WPCeg 2BEJ Courier xP-#c PE37ApP#CG Timeset 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\oeX@2[6F Zv3|c  CG TimesCourier#c PE37MP#HP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4Xw PE37\oeXPa8DocumentgDocument Style Style` ư 2fpkkha4DocumentgDocument Style Style  . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style ư a5DocumentgDocument Style Style ư a2DocumentgDocument Style Style*    2vt a7DocumentgDocument Style Style  ` ư BibliogrphyBibliography   ư a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers8@    ư a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers A@`  ` ư 2   , a3DocumentgDocument Style Style 0     a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers J` @  `  ư a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers S`  @  ư a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers \`  @h #h#ư 2   ` 7 a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numberse`  #h#@$$ #h#((ư a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersn`  #h#((@** ((--ư a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw `  #h#((--@/p/ --2p2ư Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleX!"T 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 T2w  Wa1DocumentgDocument Style StyleF#$ ))  ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style&%&  . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style&'(  . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style*)*    2>a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style'+,    a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style&-.    a1TechnicalTechnical Document Style4/$0     a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style&12  . 28{e{a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style&34  . Doc InitInitialize Document Style5Y6   T I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)TPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper78    X  y*dddyy*ddd`y H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   ӃHeading 2Underlined Heading Flush Left9: 2$pyf 'Heading 1Centered Headingcal Style; <** Ã  Bullet ListIndented Bullet List=>` ưX CG TimesCourierCourier BoldCG Times Bold",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2G$,*Z5OA"i~'K2^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoYi{xxxl888SS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS>A.SSxSSJJSJS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxIxSxIqIqIrSrS{dgIiSiSgIxSxSxSxSxS{S{S8.SSSS8Sz]SSuSg/gBwgwgcccccc@XKKgg;;c\\\{I\waaIZQQOMXacccujygggpeyuVrQjQcccc3Qlc@uuccc;;ccccccccccccccccccccccnnnnnnnn#3#cccccj3cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccrrrrnnnnnnnnnnXXccccccllccVVVVuuccaaaaccZZuZVVVV5*FVcc2eP\EGJQ +78wC;,Xw PE37XP8x/c81,Mc PE37P<[*PPP, \MP6X@`7@[*PPP,MP `7<r5ddd, |d6X@`7@93m=6,&m PE37&PD:2p=6,}v&p_ pi7&;OA%!,5JA PE37JPH<!,,< PE37,P"i~'K2^!.22YN!!!2Y!!!!2222222222!!dYd,YH?EJ?;HJ!'F?[JH9HC6?JH^HHA!!!22!,2,2,!222N2222%'22H22,,2,d222222!222222222H,H,H,H,H,YCE,?,?,?,?,!!!!J2H2H2H2H2J2J2J2J2H2H,J2H2H2H2J292H,H2H,D,D,E2E2J<>,?2?2>,H2H2H2H2H2J2J2!2222!2I822F2>>$?2@>J2:J2J2H2H2YHB$B$C26&6&6&62>$>?2J2J2J2J2J2J2^HH2@,@,@,J2?2J262?2H2<!22!!!WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHHH222!,))22X222YY2#2222Y#!!442Ydd22==Ld2d2H2;SS88Y!42^x#"ddddHHddd2Hdd4HHYYddd2YYddd Y2!!dddddH=dYHHHHHHHHHH!d2H282YdHdC2!2H,29HNAddHHHHHHHHHHddddd.dHHHHdddddddddddddddddddHHddddddSC=NdHddd+;HHHHddddddHHH2HHdHHdddHHH,HHHH,HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!HHH!HHH!HHH!HHHHHHHHHHHHHH=?8=8C,?'A,J2H,!F,C8[8J,C2H,H=92=22?,H,C=H8N===H?J!2HHH=,====I!!2222HJ222HHH=!92,!ddhrZz.lZrrvvnFFZ8z\fgffgf\yQzQyQfz\ff\z\\}=\\===WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\\\=\NN\\\\\\@\\\\@==ii\00\\pp\\\sff=i\@"\i\4\==p=\\f\z\=\Q\i~XzpNm\\\====pzfpfzQzGzQQQG3QzffQz\Qpp\p\\zQQzpfpppzG\pQpppp==\\\\\\\p=p\Q=Tgnj}}ccyyTjcc;T;TXFu T'  І@ [*'#MP6X@`7@# DRAFT:D3 1, 4D Į#d6X@`7Oe@##&m PE37b&P#X01Í ÍX01Í Í$//TRANSMITTED FOR FCC RECORD ONLY//$ $//MOO&A, TLD, Intl. Ext. of Lines, FCC 95375//$ $/300.214 Extension of Lines/$ $/63.01 Contents of Applications/$  T'Ob Before the  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 0Washington, D.C. 20554  T' `(#UFCC No. 95375  T! 'In the Matter of hhCq  S '` ` hhCq )  T 'TELEFONICA LARGA DISTANCIAhhCq ) ppFile No. ITC93091  T 'DE PUERTO RICO, INC.hhCq )  S '` ` hhCq )  T['Application for authorityhhCq )  T4'to provide international hhCq )   T 'private line services hhCq )  T'between Puerto Rico, thehhCq )  T'U.S. Virgin Islands, and thehhCq )  T'Dominican Republic hhCq )  Sq'` `  hhCq )  TI'Application for modificationhhCq ) ppFile No. ISP93002ND  T"'of regulatory status fromhhCq )  T'dominant to nondominanthhCq )  T'for international communicationshhCq )  T'services for various countries;hhCq )  S'` `  hhCq )  T^'to Portugal;` `  hhCq ) ppFile No. ISP93003ND  S7'` `  hhCq )  T'to Romania;` `  hhCq ) ppFile No. ISP93004ND  S'` `  hhCq )  T'to Venezuela.` `  hhCq ) ppFile No. ISP93005ND  T'  SI' MEMORANDUM OPINION, ORDER,  S! 