******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Telefonica de Puerto Rico, Inc. ) File No. ITC-96-214 ) File No. EID-735 Application for Authority Pursuant to ) Section 214 of the Communications Act of ) 1934, as amended, to Operate as an International ) Resale Carrier of Switched Services ) ORDER, AUTHORIZATION AND CERTIFICATE Adopted: May 11, 1998 Released: May 19, 1998 By the Chief, International Bureau: 1. Telefonica de Puerto Rico, Inc. (TPRI), pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, submitted an application requesting authority to resell international switched services to various foreign points. In this Order, we grant TPRI's application, subject to certain conditions. I. Background 2. Both TPRI and its local exchange affiliate, Puerto Rico Telephone Company (PRTC), are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Puerto Rico Telephone Authority (PRTA), a government instrumentality of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. PRTC is the Puerto Rico local exchange carrier (LEC); TPRI is intended to be a reseller of international switched voice and data services to various foreign points. 3. We placed this application on public notice on April 5, 1996. AT&T Corp. (AT&T) and Lambda Communications, Inc. (Lambda) filed petitions to deny, and Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (Sprint) filed a petition to deny or condition the authorization. TPRI opposed these petitions, and petitioners replied. At the Commission's request, a status conference of all parties of record was held on May 1, 1997. Numerous letters and submissions have been filed since the status conference. 4. As noted by petitioners, the Commission has considered issues related to the participation of PRTC, TPRI's sister company, in the off-island telecommunications market since the late 1970's. Following the Court of Appeals' 1984 remand of the Commission's grant to PRTC of authority to provide off-island services to and from the U.S. mainland, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Canada, the Commission initiated a rulemaking proceeding to develop policies and guidelines on off-island communication. This proceeding culminated in the Off- Island Order in October 1987. The Off-Island Order found that competition in the Puerto Rico off-island market was both feasible and desirable. While opening the door to granting PRTC authority to provide off-island services, however, the Off-Island Order imposed a number of conditions designed to ensure fair competition. In particular, the Commission imposed requirements on PRTC concerning the provision of interim access to multiple off- island carriers and the implementation of full equal access comparable to that provided on the mainland. The Commission also found that rules then in effect classified PRTC as dominant for the provision of off-island domestic service and that PRTC should be treated as dominant for the provision of off-island international message telephone service (IMTS). In addition, the Commission imposed safeguards on PRTC related to disclosure of technical network information; customer proprietary network information (CPNI); information gleaned from competing off-island carriers; and aggregate customer information. Finally, the Commission required that PRTC make available to off-island carriers, on request, data for each end office or wire center on the past and projected number of business and residence telephone lines and average usage per line, updated on a semi-annual basis. 5. In the summer of 1988, AT&T-PR and PRTC reached settlement on numerous matters, including various Section 214 applications filed by PRTC. As part of this settlement agreement, PRTA created La Telefonica Larga Distancia de Puerto Rico (LTLD), a wholly- owned separate corporate subsidiary for the provision of domestic and international off-island service, and substituted it for PRTC in various relevant applications. PRTA also asked for non-dominant treatment of LTLD, which was granted. Subsequent orders granted LTLD Section 214 operating authority for earth station construction and operation and for operation as an international resale and facilities-based carrier, while continuing the conditions imposed in the Off-Island Order. 6. In 1992 the Commission authorized LTLD to assign its international Section 214 authorizations and cable landing license interests to LD Acquisition Corp. (LD), an affiliate of Telefonica de Espa¤a, the monopoly provider of domestic and international communications services in Spain. Upon completion of the transaction, LD changed its name to Telefonica Larga Distancia de Puerto Rico, Inc. (TLD), which continues to provide off-island international services. Also in 1992, the Commission reconsidered its Off-Island Order, affirming its main holdings but modifying its CPNI disclosure requirements in light of the formation of LTLD as a separate subsidiary. 