abuse its position and defeat the purpose of the benchmarks condition is remote.  S' z9IV. Ordering Clauses ă cMa1for orders  S'23. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the present and future public interest, convenience, and necessity require a grant of the present application. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that application File No. ITC97290 IS GRANTED, and CWI is authorized to provide international basic switched, private line, data, television, and business services between the United States and Russia on a facilities basis, subject to all current and future Commission regulations, including those specifically listed below, as well as the conditions set out below. cMa1for orders"0*&&88"Ԍ S'24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CWI shall comply with the requirements specified in Sections 43.82, 63.14, 63.15(b), 63.19, and 63.21 of the Commissions Rules, 47 C.F.R.  43.82, 63.14, 63.15(b), 63.19, 63.21. cMa1for orders  S`'25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CWI may not " and CWI's tariffs must state that its customers may not " connect their private lines to the public switched network at either the U.S. or foreign end, or both, for the provision of international switched basic services unless the Commission  S'has authorized the provision of such service. See 47 C.F.R. 63.18(e)(2)(ii)(c), (e)(3)!(4); 63.21(a). cMa1for orders  S'26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CWI's authorization to provide facilities-based service to Russia is subject to the conditions specified in International Settlement Rates, IB Docket No. 96 SJ '261, Report and Order, FCC 97280 (rel. Aug. 18, 1997), that is, CWI may provide facilitiesbased service to a region served by an affiliate that terminates U.S. international switched traffic only if that affiliate has in effect a settlement rate with U.S. international carriers that is at or below the  S 'Commission's relevant benchmark for Russia. See id. 231. cMa1for orders  S '27. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CWI shall be regulated as a dominant carrier under Section 63.10 of the rules and shall comply with the requirements of paragraph (c) of that section for services between the United States and the Sakhalin Island region, and CWI shall be regulated as a nondominant carrier for services between the United States and other regions of Russia. cMa1for orders  S'28. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CWI shall comply with the requirements of Section 43.61(c) of the rules with respect to its provision of resold switched services to the Sakhalin Island region and that it shall not agree to accept special concessions from SS and ST for the provision of service between the United States and the Sakhalin Island region. "Special concessions" is defined in  S'Section 63.14(b) of the Commission's rules as amended by the Commission's Foreign Participation  S'Order, FCC 97398. cMa1for orders  S'29.  This Order is issued under Section 0.261 of the Commissions Rules and is effective upon adoption. Petitions for reconsideration under Section 1.106 or applications for review under Section 1.115 of the Commissions Rules may be filed within 30 days of the date of public notice of this Order (see Section 1.4(b)(2)). ` `  hhCFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hhCRegina M. Keeney ` `  hhCChief ` `  hhCInternational Bureau