'Q AUTHORIZATION AND CERTIFICATE ă  T!' Adopted: August 23, 1995 hhCqppReleased: September 5, 1995 By the Commission: Commissioner Barrett issuing a statement.   T2%'D I. INTRODUCTION ă  T&' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. a. i.(1)(a)(i) 1) a)1.` ` In this order, we grant Telefonica Larga Distancia de Puerto Rico, Inc. ("TLD") authority to provide international private line service via submarine cable and microwave facilities between Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Dominican Republic. In addition, we relieve"(0*0*0*y(" TLD of unnecessary regulatory burdens on U.S. international routes where TLD's operations present"(0*0*0*-" no substantial risk of anticompetitive effects in the U.S. international services market. Further, we rule that TLD may provide domestic interexchange service without limitation and without the need for specific Section 214 authority from the Commission. These actions will promote certainty for TLD and foster competition in the provision of international service by permitting TLD to use more economical facilities and to operate with fewer regulatory burdens.  T-2.` ` We also remove the requirement that the full Commission review and approve all Section 214 applications for international facilities filed by foreign carriers or their affiliates. The International Bureau has sufficient policy guidance to act on such applications pursuant to its delegated authority in Section 0.261 of our rules. We will continue to act on applications that raise matters reserved for Commission review under that section. This action will eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens on the Commission and expedite action on pending applications.  T -- II. BACKGROUND ă  T -3.` ` On January 28, 1993, TLD filed the captioned application seeking Section 214 r xP-#c PE37MP#эXSee 47 U.S.C.  214 (1988).(#Ƅ authority, to provide international private line services to and from Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin  TY-Islands and the Dominican Republic.XYXr xPQ-#c PE37MP#эXBecause TLD is affiliated with a foreign carrier, Telefonica de Espana ("Telefonica"), TLD's  xP-applications for international facilitiesbased authorizations are acted on by the full Commission. See  xP-Telefonica Larga Distancia de Puerto Rico et al., 8 FCC Rcd 106, 113 (1992) (TLD Order). (#Ƹ American Telephone & Telegraph Company ("AT&T") filed a Petition to Deny. TLD opposed AT&T's petition, and AT&T filed a reply. Subsequently, AT&T  T -withdrew its opposition." xr xP!-#c PE37MP#эXLetter to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, Federal Communications Commission from Stephen C.  xP-Garavito, Attorney for AT&T, dated February 3, 1995 (AT&T Letter).(#"  T-4.` ` TLD also filed in 1993 the captioned applications to modify its regulatory status from dominant to nondominant for the provision of international communications services on authorized U.S. international routes where TLD has no affiliation with a carrier on the foreign end, or where the service TLD seeks to provide is solely through the resale of unaffiliated U.S. facilitiesbased carriers' international switched services. AT&T filed a Petition to Deny but subsequently also withdrew its  T-opposition to these applications.or xPa-#c PE37MP#эXId. at 3.(#o  T-3 III. DISCUSSION ă  TR-Dominican Republic Application  T-5.` ` TLD requests authority to use previously authorized circuits in the Transcaribbean Cable System ("TCS1") and the international pointtopoint microwave system between Monte del Estado, Puerto Rico, and Otra Banda, Dominican Republic to transmit private line traffic between those two destinations. TLD states that it will acquire the microwave capacity from Telecomunicaciones Ultramarinas de Puerto Rico ("TUPR") pursuant to TUPR's Tariff FCC No. 1. "b` 0*((!" TLD proposes to use its authorized TAINOCARIB Cable System facilities between Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to extend international private line service between the U.S. Virgin Islands  T-and the Dominican Republic.r xP-#c PE37MP#эXTLD provides domestic interexchange and international service in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Telefonica  xP-Larga Distancia de Puerto Rico, 7 FCC Rcd 4315 (1992). It also provides service to the U.S. Virgin  xP-Islands from Puerto Rico as an offisland, domestic point. See Inquiry into Policies to be followed in the Authorization of Common Carrier Facilities to Provide Telecommunications Service off the Island  xP8-of Puerto Rico, Report and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 6600 (1987) (Puerto Rico Order), recon., 8 FCC Rcd 63 (1992). (#ƻ TLD states it is only seeking to use its authorized facilities for an additional service that is similar in all material respects to the International Business Service ("IBS")  T`-that TLD is currently authorized to provide via satellite to the Dominican Republic. `@r xP@ -#c PE37MP#эXTLD is authorized to operate up