7. It is in this context that, on February 15, 1996, PRTC applied for Section 214 authorization to re-enter the off-island international services market. The arguments made by petitioners opposing the application fall into three main categories: (1) that PRTC has failed in various ways to meet the terms of existing conditions (imposed in the Off-Island Order and renewed multiple times since then) and compliance with these and other nondiscrimination conditions is critical to any grant of authority to TPRI; (2) that PRTC's responses to requests for access to local network facilities and a submarine cable station have been inadequate and unacceptable; and (3) that TPRI must be treated as a dominant carrier and any grant must be stringently conditioned to guard against anticompetitive behavior by TPRI/PRTC. II. Discussion A. Conditions Imposed in the Off-Island Order; Additional Conditions 1. Positions of the Parties 8. AT&T and Sprint petition to deny or condition TPRI's application on the grounds that PRTC has failed to demonstrate that it has met or will adhere to the conditions prescribed by the Commission in its Off-Island Order to preclude anticompetitive conduct by PRTC as a provider of off-island services. In that order, AT&T and Sprint argue, the Commission recognized that, because of its local service monopoly, its government-owned status, and the absence of any local telecommunications regulatory authority, PRTC had the ability and the incentive to engage in discrimination against other off-island carriers. They note that the Commission imposed a variety of safeguards on PRTC to guard against discrimination. 9. Stating that TPRI's application makes no mention of these requirements and provides no demonstration of PRTC's compliance with them, AT&T and Sprint argue that the Commission should find that grant of the TPRI application would not serve the public interest. AT&T asserts that allowing PRTC to provide switched international services on a resale basis, as requested, would bring about the reentry of PRTA and the Puerto Rican government into the provision of international services, effectively reversing the trend toward privatization of international services formerly provided by PRTA, which was begun by the 1992 transfer of LTLD assets to Spain's Telefonica. 10. Sprint also argues that if TPRI's application is granted, the Commission must impose additional conditions on PRTC/TPRI. Citing extensive delays and difficulties in getting PRTC to switch customers to Sprint as their primary interexchange carrier (PIC), Sprint urges the Commission to require PRTC to report quarterly and publicly to the Commission on the length of time PRTC takes to accomplish PIC changes for itself and for its competitors. In view of specific private line provisioning difficulties that Sprint alleges it has experienced with PRTC, Sprint requests a similar reporting requirement with respect to the timeliness of PRTC's private line provisioning process. Sprint asks that we make clear that continued delays, problems or discrimination in these areas will result in forfeitures or cancellation of TPRI's Section 214 authority. Finally, Sprint says, any grant of authority to TPRI should await Commission action to implement the new Section 222 provisions on customer information. 11. TPRI opposes both petitions and urges the Commission to grant its application expeditiously. TPRI asserts that PRTC is in compliance with the conditions imposed by the Commission in its Off-Island Order. It states that delays in private line provisioning and PIC changes are not the result of anticompetitive intent, but of supply shortages and operational difficulties. It argues that, in any event, none of the matters raised by petitioners are germane to its application. 12. AT&T replies that, despite TPRI's statement of PRTC compliance, PRTC is seriously in default of several of the conditions imposed by the Off-Island Order, including notification to all authorized off-island carriers of new or modified network configurations at the "make-buy" stage of development, and provision to all off-island carriers, at least semiannually, of the past and projected numbers of business and residence telephone lines, as well as average usage per line, for each end office. AT&T avers that PRTC "has been routinely reconfiguring its network, reducing the number of central office hosts while converting hosts into remote switches, without prior notification of the conversion schedule to AT&T." In response to AT&T's repeated requests for required information, AT&T argues, PRTC provided an incomplete response after six months' delay. According to AT&T, these examples of PRTC's lack of compliance with the Commission's requirements preclude the Commission's granting TPRI's application. 2. Discussion 13. TPRI's initial pleadings did not specifically address the allegations that PRTC is not in compliance with the conditions imposed in the Off-Island Order, except to say that PRTC is in compliance. Accordingly, the Telecommunications Division (Division) of the International Bureau convened a status conference and requested submission by TPRI of the required information. 14. The Division held a status conference on May 1, 1997, to clarify the various allegations of PRTC non-compliance with Commission conditions, anticompetitive behavior, and failure to perform, and to give TPRI the opportunity to respond to these allegations. TPRI and all three opposing parties attended this conference. TPRI provided supplemental information from PRTC on subjects in dispute. This information includes: (1) Two representative letters of Network Change Notifications. (2) Reports entitled "Aggregate Control Office Information for 1995 and 1996," showing, by central office, historic numbers of business and residential lines and annual minutes of use (MOU); and annual average MOU per line by cluster. (3) Reports on Average Time of PIC Change Completion for 1996 and the first three months of 1997. (4) Reports on Private Line Service Order Completions for 1995, 1996 and the first four months of 1997, providing monthly reporting on completions of private line orders. TPRI stated in the conference that PRTC would develop a report that provides the average interval for installation of private line facilities for all carriers and the average interval for PRTC, and that TPRI would submit this report semiannually to the Bureau and concurrently to all parties to this proceeding. (5) PRTC's CPNI Policy Practice Guide of 03/01/93. (6) A copy of the March, 1997, Lambda/PRTC local interconnection agreement. 15. These documents and other submissions made by TPRI respond to the questions and allegations raised in this proceeding in each of several areas. Regarding PRTC's completion of private line orders, TPRI submitted a letter to the Commission and all parties of record on May 21, 1997. That letter includes a report on PRTC's private line installation completions for April 1997. This submission reflects an average installation interval of 170 days for PRTC orders, and an average installation interval of 95 days for orders for other carriers. In a letter dated June 11, Sprint argues that PRTC's private line provisioning problems extend far beyond simple delays, including failure to respond to inquiries on the status of private line orders and failure by PRTC to meet service delivery dates established by PRTC itself. We find that TPRI has satisfactorily addressed Sprint's allegations and the Commission's questions. The May 21 letter outlines steps PRTC is taking to improve its provisioning intervals. On December 29, 1997 and January 28, 1998, TPRI submitted reports on private line installation for June through November, 1997 and for December, 1997, respectively. These reports continue to show significantly shorter times for completion of other carriers' orders than for PRTC's own orders. TPRI assures the Bureau that PRTC's servicing of private line orders will not advantage TPRI. In addition, TPRI has committed to submit to the Bureau, and serve on the parties to this proceeding, a semiannual report providing the average interval for installation of private line facilities for all carriers and the average interval for PRTC. 16. With regard to Sprint's allegations of PIC change irregularities, TPRI stated in the status conference and in its May 21 letter that the PRTC PIC change process was automated in August 1996, and that this has improved the average PIC change time from 19.23 business days in March 1996 to 3.72 business days in March 1997. While Sprint complains of other irregularities, we find that PRTC's implementation of an automated system satisfactorily addresses the PIC change issue raised in this proceeding and that our Section 208 procedures are the appropriate remedy for problems with PIC order completion and the other irregularities complained of by Sprint. 17. In response to allegations that PRTC has failed to provide historic and projected line and usage information to off-island carriers on request, as required by the Off-Island Order, TPRI provided at the status conference PRTC's Aggregate Control Office Reports for 1995 and 1996. On October 22, 1997, TPRI also filed with the Commission and all parties of record PRTC's Aggregate Control Office Report for the first half of 1997 and its projected Aggregate Control Office Report for year-end 1997. TPRI on March 3, 1998, filed its year- end report for 1997, including projections for 1998. TPRI has agreed to provide to the Bureau and off-island carriers an aggregate report showing, by end office, historic and projected numbers of business and residence lines and average usage per line semiannually within 60 days from the end of each calendar half. We conclude that this commitment provides adequate assurance that PRTC will satisfy this aspect of the Off-Island Order, which appears to exceed the requirements recently adopted by the Commission generally for disclosure of aggregate customer information by telecommunications carriers. 18. We dismiss as moot Sprint's request that we delay a grant of authority to TPRI until the Commission adopts regulations to implement provisions of Section 222 of the Communications Act. The Commission on February 19, 1998 promulgated regulations to implement the statutory obligations of Section 222 relating to carrier use and disclosure of CPNI and other customer information obtained by carriers in their provision of telecommunications service. We find that these rules supplant the CPNI requirements applied to PRTC in the Off-Island Order. As discussed above, however, we will condition this authorization on TPRI's commitment to provide the Bureau and off-island carriers on a semi-annual basis the historical and projected traffic data which the Off-Island Order required PRTC to make available to carriers upon request. We also note that PRTC continues to be subject to the Off-Island Order requirement that it ensure that information about other off- island carriers' customers is not made available to PRTC (or any affiliate's) off-island personnel. This obligation will continue in force at least until the Commission adopts new or modified requirements on PRTC's use of such carrier information. 