to 166 satellite circuits between Puerto Rico and the Dominican  xP -Republic, and to use these circuits to provide, inter alia, IBS, a private line service that TLD provides  xP -pursuant to the provisions of Comsat's tariff for IBS. See Telefonica Larga Distancia de Puerto Rico, 3 FCC Rcd 5937 (1988). (# TLD contends that, given the short geographic distance between Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, on the one hand, and the Dominican Republic, on the other hand, it is relatively costly to provide private line services via satellite in comparison to using the requested microwave and cable facilities. The application specifies that the proposed private line services will terminate at customer premises in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Dominican Republic, and will not interconnect with the public switched networks in any of these jurisdictions.  T -6.` ` AT&T initially opposed this application on the same grounds that it opposed TLD's  T -earlier applications to provide direct, facilitiesbased service to the Bahamas and the Netherlands. ( r xP-#c PE37MP#эXSee Telefonica Larga Distancia de Puerto Rico, 9 FCC Rcd 4041, 40424044 (1994) (TLD Cable  xP-Order).(#  T -AT&T argued that the authority TLD seeks exceeds limits imposed by the Commission in the TLD  T -Order. AT&T now states, however, that the Commission has made clear it will grant all TLD facilities applications, except those involving circuits to Spain, that involve service from Puerto Rico  TX-or the U.S. Virgin Islands and do not involve expansion to the U.S. mainland.X r xPx-#c PE37MP#эXSee AT&T Letter at 2 (citing TLD Cable Order, 9 FCC Rcd 4041).(#ư Because the Commission has acknowledged that grant of additional authority to TLD would not prejudice AT&T's petition for rulemaking on foreign market entry, AT&T states, it no longer opposes the grant of  T-authority sought in these facilities applications. r xP -#c PE37MP#эXSee AT&T Letter at 2. On February 7, 1995, we adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which we tentatively concluded that effective foreign market access for U.S. carriers should be an important public interest factor in our Section 214 analyses of applications by foreign carriers seeking to acquire  xP"-U.S. international facilities. Market Entry and Regulation of Foreignaffiliated Entities, FCC 9553, IB  xP#-Docket 9522, released February 17, 1995 (Foreign Carrier NPRM).(#ƀ AT&T continues to believe, however, that any expansion of TLD's authority should be denied until Spain, and any other markets where Telefonica (or its affiliates) controls essential facilities, provide comparable access to U.S. carriers.  T@-7.` ` As we stated in the TLD Cable Order, the crucial question to be addressed in any"@ 0*((" TLD application to initiate an additional service on a U.S. international route where TLD has no affiliation with a carrier on the foreign end here, the Dominican Republic is whether the authority requested poses an additional risk of anticompetitive conduct and, if so, whether the  T-safeguards we have in effect are sufficient to protect against that risk. r xP-#c PE37MP#эXTLD Cable Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 4044. See also AmericaTel Corporation, 10 FCC Rcd 2091, 2092 (1995). (# TLD's application does not propose to expand the number of circuits that TLD operates to the Dominican Republic or seek authorization to utilize new or different facilities. Grant of this application, however, would be the first authorization given to TLD to provide international private line service using international cable or microwave instead of satellite facilities. TLD states in its application that it will not interconnect its private lines to the public switched network in any jurisdiction and will not use them to provide  T-public switched service. This authorization is thus consistent with our International Resale Order. x r xPX -#c PE37MP#эXTo prevent evasion of the international settlements process through oneway resale of private lines for  xP -the provision of switched basic services into the United States, our International Resale Order requires that carriers seeking to resell international private lines for the provision of switched services demonstrate that the country at the other end of the private line affords equivalent resale opportunities.  xPx-See Regulation of International Accounting Rates, Phase II, First Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 5599  xP@-(1991) (International Resale Order), Order on Reconsideration and Third Further Notice of Proposed  xP-Rulemaking, 7 FCC Rcd 7927, 7930 (1992) (Reconsideration Order), pet. for recon. pending. (#ơ Moreover, there is no evidence of anticompetitive conduct by TLD in its provision of IBS, which is a private line offering via satellite similar to the service TLD now seeks to provide via cable and  T -microwave facilities.  ` r xP -#c PE37MP#эXComsat's tariff prohibits the use of IBS capacity for the provision of public switched voice traffic. See Comsat Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, p. 137, July 15, 1993. (# Nor is there any evidence that TLD has violated the terms of its Section 214 authorizations or the Commission's rules. Finally, we note that TLD is not affiliated with any foreign carrier in the Dominican Republic. We are therefore persuaded that, properly conditioned, grant is  T -unlikely to permit market abuse or anticompetitive conduct.  r xP-#c PE37MP#эXWe note that Section 43.51(a)(3) of our rules requires that, whenever a U.S. carrier (such as TLD) enters into an agreement with another carrier (such as Telefonica) to interconnect an international private line to the U.S. public switched network at its central office, it must notify the Commission.  xPX-47 C.F.R.  43.51(a)(3) (1994). See also Reconsideration Order, 7 FCC Rcd at 7930. TLD's operations will of course be subject to any modifications that we may make to our rules in any relevant future proceeding of general applicability. (#ƨ  TX-8.` ` We find that a grant to TLD, as conditioned above, will enable it to provide international private line services to the Dominican Republic using its more efficient and economical TCS1 Cable System and TUPR's Monte del Estado microwave facilities, instead of more costly  T-satellite facilities.}0r xP#-#c PE37MP#эXSee supra  5.(#} As a result, TLD will be able to offer to the public private line services at lower rates, thereby fostering competition in the Caribbean telecommunications market. We therefore grant  T-TLD's application to provide private line service to the Dominican Republic.  T@-Applications for Nondominant Status"@0*(("Ԍ T-ԙ9.` ` TLD has also sought modification of its regulatory status from dominant to nondominant for the provision of service to certain countries where it has no affiliation with a foreign carrier, or where the provision of service is solely through the resale of the international switched services of unaffiliated U.S. facilitiesbased carriers. TLD has requested a change in its  T`-regulatory status pursuant to Section 63.13 of our rules.`r xP-#c PE37MP#эX47 C.F.R  63.13 (1994); see also Regulation of International Common Carrier Services, 7 FCC Rcd  xP-7331 (1992) (International Services).(# In application File No. ISP93002ND, TLD has certified that it has no affiliation with any foreign carrier in the countries listed in Appendix  T-A of its application.m@ r xP -#c PE37MP#эXIn its appendix to application File No. ISP93002ND, TLD lists numerous countries for which it certifies that it has no foreign carrier affiliation. Subsequent to the filing of its application, TLD submitted a letter on September 22, 1994 stating that TLD's affiliates acquired interests in telecommunications companies in Columbia and Peru. TLD amended its application to withdraw its  xP -request for nondominant status to these two countries. See Letter, dated September 22, 1994, from Alfred M. Mamlet, Counsel for TLD, to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. TLD has since filed a separate application for nondominant status to Columbia (File No. ISP95001ND). This application will be acted on separately. (#m In applications File Nos. ISP93003ND and ISP93005ND, TLD notes that it is affiliated with companies that have interests in carriers in Portugal and Venezuela, but it  T-certifies that those interests are not controlling.Y@( r xP-#c PE37MP#эXIn application File No. ISP93003ND, TLD's parent corporation, Telefonica International (TI), through a holding company, owns 15 percent of the voting shares of Canada de Pessoas, Limitada (Contactel), which operates paging services in Portugal. The application states that such an ownership interest is insufficient to provide TI control over Contactel. In application File No. ISP93005ND, TI owns 16 percent of the stock of a holding company, Venworld Telecom, that owns 40 percent of Compania Amonima de Telefonos de Venezuela (CANTV), giving TI a 6.4 percent ownership interest in CANTV. TLD asserts that this ownership percentage, and the ability to appoint one director to a board of nine and one alternate, does not give TI control over CANTV.(#Y Therefore, TLD states it is not "affiliated" with  T-those carriers within the meaning of Section 63.01(r)(1)(i) of our rules.0r xPh-#c PE37MP#эX47 C.F.R.  63.01(r)(1)(i) (1994).(#ƅ  TH - 10.` ` In File No. ISP93004ND seeking nondominant status to Romania, TLD states that it does appear to be affiliated, within the meaning of Section 63.01(r)(1)(i) of our rules, with  T -Telefonica Romania, S.A., which provides cellular services in Romania. r xPX-#c PE37MP#эXTLD's parent company, TI, through a holding company, owns sixty percent of the voting shares of  xP -Telefonica Romania, S.A. See File No. ISP93004ND. (# TLD further argues, however, that it does not believe Telefonica Romania, S.A. fits within our definition of a foreign  T -carrier r xP`#-#c PE37MP#эXSee 47 C.F.R.  63.01(r)(1)(ii) (1994) (definition of a "foreign carrier").(#ƴ because Telefonica Romania, S.A. provides only cellular services and does not own or control intercity or local access facilities used to provide international telecommunications services to the public. Even if Telefonica Romania, S.A. meets the definition of a foreign carrier, TLD argues, it is entitled to a presumption of nondominance on the U.S.Romania route because it provides service on this route solely through the resale of the international switched services of other U.S. facilitiesbased carriers with which TLD is not affiliated. Thus, according to TLD, it should be classified as a"0*(("  T-nondominant carrier for the provision of service to Romania under Section 63.10(a)(4) of our rules.r xPh-#c PE37MP#эSee 47 C.F.R.  63.10(a)(4) (1994).  T- 11.` ` AT&T originally objected to TLD's applications for nondominant status. It argued  T-that our International Services decision considered streamlined treatment of nondominant carriers without addressing the broader question of entry standards for foreign carriers seeking to enter the  T8-U.S. telecommunications market.8Xr xP0-#c PE37MP#эXSee AT&T Letter at 3.(#Ɓ However, AT&T no longer objects to the grant of the captioned applications given the Commission's decision to address market entry by foreign carriers in a separate  T-rulemaking proceeding.ir xPp -#c PE37MP#эXId.(#i  T- 12.` ` We stated in the TLD Order that TLD would be regulated as dominant to all foreign  Tp-points unless and until it could demonstrate, pursuant to International Services, that it qualifies for nondominant regulation on particular routes where it lacks affiliation with a foreign carrier that has  T -the ability and incentive to discriminate in its favor. xr xP8-#c PE37MP#эXSee TLD Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 111. In our International Services order, we modified our regulation of foreignaffiliated entities to apply dominant carrier treatment only on those routes where an affiliated foreign carrier has the ability and incentive to discriminate in favor of its U.S. affiliate in the provision  xP-of services or facilities used to terminate U.S. international traffic. International Services, 7 FCC Rcd  xPX-at 7332. See also 47 C.F.R.  63.10. We defined "affiliation" in our International Services order to include "a controlling interest by the applicant, or by any entity that directly or indirectly controls or is controlled by it, or that is under direct or indirect common control with it, in a foreign carrier or in any entity that directly or indirectly controls a foreign carrier; or a controlling interest in the applicant  xPx-by a foreign carrier, or by any entity that directly or indirectly controls a foreign carrier." See 47 C.F.R.  63.01(r)(1)(i).(#ƫ In International Services, we concluded that a U.S. carrier that has no affiliation with a foreign carrier in a particular country to which it provides service should be considered presumptively nondominant for the provision of international service on that route. We also concluded that a U.S. carrier that provides service to a particular country solely through the resale of an unaffiliated U.S. facilitiesbased carrier's international switched services shall  TX-presumptively be classified as nondominant for the provision of the authorized service.Xr xP-#c PE37MP#эXInternational Services 7 FCC Rcd at 73327333; see also 47 C.F.R.  63.10(a)(1) and (4) (1994).(#  T- 13.` ` Pursuant to our decision in International Services, we find no reason to continue to regulate TLD as dominant on those U.S. international routes for which it has no affiliation with a carrier on the foreign end and for which it has requested nondominant status, including the U.SPortugal and U.S.Venezuela routes. We find, based on the information in the record, that TLD's parent corporation does not have a controlling interest in carriers in either Portugal or Venezuela. Thus, TLD is not affiliated with a foreign carrier, within the meaning our rules, in either market. We see no evidence from TLD's current international operations that suggests the presumption in Section 63.10(a)(1) of our rules should not apply to TLD for services to the countries listed in"0*(("  T-application File Nos. ISP93002ND~r xPh-#c PE37MP#эXSee supra note 16.(#~, ISP93003ND, and ISP93005ND. Nor in our recent rulemaking on foreign carrier entry have we proposed to change our basic framework for determining the regulatory status of U.S. carriers that are affiliated with foreign carriers, though we have allowed  T-parties the opportunity to comment on our current definition of affiliation. Xr xP-#c PE37MP#эXSee Foreign Carrier NPRM, supra note 9, at  5266. We have requested comment on whether we should change our definition of affiliation from a control standard to one that treats a U.S. carrier as an affiliate of a foreign carrier when the foreign carrier either controls, or owns a certain percentage of  xP-the capital stock of, a U.S. carrier (e.g., greater than 10 or 25 percent).