19. AT&T challenged PRTC for having failed to provide network change notifications as directed in the Off-Island Order. In the status conference, TPRI tacitly acknowledged that PRTC may have made network changes or modifications without the required notification to off-island carriers. In the supplement submitted at the conference, however, TPRI showed two sample notification letters (from June 1996 and February 1997) as evidence of PRTC's current commitment to compliance with this requirement. In a letter to the Commission dated May 5, 1997, counsel for TPRI and PRTC also represented that "PRTC presently provides advance notice of network changes to off-island carriers by fax and regular mail. PRTC is implementing procedures to ensure that future notifications of network changes comport with applicable Commission rules." We find that these sample letters and representations of compliance provide adequate assurance that PRTC will meet its network disclosure obligations. We encourage parties to inform the Commission of any demonstrated noncompliance by PRTC with its network disclosure obligations. 20. While we do not take lightly any allegations of anticompetitive behavior, we find that TPRI has adequately addressed the allegations made here. TPRI and PRTC have provided the requested information regarding PIC changes, network notification, private line order completions, and aggregate customer information. TPRI and PRTC have also provided information regarding changes made recently, or currently underway, to improve PRTC's performance and responsiveness, including automation of the PIC change process and continuing improvement in private line provisioning. Further, TPRI has committed, and will be required, to file with the Bureau and serve concurrently on all parties to this proceeding semiannual reports from PRTC on private line provisioning, and to make available to the Bureau and off-island carriers the aggregate customer information specified in the Off-Island Order, until further ordered by the Commission. These requirements will facilitate monitoring and review, particularly of PRTC's private line provisioning. Any problems with order completions (for private lines, PIC changes, or other services) can appropriately be addressed in the context of the Section 208 complaint process. We find that these measures adequately address our concerns and the concerns raised by the parties to this proceeding. PRTC's or TPRI's failure to comply with the conditions of this authorization, or with any specific or general requirements imposed on either carrier by Commission rule or order, may result in monetary forfeiture or our revisiting this authorization, upon petition of a party or upon our own initiative. 21. Finally, we disagree with AT&T that we should deny this application because it "bring[s] about the re-entry of PRTA and the Puerto Rican government into the provision of international services." In the Off-Island Order, the Commission determined that competition in the domestic and international off-island market is feasible and would promote the public interest. In making this determination, the Commission anticipated PRTC's participation in the off-island market, and set forth guidelines covering such entry. We reject AT&T's suggestion that we should effectively reverse this decision. AT&T is correct that the TLD Assignment Order supported the privatization of PRTC's off-island operations. In stating that it has been Commission policy to favor private ownership of international facilities, the Commission noted that privatization would "encourage competition, lower rates, and bring better service to the public." The Commission also noted that the proceeds from the sale would go towards education reform in Puerto Rico. The TLD Assignment Order, however, cannot be read to prohibit a PRTA subsidiary from re-entering the off-island market. B. Assertions of Refusal to Provide Access to PRTC Facilities 1. Positions of the Parties 22. Lambda argues in its petition that extended delays in meeting Lambda's request for equipment space in PRTC's Isla Verde Cable Station warrant denial of TPRI's application. Lambda avers that TUPR engaged in "obstructionist conduct" in refusing to execute a lease agreement allowing Lambda to locate its fiber optic facilities in the cable station. Lambda states that TUPR "continually refused Lambda's requests and requests by owners of the Taino Carib cable" for collocation by Lambda to provide a competitive switched transport and access service for the interexchange carriers' interstate and international traffic. According to Lambda, PRTA's actions, as owner of both TUPR and PRTC, constitute "blatantly anticompetitive conduct" and deny to Puerto Rico consumers the benefits of competition in the interstate switched transport and access market. Interexchange carriers that have Puerto Rico as an originating or terminating point are PRTC's "captive audience" for transport and access services, Lambda asserts, and it is with these carriers that PRTC now seeks to compete as a reseller. 