(# As noted by AT&T, concerns related to the broader question of entry standards for foreign carriers or their affiliates will be addressed in our rulemaking on that subject. We therefore grant TLD's request for nondominant  T-status in File Nos. ISP93002ND, ISP93003ND and ISP93005ND.@r xP -#c PE37MP#эXSee attached Appendix for a list of countries for which we grant TLD nondominant status.(#ƾ  T- 14.` ` We also grant TLD's request for nondominant status to Romania (File No. ISP93004ND) despite TLD's affiliation with Telefonica Romania, S.A. Because TLD provides service on the U.S.Romania route solely through the resale of international switched services of other U.S. facilitiesbased carriers with which TLD is not affiliated, it is presumptively nondominant under  T -Section 63.10(a)(4) of our Rules.{ r xP-#c PE37MP#эX47 C.F.R.  63.10(a)(4).(#{ No party has offered any evidence to defeat this presumption, and we find no basis in the record to continue regulating TLD as dominant to Romania.  T -15.` ` TLD's change in regulatory status permits it, among other things, to add circuits on  T -routes for which it is regulated as nondominant without obtaining prior Commission approval. ` r xP-#c PE37MP#эXThis general rule is subject to certain limitations contained in Section 63.15(a). 47 C.F.R.  63.15(a) (1994).(# We will, however, continue to require that TLD obtain our prior approval to acquire additional capacity  T0-in the TCS1 and TAINOCARIB cables. We imposed this requirement in the TLD Order at the  T-request of the State Department.  r xP`-#c PE37MP#эXSee TLD Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 109110, 116. We imposed other conditions on the assignment of the  xP(-TCS1 and TAINOCARIB landing licenses to TLD at the request of the State Department. See id. These conditions also are unaffected by our action regulating TLD as nondominant to the countries listed in Appendix A to this order. (# We will consider modifying or eliminating this requirement should TLD and the State Department request such action.  T-TLD's Provision of Domestic Interexchange Service  T@-16.` ` On March 9, 1995, TLD met with Commission staff regarding TLD's ability to  T-provide domestic interexchange service. r xPX&-#c PE37MP#эXSee Letter, dated March 9, 1995, from Alfred M. Mamlet, Counsel to TLD, to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. (# TLD was concerned that the language in previous" 0*((" Commission orders affecting TLD was ambiguous as to the type of service it could provide within the  T-United States. In particular, the TLD Cable Order stated in a footnote that TLD's entry into the U.S. mainland market to compete for U.S. international and domestic traffic would require a major  T-expansion of its existing authority.!r xP-#c PE37MP#эXSee TLD Cable Order, 9 FCC Rcd 4041 at 4045, n.28. (#ƥ  T8-17.` ` The Commission historically has not imposed foreign ownership restrictions on domestic interexchange services, other than the statutory requirements of Section 310 of the  T-Communications Act. Nor have we proposed to change our policy in our Foreign Carrier NPRM, although we have allowed parties the opportunity to comment in that proceeding on our current  T-policy."Xr xP -#c PE37MP#эXSee Foreign Carrier NPRM, supra note 9, at  8081. As we stated in our Foreign Carrier NPRM, the public interest is well served by our open entry standard for competitive domestic interexchange service. Moreover, TLD's foreign carrier affiliates may not use their bottleneck facilities to favor TLD over unaffiliated U.S. interexchange carriers where the affiliated foreign carriers cannot directly  xP-interconnect their facilities to TLD's interexchange facilities on the U.S. mainland. Id. at  81.(#Ɛ To the extent the Commission's footnote in the TLD Cable Order suggests that TLD should not be permitted to provide U.S. domestic interexchange service on or from the U.S. mainland, we do not believe such a restriction is consistent with our general regulatory scheme for the  T -provision of U.S. domestic interexchange service. Accordingly, we rule that TLD may provide U.S. domestic interexchange service without limitation. It also may do so without specific Section 214 authority from the Commission. TLD is regulated as a nondominant carrier in its provision of  T -domestic offisland interexchange services (e.g., from Puerto Rico to the U.S. mainland).#@ r xPP-#c PE37MP#эXSee Puerto Rico Telephone Authority, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 5675, 5676  xP-(1988).  We have previously concluded that, subject to certain safeguards, the public interest would be served by allowing TLD's predecessorininterest, Puerto Rico Telephone Company ("PRTC"), to  xP-provide domestic interexchange and international service between Puerto Rico and offisland points.   xPp-See Inquiry into Policies to be followed in the Authorization of Common Carrier Facilities to Provide  xP8-Telecommunications Service off the Island of Puerto Rico, Report and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 6600 (1987)  xP-(Puerto Rico Order), recon., 8 FCC Rcd 63 (1992). See also La Telefonica Larga Distancia de Puerto  xP-Rico, Memorandum Opinion, Order and Authorization, 3 FCC Rcd 5937 (1988). (# So long  T -as TLD conforms with the guidelines specified in the Fifth Report and Order$ r xP0-#c PE37MP#эXFifth Report and Order, 98 FCC 2d 1191 (1984), recon. denied, FCC 85572 (released Nov. 20, 1985). (# governing  TX-interexchange services provided by local exchange carrier affiliates,%Xhr xP` -#c PE37MP#эXTLD is owned, in minority part, by the Puerto Rico Telephone Authority ("PRTA"), which owns 100 hundred percent of PRTC. PRTC is the monopoly local exchange carrier in Puerto Rico.(# TLD need not seek specific  T0-Section 214 authority to compete in the U.S. mainland market for domestic interexchange service.   T-18.` ` We have already imposed nondiscrimination safeguards on the participation of PRTC  T-and TLD in the provision of offisland services.&Xr xP&-#c PE37MP#эXSee TLD Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 115. In the TLD Order, which authorized Telefonica to acquire control of most of the assets of TLD from PRTA, we concluded that the conditions we previously imposed on the participation of PRTC and TLD in the provision of offisland services should be"'%0*(('"  xP-imposed as a condition of that authorization. Id.(# These conditions, by their terms, shall also govern"X&0*((" PRTC and TLD in their provision of service from the U.S. mainland to Puerto Rico. As we  T-concluded in the TLD Order, applying these safeguards to PRTC to govern its relationship with TLD provides protection against anticompetitive and discriminatory behavior by PRTC against other U.S. interexchange carriers. We emphasize, however, that TLD's authorizations do not include the authority to offer U.S. international service to or from the U.S. mainland.  T8-  T-Delegation of Authority  T-  T-19.` `  In our TLD Order, we stated that international facilities applications from entities  T-affiliated with foreign carriers would require full Commission review and approval.'Xr xP -#c PE37MP#эXSee  TLD Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 113.(#Ɠ Since that order, the Commission has granted on a casebycase basis several Section 214 applications by foreign  TH -carriers to provide international facilitiesbased service.(H r xP-#c PE37MP#эXSee, e.g., TLD Cable Order, supra note 7; AmericaTel Corporation, Memorandum Opinion, Order, Authorization and Certificate, 9 FCC Rcd 3993 (1994).(# Where warranted, we have imposed safeguards and conditions on the applicants to prevent anticompetitive conduct. We have specific guidelines for determining the dominant or nondominant regulatory status for U.S. international  T -carriers that are affiliated with foreign carriers.) @r xP-#c PE37MP#эXInternational Services, 7 FCC Rcd 7331 (1992). See also 47 C.F.R.  63.10 and 63.13.(#  T -20.` ` Given our previous decisions, the International Bureau has sufficient policy guidance to act on Section 214 applications from foreign carriers or their affiliates and to determine their  T0-regulatory status.l*X0r xP-#c PE37MP#эXOur rulemaking on foreign carrier entry will provide interested parties the opportunity to advocate changes to the Commission's current guidelines and precedent for reviewing Section 214 applications for the provision of U.S. international service by foreign carriers.(#l We therefore remove the requirement that the full Commission review such carriers' Section 214 applications for international facilities, except to the extent particular applications raise matters reserved for Commission review under our general delegation of authority  T-to the International Bureau.`+x r xPH-#c PE37MP#эXSee 60 Fed. Reg. 5322 (1994) (to be codified at 47 C.F.R.  0.261). Under Section 0.261(b)(1) of our rules, the Bureau does not have the authority to act on an application that:(# XX` ` (a) presents new or novel arguments not previously considered by the Commission; (b) presents facts or arguments which appear to justify a change in Commission policy; or (c) cannot be resolved under outstanding precedents and guidelines after consultation with appropriate Bureaus or Offices. x` ` The Bureau has full authority to act on Section 214 applications filed by foreign carriers or their affiliates under its delegated authority in Section 0.261 of the rules. The Bureau shall also determine the regulatory status of such carriers on particular routes for specific"h 0+0*(("  T-international services.$, r xPh-#c PE37MP#эXWe did not explicitly require, in the TLD Order, that determinations of regulatory status be made by  xP0-the full Commission. See, e.g., Petition of Cable & Wireless, Inc. for Nondominant Status on  xP-International Private Line Routes, 9 FCC Rcd 6096 (Com. Car. Bur. 1994). To eliminate any doubt, however, we here confirm the authority of the International Bureau to make such determinations.