23. Lambda asserts that other conduct by PRTC to keep Puerto Rico's intra-island and off-island telecommunications market closed to competition, combined with PRTC's status as an unregulated state-owned carrier, also constitute grounds for denial of the application. Sprint supports this argument and points to its own experience of lengthy delays in its dealings with PRTC, specifically with regard to PIC changes and private line provisioning orders (discussed in Section A supra). 24. Specifically, Lambda avers that there is no agency regulating PRTC's monopoly intra-island offerings and that the 1974 enabling statute makes clear that PRTC is self- regulating. Lambda states that, while it has received authorization from the Puerto Rico Public Service Commission to provide certain intra-island services, it has been unable to obtain reasonable interconnection with PRTC's network. As a member of the NECA pools, Lambda argues, PRTC offers only bundled, economically infeasible interconnection, and has thus enjoyed a monopoly in interstate access services as well. Sprint argues that regulation of telecommunications in Puerto Rico is still in an embryonic state, and that competitors still suffer significant disadvantages in Puerto Rico, such as the lack of equal access for intra- island toll calling. Citing the Commission's Local Competition Notice, Sprint urges that the Commission make any grant of authority to TPRI "subject to the competitive checklist for incumbent LECs as ultimately implemented by the Commission." 25. TPRI attacks Sprint's and Lambda's petitions as "inaccurate and frivolous," stating that neither PRTC's status as a state-owned entity, nor the regulatory status of PRTC's intrastate service, is germane to the Commission's consideration of this application. TPRI argues that Lambda's assertions regarding unavailability of equipment space at the Isla Verde Cable Station are inaccurate and inapposite to this case, and should, if valid, be brought as a Section 208 complaint. TPRI explains that Lambda's request for equipment space at Isla Verde could not be granted because the right to space in that cable station is reserved for the carrier/owners of the cables landing at the station. According to TPRI, these are the proper parties to whom Lambda should have addressed its request. In its reply, Lambda challenges PRTC's explanation regarding the Isla Verde Cable Station as lacking credibility because PRTC, which is not a carrier/owner of the cables, maintains its network and transport facilities in the cable station. 2. Discussion 26. While we do not dismiss or disregard Lambda's assertions regarding its difficulty in locating fiber optic facilities in the Isla Verde Cable Station, we do not find them sufficient to warrant denial of TPRI's application. TUPR and Lambda executed a Sublease Agreement on February 21, 1997 -- albeit more than two years after Lambda first requested space from TUPR. TPRI maintains, however, that Lambda itself could have taken on the necessary task of obtaining consent for the lease from the numerous carrier/owners of the cable, but chose to rely on TUPR. It states that TUPR acted diligently in obtaining consent by November 16, 1996 and then began the process of working with Lambda on design and engineering matters, and then on final negotiation of the terms of the lease. TPRI represents that TUPR is "pleased to provide service to Lambda and to any other party that so requests, but in complying with such requests, TUPR will not violate any of its other obligations to other parties." Given TPRI's representations, and the complexities involved in collocating multiple carriers' facilities at an international cable station, we do not find on this record that TUPR's or any affiliated company's conduct in this matter justifies denial of the requested international resale authorization. We note that Lambda also filed a petition requesting that the Commission modify the cable landing licenses for the Taino Carib and Antillas I cables to require that the Isla Verde station not be owned or controlled by PRTC and to order PRTC to lease the requested space to Lambda. Lambda did not provide any additional evidence in that proceeding that would cause us to reach a different conclusion. 27. We also reject as a basis for denial Sprint's and Lambda's other arguments related to the status of regulation in Puerto Rico and PRTC's alleged attempts to maintain a monopoly in intra-island service and interstate access service. We note that, while it was true at the time of the filing of this application that Puerto Rico had no independent regulator, that is no longer the case. In September 1996, the Puerto Rico Telecommunications Act of 1996 came into force, and the Telecommunications Regulatory Board of Puerto Rico was established. That board is an independent regulator with general and incidental powers and duties, and has actively pursued its mandate through arbitrating interconnection agreements, adjudicating disputes, and conducting proceedings in universal service and telecom relay services, among others. Indeed, Lambda and PRTC reached an interconnection agreement pursuant to Sections 251 and 252 of the Communications Act on March 18, 1997, albeit after two years of negotiation and after the Regulatory Board was formed and an arbitration process had commenced. We also note that PRTC filed its own interstate tariff for expanded interconnection on May 6, 1996. Further, in response to Sprint's concerns regarding equal access for intra-island toll calling, TPRI states that PRTC will comply with relevant Commission requirements for equal access. 28. Finally, we reject Sprint's assertion that any grant of authority to TPRI must be subject to PRTC meeting the competitive checklist imposed by Section 271 of the Communications Act on Bell Operating Companies (BOCs). Congress tailored the competitive checklist carefully, imposing it on these specified carriers only, and not on all local exchange carriers. PRTC is an independent local exchange carrier, not a BOC, and the checklist accordingly does not apply to PRTC. Absent any compelling argument why PRTC should be treated differently than Congress indicated, we decline to extend the BOC competitive checklist to PRTC. C. Request for Non-Dominant Treatment 1. Positions of the Parties 29. Lambda argues that PRTC's pro forma amendment to substitute TPRI as the applicant is a "ruse" to cover anticompetitive conduct by PRTC. It argues that the Commission should impose on PRTC more complete structural separation than the Commission required when PRTC originally entered the off-island telecommunications market. Sprint challenges PRTC's pro forma amendment as insufficient to address concerns about anticompetitive behavior. According to Sprint, the amendment justifies, at most, a limited and conditioned grant subject to PRTC's demonstrated compliance with existing conditions, plus required reporting by PRTC of its speed of private line provisioning and PIC changes for TPRI and TPRI's competitors. Sprint also expresses concern that, through its control of the Isla Verde Cable Station, PRTC has the ability to delay off-island carrier connections within the cable station cross connect facility. 30. TPRI responds that, as a separate corporate affiliate of PRTC, it qualifies for non- dominant status in the provision of international resale service, despite these assertions to the contrary. It also challenges Lambda's assertion that we cannot grant Section 214 authority to TPRI without it first filing for and obtaining specific approval to establish interlocking directorates pursuant to Section 212 of the Act. 2. Discussion 31. With regard to the interlocking directorships of TPRI and PRTC, Section 62.12 of the rules requires that TPRI apply for a finding of common ownership in order to qualify for an exemption from the Section 212 requirement of prior authorization for interlocking directorates. Based on the information contained in the pro forma amendment, we conclude that TPRI and PRTC are commonly owned within the meaning of Section 62.2 of the Commission's rules and that they therefore may establish interlocking directorates. Within 30 days from the grant of the instant application, TPRI and PRTC shall file the information required by Section 62.26 of the rules. This submission should refer to File Number EID-735 in the Common Carrier Bureau. 32. Regarding the question of TPRI's regulatory classification, our regulations governing the U.S. international services market traditionally have distinguished between "dominant" and "non-dominant" carriers. We have classified carriers operating in the U.S. market, whether U.S.- or foreign-owned, as dominant in their provision of U.S. international services on particular routes in two circumstances: (1) where we have determined that a U.S. carrier can exercise market power on the U.S. end of a particular route; and (2) where we have determined that a foreign carrier has market power on the foreign end of a particular route that can adversely affect competition in the U.S. international services market. 33. The Commission recently concluded in the LEC Regulatory Treatment Order that incumbent independent local exchange carriers' (ILECs') market power in local exchange and exchange access markets did not warrant imposing traditional dominant carrier safeguards on their provision of in-region international services. The Commission also concluded, however, that incumbent ILECs such as PRTC may provide in-region international services only through an affiliate that fulfills the separation requirements of the Competitive Carrier Fifth Report and Order. 34. In this case, PRTC has amended its application to substitute a separate corporate affiliate, TPRI, as the applicant. No persuasive evidence has been presented that the creation by PRTC of TPRI to provide the requested off-island international services is anything less than credible. TPRI states for the record that it will comply with the separation requirements adopted in the LEC Regulatory Treatment Order. Further, no party has presented evidence that, contrary to the findings of the Commission in the LEC Regulatory Treatment Order, TPRI will have, upon entry or soon thereafter, the ability to raise the price of off-island international service by restricting its output of such services. We therefore find no basis to regulate TPRI as dominant in its provision of international off-island service due to its market power in the provision of local exchange and exchange access facilities and services. We also find no basis in this record to impose separation requirements on TPRI that are stricter than those the Commission adopted in the LEC Regulatory Treatment Order for ILEC provision of in-region international services. The reporting requirements that we adopt as conditions of this order respond to specific concerns raised by the parties about prior conduct by PRTC. Further, we have stated that PRTC's or TPRI's failure to comply with the conditions of this authorization, or with any specific or general requirements imposed on either carrier by Commission rule or order, may result in monetary forfeiture or our revisiting this authorization, upon petition of a party or our own initiative. III. Conclusion 35. We conclude that grant of TPRI's application to resell the switched services of other U.S. international common carriers is in the public interest. We find that TPRI has satisfactorily addressed the concerns raised by the parties to this proceeding and that the reporting requirements imposed here as conditions of TPRI's authorization will facilitate monitoring and review, particularly of PRTC's provisioning of private lines to other off-island carriers. As we have also made clear, PRTC's or TPRI's failure to comply with the conditions of this authorization, or with any specific or general requirements imposed on either carrier by Commission rule or order, may result in monetary forfeiture or our revisiting this authorization, upon petition of a party or our own initiative. IV. Ordering Clauses 36. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that the present and future public interest, convenience and necessity require a grant of the present application, and IT IS ORDERED that application File No. ITC-96-214 IS GRANTED and Telefonica de Puerto Rico, Inc. (TPRI) is authorized to resell the international switched services of authorized U.S. common carriers between the United States and all international points, subject to the Commission's exclusion list and all current and future Commission regulations, including those specifically listed below, as well as the conditions set out below. 37. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitions to deny or deny or condition, filed by AT&T Corp. (AT&T), Lambda Communications, Inc. (Lambda), and Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (Sprint) ARE GRANTED IN PART AND ARE OTHERWISE DENIED. 38. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that TPRI shall file Aggregate Control Office Information showing, by central office, numbers of business and residential lines and annual and average minutes of use (MOU) per line. This report is to be filed with the Chief, International Bureau and provided to all off-island carriers semiannually, showing both historic and projected numbers, within 60 days from the end of each calendar half, effective January 1, 1998. 39. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that TPRI shall file Reports on Private Line Service Order Completions providing monthly data on completions of private line orders. This report shall provide the average interval for installation of private line facilities for all off-island carriers and the average interval for PRTC. This report is to be filed with the Chief, International Bureau and served on all parties to this proceeding semiannually, within 60 days from the end of each calendar half, effective January 1, 1998. 40. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  62.12, that Telefonica de Puerto Rico, Inc. and the Puerto Rico Telephone Company ARE COMMONLY OWNED by the Puerto Rico Telephone Authority and ARE EXEMPT from the prior authorization of interlocking directorates required by Section 212 of the Act. 41. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that TPRI SHALL FILE within 30 days of the grant of this application the information required by Section 62.26 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  62.26. 42. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that TPRI shall comply with the requirements of Sections 63.19 and 63.21 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  63.19 & 63.21. 43. This Order is issued under Section 0.261 of the Commission's rules and is effective upon adoption. Petitions for reconsideration under Section 1.106, or applications for review under Section 1.115 of the Commission's rules, may be filed within 30 days after the date of public notice of this Order (see Section 1.4(b)(2)). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Regina M. Keeney Chief, International Bureau