(#$  T- IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  T9-21.` ` Upon consideration of the subject application, File No. ITC93091, IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the present and future public convenience and necessity require the authorization of TLD to provide private line services between Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Dominican Republic.  Tq-22.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that application File No. ITC93091 IS GRANTED, and TLD is authorized to:  T -XX` ` a. use its 30 authorized circuits in Segment G of TCS1 to provide its authorized international services, including private line services, between Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Dominican Republic;(#`  TY-XX` ` b. use its 120 authorized circuits in TUPR's Monte del Estado microwave system to provide its authorized international services, including private line services, between Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Dominican Republic; and(#`  T-XX` ` c. use its authorized TAINOCARIB Cable System facilities between Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to transmit private line traffic to and from the U.S. Virgin Islands that originates or terminates in the Dominican Republic.(#`  T-23.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that our authorization of TLD to provide private lines is limited to the provision of Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin IslandsDominican Republic private line service only that is, private lines which originate in Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands and terminate in the Dominican Republic or which originate in the Dominican Republic and terminate in Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands. In addition, TLD may not -- and TLD's tariff must state that TLD's customers may not -- connect its private lines provided over these facilities to the public switched network at either the Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands or the Dominican Republic end, for the provision of international switched basic services, unless authorized to do so by the Commission after a finding by the Commission that the Dominican Republic affords resale opportunities equivalent to  T-those available under U.S. law, in accordance with Regulation of International Accounting Rates,  T-Phase II, First Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 559 (1991), Order on Reconsideration and Third  Ta-Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 7 FCC Rcd 7927 (1992), petition for reconsideration  T9-pending.  T -24.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that neither TLD nor any persons or companies directly or indirectly controlling it or controlled by it, or under direct or indirect common control with it, shall acquire or enjoy any right, for the purposes of handling or interchanging traffic to or from the"" ,0*((&" United States, its territories or possessions, which is denied to any other United States carrier by reason of any concession, contract, understanding, or working arrangement to which TLD or any  T-persons or companies controlling or controlled by TLD are parties. See also 47 C.F.R.  63.14.  T`-25.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that TLD shall file with the Commission copies of any operating agreement it enters into with TLD's foreign correspondent in the Dominican Republic within 30 days of the execution of such agreement, and shall otherwise comply with the filing requirements contained in Section 43.51 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  43.51.  T-26.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that TLD shall file tariff provisions pursuant to Section 203 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 203, and Part 61 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 61, for the service authorized in this Order.  T -27.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that TLD shall file the annual reports of overseas telecommunications traffic required by Section 43.61 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 43.61.  T -28.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 63.10(a)(1) and (4) of the Commission's Rules, that Applications File Nos. ISP93002ND, ISP93003ND, ISP93004ND, and ISP93005ND ARE GRANTED, and TLD shall be regulated as nondominant for the  T-countries listed in the Appendix to this order.  T-29.` ` This order is effective upon adoption. Petitions for reconsideration under Section  T-1.106, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, may be filed within 30 days of public notice of this order (see Section 1.4(b)(2), 47 C.F.R.  1.4(b)(2)). ` `  hh,VFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` ` hh,VWilliam F. Caton ` ` hh,VActing Secretary "' ,0*((,"Ԍ HAPPENDIX COUNTRIES FOR WHICH X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: