2542 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

document 99–18291 beginning on page

38528 in the issue of Friday, July 16,

1999, make the following corrections:

PART 301–5—[CORRECTED]

1. On page 38528, in the second

column, correct amendatory instruction

1. to read as follows:

‘‘1. The authority citation for part

301–51 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5707.’’

2. On page 38528, second column,

add new amendatory instruction 1a.

immediately after amendatory

instruction 1. to read as follows:

‘‘1a. Part 301–51 is amended by

revising subpart A to read as follows:

3. On page 38528, second column,

correct the heading ‘‘PART 301–51—

PAYING TRAVEL EXPENSES’’ to read

‘‘Subpart A—General’’.

4. On page 38528, third column,

fourth line, remove the words

‘‘Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5707.’’.

5. On page 38528, third column, add

‘‘Subpart A—General’’ immediately

preceding § 301–51.1.

Dated: January 11, 2000.

Peggy G. DeProspero,

Deputy Director, Travel and Transportation

Management Policy Division.

[FR Doc. 00–1025 Filed 1–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–34–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 51

[CC Docket No. 96–98; FCC 99–238]

Revision of the Commission’s Rules

Specifying the Portions of the Nation’s

Local Telephone Networks That

Incumbent Local Telephone

Companies Must Make Available to

Competitors

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document revises rules

applicable to incumbent local exchange

carriers (LECs) to permit competitive

carriers to access portions of the

incumbent LECs’ networks on an

unbundled basis. Unbundling allows

competitors to lease portions of the

incumbent LECs’ network to provide

telecommunications services. These rule

changes are intended to remove

uncertainty regarding the incumbent

LECs’ unbundling obligations under the

Telecommunications Act of 1996 and

are expected to accelerate the

development of local exchange

competition.

DATES: Effective February 17, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Claudia Fox, Attorney Advisor,

Common Carrier Bureau, Policy and

Program Planning Division, 202–418–

1580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Third

Report and Order, (Third) and Fourth

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(Fourth FNPRM) in CC Docket No. 96–

98 (62 FR 45611, August 28, 1997)) FCC

99–238, adopted September 15, 1999,

and released November 5, 1999. The

final rules associated with the Third

R&O are effective 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register

except to the extent specified in the

following regulations: the requirement

to provide access on an unbundled basis

to dark fiber as set forth in

§ 51.319(a)(1); the requirement to

provide access on an unbundled basis to

subloops and inside wire as set forth in

§ 51.319(a)(2); the requirement to

provide access on an unbundled basis to

packet switching in the limited

circumstances set forth in § 51.319(c)(5);

the requirement to provide access on an

unbundled basis to dark fiber transport

as set forth in § 51.319(d)(1)(ii); the

requirement to provide access on an

unbundled basis to the Calling Name

Database, 911 Database, and E911

Database as set forth in § 51.319(e)(2)(i);

and the requirement to provide access

on an unbundled basis to loop

qualification information as set forth in

§ 51.319(g). The Commission also

adopted a Fourth Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (Fourth FNPRM)

in CC Docket No. 96–98 on September

15, 1999 and released it on November 5,

1999. The Fourth FNPRM seeks

comment on certain issues associated

with a requesting carrier’s ability to use

unbundled network elements to provide

exchange access service. A complete

summary of the Fourth FNPRM is

published in the Federal Register

separately from this summary of the

Third R&O in CC Docket No. 96–98.

Any final rules that the Commission

eventually adopts in connection with

the Fourth FNPRM will also be

published in the Federal Register as

required. On November 24, 1999, the

Commission adopted and released a

Supplemental Order in CC Docket No.

96–98, FCC 99–370, that modifies the

Third R&O and Fourth FNPRM with

regard to the use of unbundled network

elements to provide exchange access

services. The complete text of the Third

R&O and Fourth FNPRM, the Erratum

and the Supplemental Order are

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Information Center,

Courtyard Level, 445 12th Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C., and also may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Services (ITS, Inc.), CY–B400, 445 12th

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. It is also

available via the internet at the

Commission’s home page, http://

www.fcc.gov/ccb/Orders/index6.html.

Synopsis of the Third Report and Order

and Supplemental Order

1. The Commission adopts a Third

Report and Order (Third R&O) in CC

Docket No. 96–98 specifying which

portions of their networks incumbent

LECs must lease to competitive carriers

on an unbundled basis. Specifically, the

Commission defines the standard it will

use, as set forth in section 251(d)(2) of

the Telecommunications Act of 1996

(1996 Act), to determine which network

elements the incumbent LEC must

unbundle. It then applies that standard

to individual network elements to

determine if incumbent LECs must

provide unbundled access to them. The

Third R&O and accompanying rules will

benefit consumers by accelerating the

development of competitive choices for

local telecommunications services.

2. The rules changes were needed to

respond to a U.S. Supreme Court

decision ( AT&T v. Iowa Utils. Bd, 119

S.Ct. 721 (1999)) that affirmed the

Commission’s implementation of the

local competition requirements of the

1996 Act, but that required the

Commission to re-evaluate the standard

that it uses to determine which network

elements the incumbent LECs must

unbundle. The standard is set out in

section 251(d)(2) of the 1996 Act. It

requires the Commission, in

determining what network elements

should be made available for purposes

of section 251(c) of the 1996 Act, to

consider whether access to such

network elements that are proprietary in

nature is ‘‘necessary,’’ and whether the

failure to provide access to such

network elements would ‘‘impair’’ the

ability of a telecommunications carrier

seeking access to an element to provide

the services that it seeks to offer. The

Commission’s original rules

implementing section 251(d)(2) (Order,

61 FR 45476, August, 29, 1996) required

incumbent LECs to unbundle a network

element if (1) access to the element was

‘‘necessary’’, which it defined as a

prerequisite to competition, or if (2) a

requesting carrier’s ability to offer

competitive service was impaired,

which it defined as occurring if the

quality of service that the carrier could

provide without access to the element

declined, or the cost of providing the

service increased. The Supreme Court

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2543

directed the Commission to give more

substance the ‘‘necessary’’ and ‘‘impair’’

standards by considering more than

‘‘any’’ increase in cost or decrease in

quality associated with denying access

to an incumbent LEC’s network element

and to consider the availability of

elements outside the incumbent LEC’s

network.

3. As a result, the Third R&O adopts

a standard that gives substance to the

terms ‘‘necessary’’ and ‘‘impair’’ in

section 251(d)(2), evaluates alternative

elements that are available through selfprovisioning by a requesting carrier or

through third party suppliers, and that

is rationally related to the goals of the

1996 Act. The Third R&O confirms that

the ‘‘necessary’’ standard of section

251(d)(2)(A) is a higher standard that

applies to proprietary network elements

or to proprietary functions within an

element, and that the ‘‘impair’’ standard

applies to non-proprietary network

elements. The Third R&O adopts a

limited definition of the phrase

‘‘proprietary in nature’’ that tracks the

intellectual property categories of

patent, copyright, and trade secrets. If

an incumbent LEC can demonstrate that

it has invested resources (time, material,

or personnel) to develop proprietary

information or network elements that

are protected by patent, copyright, or

trade secret law, the product of such an

investment is ‘‘proprietary in nature’’

within the meaning of section

251(d)(2)(A). The definition excludes

elements that are based on widely

accepted industry documents or on

standards commonly used by a

standards-setting body (e.g. ITU, ANSI,

IEEE) or by vendors.

4. The Third R&O also finds that there

are several circumstances which, if they

exist with regard to information or

functionalities that the incumbent LEC

claims are proprietary, will permit the

Commission to order unbundling of the

proprietary information or functionality

even if unbundled access to the element

is not strictly ‘‘necessary,’’ as long as the

‘‘impair’’ standard is met. These

circumstances are: (1) Where an

incumbent LEC, for the primary purpose

of causing a particular network to be

evaluated under the stricter ‘‘necessary’’

standard in order to avoid its

unbundling obligation, implements only

a minor modification to the network

element to make the element

proprietary; (2) where an incumbent

LEC cannot demonstrate that the

information or functionality that it

claims is proprietary differentiates its

services from its competitors’ services,

or is otherwise competitively

significant; or (3) where lack of access

to the proprietary element would

jeopardize the goal of the 1996 Act to

bring rapid competition to the greatest

number of consumers.

5. The Third R&O concludes that a

proprietary network element is

‘‘necessary’’ within the meaning of

section 251(d)(2)(A) if, taking into

consideration the availability of

alternative elements outside the

incumbent’s network, including selfprovisioning by a requesting carrier or

acquiring an alternative from a thirdparty supplier, lack of access to that

element would, as an practical,

economic, and operational matter,

preclude a requesting carrier from

providing the services it seeks to offer.

6. The Third R&O concludes that the

failure to provide access to a network

element would ‘‘impair’’ the ability of a

requesting carrier to provide the

services it seeks to offer if, taking into

consideration the availability of

alternative elements outside the

incumbent’s network, including selfprovisioning by a requesting carrier or

acquiring an alternative from a thirdparty supplier, lack of access to that

element materially diminishes a

requesting carrier’s ability to provide

the services it seeks to offer.

7. In order to determine whether an

alternative element is available as a

practical, economic, and operational

matter, the Third R&O considers the

following factors associated with a

requesting carrier’s ability to actually

provide service using the alternative

element: cost, timeliness, quality,

ubiquity, and operational issues. In

determining which network elements

the incumbent LECs should be required

to unbundle, the Third R&O also

considers factors that promote the goals

of the 1996 Act. Specifically, the Order

considers whether unbundling a

particular element would: (1) Promote

rapid introduction of competition in all

markets; (2) promote facilities-based

competition, investment, and

innovation; (3) reduce regulation; (4)

create certainty in the market; and (5)

allow for administrative practicality.

8. The Third R&O applies the

‘‘necessary’’ and ‘‘impair’’ standards to

identify a minimum list of seven

network elements that should be

unbundled on a national basis, subject

to discrete geographic and product

market exceptions: (1) Loops; (2)

subloops; (3) network interface devices;

(4) circuit switching; (5) interoffice

transmission facilities; (6) signaling and

call-related databases; (7) operations

support systems. Given the rapid

changes in technology, competition, and

the economic conditions of the

telecommunications market, the Third

R&O concludes that the Commission

will periodically revisit the issue of

what elements are subject to the

unbundling obligations of the Act. It

also concludes that the goals of the Act

will better be served if network

elements identified by the Commission

are not removed from the unbundling

obligations of the Act on a state-by-state

basis, at this time.

9. Loops: The Third R&O requires

incumbent LECs to provide unbundled

access to the local loop nationwide,

including high-capacity lines, xDSLcapable loops, dark fiber, and inside

wire owned by the incumbent LEC.

‘‘xDSL’’ refers to broadband services

based on digital subscriber line

technology, and are referred to as

‘‘advanced’’ services. The Third R&O

finds that lack of access to unbundled

loops impairs a carrier’s ability to

provide the services it seeks to offer

because requiring carriers to selfprovision loops would materially raise

entry costs, delay broad-based entry,

and limit the scope and quality of the

competitor’s offerings. Neither selfprovisioning loops nor obtaining loops

from third-party sources is an adequate

alternative for loops that a carrier can

obtain from an incumbent LEC under

the section 251(c) unbundling

obligation. The Third R&O also

concludes that access to the full

capabilities of incumbent LECs’ loop

plant nationwide will further the goals

of the Act. Specifically, requiring access

to unbundled loops will promote the

rapid development of competition and

bring the benefits of competition to

greater numbers of consumers, and will

also encourage competition for

broadband services.

10. The Third R&O defines the loop

network element to include all features,

functions, and capabilities of the

transmission facilities, including dark

fiber and attached electronics (except

those used for the provision of advanced

services, such as digital subscriber line

access multiplexers (DSLAMs)) owned

by the incumbent LEC, between an

incumbent LEC’s central office and the

loop demarcation point at the customer

premises. Dark fiber is fiber that has not

been activated through connection to

the electronics that ‘‘light’’ it, and

thereby render it capable of carrying

communications services. DSLAMs split

voice (low band) and data (high band)

signals carried over a copper twisted

pair. The Third R&O modifies the

definition of loop contained in the

Commission’s First Report and Order in

CC Docket No. 96–98 to include dark

fiber and attached electronics. The

Commission’s previous definition did

not specify whether dark fiber fell

within the definition of the loop.

2544 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

11. In order to secure access to the

loop’s full functions and capabilities,

the Third R&O requires incumbent LECs

to condition loops, and finds that

incumbent LECs may charge for such

conditioning. Loop conditioning is

necessary to allow requesting carriers to

offer advanced services. The terms

‘‘conditioned,’’ ‘‘clean copper,’’ ‘‘xDSLcapable’’ and ‘‘basic’’ loops all describe

copper loops from which bridge taps,

low-pass filters, range extenders, and

similar devices have been removed.

Thus, incumbent LECs cannot resist or

refuse a competitive carrier’s request to

condition loops on the grounds that

they themselves are not planning to

offer xDSL to that customer. The Third

R&O defers to the states to ensure that

the costs incumbents impose on

competitors for line conditioning are in

compliance with the Commission’s

pricing rules for nonrecurring costs. The

Third R&O also finds no basis for

placing a restriction on what services a

carrier may offer using the loop network

element.

12. Nothing in the Third R&O disturbs

the Commission’s previous finding that

incumbent LECs must provide cross

connect facilities between an unbundled

loop and a requesting carrier’s

collocated equipment, and that they

must provide cross connect facilities

according to sections 252(d)(1) and

251(c)(3) at any technically feasible

point that a requesting carrier seeks

access to the loop. Charges for cross

connect facilities must meet the costbased standard provided in section

252(d)(1), and the terms and conditions

of providing cross connect facilities

must be reasonable and

nondiscriminatory under section

251(c)(3). The Third R&O declines to

identify loop spectrum as a separate

unbundled network element in this

Order.

13. Subloops: The Third R&O requires

incumbent LECs to provide unbundled

access to subloops nationwide. It

concludes that self-provisioning

subloop elements, like the loop itself,

would materially raise entry costs, delay

broad-based entry, and limit the scope

and quality of the competitive LEC’s

service offerings. It finds that lack of

access to unbundled subloops at

technically feasible points throughout

the incumbent’s loop plant will impair

a competitor’s ability to provide the

services it seeks to offer. The Third R&O

also finds that access to unbundled

subloop elements allows competitive

LECs to self-provision part of the loop,

and thus, over time, to deploy their own

loop facilities, and eventually to

develop competitive loops. If requesting

carriers can reduce their reliance on the

incumbent by interconnecting their own

facilities closer to the customer, their

ability to provide service using their

own facilities will be greatly enhanced,

thereby furthering the goal of the 1996

Act to promote facilities-based

competition.

14. The Third R&O defines subloops

as portions of the loop that can be

accessed at terminals in the incumbent’s

outside plant. An accessible terminal is

a point on the loop where technicians

can access the wire or fiber within the

cable without removing a splice case.

Points of access include a technically

feasible point near the customer

premises, such as the pole or pedestal,

the network interface device (‘‘NID’’), or

the minimum point of entry to the

customer premises (MPOE). Another

point of access is the feeder distribution

interface (FDI), which is where the

trunk line, or ‘‘feeder,’’ leading back to

the central office, and the ‘‘distribution’’

plant, branching out to the subscribers,

meet, and ‘‘interface.’’ A third point of

access is the main distribution frame in

the incumbent’s central office.

15. The Third R&O establishes a

rebuttable presumption that subloops

can be unbundled at any accessible

terminal in the outside loop plant. If

parties are unable to reach an agreement

pursuant to voluntary negotiations

about the availability of space or the

technical feasibility of unbundling the

subloop at one of the points identified

above, the incumbent will have the

burden of demonstrating to the state, in

the context of a section 252 arbitration

proceeding, that there is no space

available or that it is not technically

feasible to unbundle the subloop at

these points. To the extent there is not

currently a single point of

interconnection that can be feasibly

accessed by a requesting carrier, the

Third R&O encourages parties to

cooperate in any reconfiguration of the

network necessary to create one. If

parties are unable to negotiate a

reconfigured single point of

interconnection at multi-unit premises,

the Commission requires the incumbent

to construct a single point of

interconnection that will be fully

accessible and suitable for use by

multiple carriers. Any disputes

regarding the implementation of this

requirement, including the provision of

compensation to the incumbent LEC

under forward-looking pricing

principles, shall be subject to the usual

dispute resolution process under section

252.

16. The Third R&O also establishes a

further rebuttable presumption that,

once one state has determined that it is

technically feasible to unbundle

subloops at a designated point, it will be

presumed that it is technically feasible

for any incumbent LEC in any other

state to unbundle the loop at the same

point everywhere. If the conditions

surrounding a request for unbundling at

a similar point differ to such an extent

that it is not technically feasible for the

incumbent to provide unbundled access

to that subloop element, the incumbent

will have the burden of demonstrating

in a section 252 arbitration proceeding

that such an arrangement is indeed not

technically feasible under those

different conditions.

17. Network Interface Device (NID):

The Third R&O requires incumbent

LECs to provide access to the NID

nationwide. It concludes that lack of

unbundled access to the incumbent’s

NID impairs the ability of requesting

carriers to provide the services that they

seek to offer. Requiring a requesting

carrier to self-provision NIDs for all

customers it seeks to serve would

materially raise the cost of entry, delay

broad facilities-based market entry, and

materially limit the scope and quality of

the competitor’s service offerings.

Unbundling the NID will accelerate the

development of alternative networks,

because it will allow requesting carriers

efficiently to connect their facilities

with the incumbent’s loop plant. Thus,

the Commission’s decision to unbundle

NIDs is consistent with the 1996 Act’s

goals of rapid introduction of

competition and the promotion of

facilities-based entry.

18. The Third R&O defines the NID to

include all features, functions, and

capabilities of the facilities used to

connect the loop distribution plant to

the customer premises wiring,

regardless of the particular design of the

NID mechanism. Specifically, it defines

the NID to include any means of

interconnection of customer premises

wiring to the incumbent LEC’s

distribution plant, such as a crossconnect device used for that purpose.

19. Local Circuit Switching: The Third

R&O requires incumbent LECs to

provide local switching as an

unbundled network element

nationwide, except for local circuit

switching used to serve end users with

four or more lines in access density

zone 1 in the top 50 Metropolitan

Statistical Areas (MSAs), provided that

the incumbent LEC provides

nondiscriminatory, cost-based access to

combinations of loop and transport

unbundled network elements, known as

the enhanced extended link (EEL)

throughout density zone 1. The Third

R&O finds that requesting carriers are

not impaired without access to

unbundled switching for end users with

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2545

four or more lines within density zone

1 in the top 50 MSAs. It concludes that,

as a general matter, unbundled local

circuit switching meets the ‘‘impair’’

standard set forth in section 251(d)(2),

and that lack of access to unbundled

local switching materially raises entry

costs, delays broad-based entry, and

limits the scope and quality of the new

entrant’s service offerings. The Third

R&O also finds that unbundling local

circuit switching is consistent with the

1996 Act’s goals of rapid introduction of

competition and the promotion of

facilities-based entry. Requiring

incumbent LECs to provide access to

unbundled switching, and to use

unbundled switching in combination

with other network elements, will allow

requesting carriers to serve the broadest

number of customers without incurring

collocation and switch provisioning

delays.

20. The Third R&O defines local

circuit switching as including the basic

function of connecting lines and trunks.

In addition to line-side and trunk-side

facilities, the definition of the local

circuit switching element encompasses

all the features, function and

capabilities of the switch. The Third

R&O rejects the argument of an

incumbent LEC that switch routing

tables are ‘‘proprietary,’’ within the

meaning of section 251(d)(2)(A), and

requires them to be unbundled as part

of the local circuit switching element.

21. To the extent the market shows

that requesting carriers are not serving

a market segment with self-provisioned

switches, the Third R&O finds that this

fact is probative evidence that

requesting carriers are impaired without

access to unbundled local circuit

switching for a discrete market segment.

Conversely, to the extent that the market

shows that requesting carriers are

generally providing service in particular

situations with their own switches, the

Third R&O finds this fact to be probative

evidence that requesting carriers are not

impaired without access to unbundled

local circuit switching. It thus

concludes that it is appropriate to create

an exception to the switching

unbundling obligation in certain

circumstances in the top 50 MSAs, as

defined by the Office of Management

and Budget, because most of the

switches competitors have deployed are

within the confines of the top 50 MSAs.

The Third R&O also finds that

requesting carriers have deployed

greater numbers of switches in areas of

high customer density within the top 50

MSAs. It therefore concludes that it is

appropriate to create an exception to the

local circuit switching unbundling

obligation only in density zone 1, as

these density zones were defined on

January 1, 1999, within the top 50

MSAs. Incumbent LECs assign their

central offices to density zones based on

traffic volume.

22. The conclusion that competitors

are not impaired in certain

circumstances without access to

unbundled switching in density zone 1

in the top 50 MSAs also is predicated

upon the availability of the EEL

throughout density zone 1. The EEL

allows requesting carriers to serve their

customers by extending a customer’s

loop from the central office that serves

the customer to a different end office in

which the competitive LEC is already

collocated. The EEL therefore allows

requesting carriers to aggregate loops at

fewer collocations and increase their

efficiencies by transporting aggregated

loops over efficient high-capacity

facilities to their central switching

location. The Third R&O also concludes

that a rule that provides requesting

carriers with access to unbundled local

switching for requesting carriers when

they serve customers with three lines or

less captures a significant portion of the

mass market.

23. Packet Switching: The Third R&O

does not require incumbent LECs to

unbundle packet switching

functionality except in limited

circumstances. It defines packet

switching as the function of routing

individual data units (‘‘packets’’) based

on address or other routing information

contained in the packets. The definition

of packet switching includes the

necessary electronics (e.g. routers and

DSLAMs). The record demonstrates that

competitors are actively deploying

facilities to serve medium and large

business segments of the market, and

hence they cannot be said to be

impaired in their ability to offer service

at least to these segments without access

to the incumbent’s facilities. In the

residential and small business segments

of the market, competitors may be

impaired in their ability to offer service

without access to incumbent LEC

facilities due to the cost and timeliness

of obtaining collocation in every central

office where the requesting carrier

provides service with unbundled loops.

Given the nascent nature of the

advanced services marketplace,

however, the Third R&O does not order

unbundling of packet switching

functionality as a general matter. The

Third R&O further declines to unbundle

specific packet switching technologies

incumbent LECs may have deployed in

their networks.

24. The Third R&O requires

incumbent LECs to provide unbundled

access to packet switching in one

limited circumstance. Specifically,

where a requesting carrier is unable to

install its DSLAM at the remote terminal

or obtain spare copper loops necessary

to offer the same level of quality for

advanced services as the incumbent

LEC, incumbent LECs must provide

requesting carriers with access to

unbundled packet switching where the

incumbent has placed its own DSLAM

in a remote terminal. The incumbent

LEC will be relieved of this unbundling

obligation only if it permits a requesting

carrier to collocate its DSLAM in the

incumbent’s remote terminal on the

same terms and conditions that apply to

its own DSLAM. Incumbents may not

unreasonably limit the deployment of

alternative technologies when

requesting carriers seek to collocate

their own DSLAMs in the remote

terminal.

25. Interoffice Transmission Facilities:

The Third R&O requires incumbent

LECs to provide unbundled access to

dedicated and shared interoffice

transmission facilities. Incumbent LECs

must offer unbundled access to

dedicated interoffice transmission

facilities, or transport, including dark

fiber. The Third R&O concludes that

that state commissions are free to

establish reasonable limits governing

access to dark fiber if incumbent LECs

can show that they need to maintain

fiber reserves. Dedicated interoffice

transmission facilities are defined as

incumbent LEC transmission facilities

dedicated to a particular customer or

carrier that provide telecommunications

between wire centers owned by the

incumbent LECs or requesting

telecommunications carriers, or between

switches owned by incumbent LECs or

requesting telecommunications carriers.

Dedicated transport transmission

facilities include all technically feasible

capacity-related services such as DS1–

DS3 and OC3–OC96 dedicated transport

services, and those provided by

electronics that are necessary

components of the functionality of

capacity-related services and are used to

originate and terminate

telecommunications services.

26. The Third R&O finds that

unbundling high-capacity dedicated

transport offerings will encourage

competition and facilitate the

deployment of advanced services.

Accordingly, it requires that incumbent

LECs unbundle DS1 through OC192

dedicated transport offerings and such

higher capacities as evolve over time.

The intention is to ensure that the

definition of interoffice transmission

facilities will apply to new, as well as

current technologies, and to ensure that

competitors will continue to be able to

2546 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

access these facilities as unbundled

network elements as long as that access

is required pursuant to section

251(d)(2). Although the Third R&O

concludes that an incumbent LEC’s

unbundling obligation extends

throughout its ubiquitous transport

network, including ring transport

architectures, it does not require

incumbent LECs to construct new

transport facilities to meet specific

competitive LEC point-to-point demand

requirements for facilities that the

incumbent LEC has not deployed for its

own use.

27. Incumbent LECs must also offer

unbundled access to shared transport

where unbundled local circuit

switching is provided. Shared transport

is defined as transmission facilities

shared by more than one carrier,

including the incumbent LEC, between

end office switches, between end office

switches and tandem switches, and

between tandem switches in the

incumbent LEC’s network.

28. The Third R&O finds that

requesting carriers are impaired without

access to the incumbent LECs’

unbundled dedicated and shared

transport network. In particular, selfprovisioning ubiquitous interoffice

transmission facilities, or acquiring

these facilities from non-incumbent LEC

sources, materially increases a

requesting carrier’s costs of entering a

market or of expanding the scope of its

service, delays broad-based entry, and

materially limits the scope and quality

of a requesting carrier’s service

offerings. The Third R&O finds that

requiring incumbent LECs to unbundle

interoffice transmission facilities is

consistent with the goal of the 1996 Act

to facilitate rapid entry into the local

exchange market. The Third R&O notes

that the Commission will closely

monitor the developments in the

transport market to determine whether

the transport market, or a particular

segment of this market, is supplying

requesting carriers with effective

alternatives to the incumbent LEC’s

unbundled network elements when the

Commission reexamines its unbundling

rules in three years.

29. Signaling and Call-Related

Databases: The Third R&O requires

incumbent LECs to offer unbundled

access to signaling links and signaling

transfer points (STPs) in conjunction

with unbundled switching, and on a

stand-alone basis. The signaling

network element includes, but is not

limited to, signaling links and STPs.

The Third R&O concludes that without

unbundled access to the incumbent

LECs’ signaling networks, a requesting

carrier’s ability to provide the services

it seeks to offer is materially

diminished. Requiring a requesting

carrier to obtain signaling from

alternative sources would materially

diminish its ability to provide the

services it seeks to offer, due to the

quality differences between the

signaling networks available from the

incumbent LEC and those available from

alternative providers of signaling. It also

concludes that unbundling the

incumbent LECs’ signaling networks

will promote the development of

facilities-based competition and thereby

encourage investment and innovation in

new technologies and

telecommunications services.

Unbundling the incumbent LECs’

signaling networks will give competitive

LECs incentive to deploy their own

switches, because they can be connected

to the ubiquitous incumbent LECs’

signaling networks.

30. The Third R&O requires

incumbent LECs to offer unbundled

access to call-related databases,

including, but not limited to, the Line

Information database (LIDB), Toll Free

Calling database, Number Portability

database, Calling Name (CNAM)

database, Advanced Intelligent Network

(AIN) databases, and the AIN platform

and architecture. The Third R&O

clarifies that the definition of callrelated databases includes, but is not

limited to, the CNAM database, as well

as the 911 and E911 databases. It

identifies specifically the CNAM, 911

and E911 databases as being illustrative

of call-related databases, and not as a

comprehensive list of all call-related

databases.

31. Because certain services created in

the AIN platform and architecture are

proprietary, the Third R&O finds that if

competitive LECs receive unbundled

access to incumbent LECs’ AIN

platforms, access to AIN service

software should not be unbundled

because such access is not ‘‘necessary’’

within the meaning of section

251(d)(2)(A) of the 1996 Act. With the

exception of AIN service software, the

Third R&O analyzes call-related

databases under the ‘‘impair’’ standard.

It finds that lack of access to call-related

databases on an unbundled basis would

materially impair the ability of a

requesting carrier to provide the

services it seeks to offer in the local

telecommunications market. It finds that

there are no alternatives of comparable

quality and ubiquity available to

requesting carriers, as an economic,

operational, and practical matter, for the

incumbent LECs’ call-related databases.

The Third R&O notes that the analysis

of call-related databases is intertwined

with the analysis of signaling, because

signaling is necessary to obtain access to

certain call-related databases. Thus, the

decision to unbundle the signaling

network leads to a decision to unbundle

call-related databases as well. Requiring

incumbent LECs to provide access to

call-related databases, including access

to the AIN databases, will also foster

investment and innovation in the local

telecommunications marketplace.

32. Operations Support Systems: The

Third R&O requires incumbent LECs to

offer unbundled access to their

operations support systems (OSS). It

defines OSS as consisting of preordering, ordering, provisioning,

maintenance and repair, and billing

functions supported by an incumbent

LEC’s databases and information. The

Third R&O also clarifies that an

incumbent LEC must provide the

requesting carrier with

nondiscriminatory access to the same

detailed information about the loop that

is available to the incumbent. In

addition, the Third R&O concludes that

an incumbent LEC should not be

permitted to deny a requesting carrier

access to loop qualification information

for particular customers simply because

the incumbent is not providing xDSL or

other services from a particular end

office. An incumbent LEC must provide

access to the underlying loop

information and may not filter or digest

such information to provide only that

information that is useful in the

provision of a particular type of xDSL

service that the incumbent chooses to

offer. Instead, the incumbent LEC must

provide access to the underlying loop

qualification information contained in

its engineering records, plant records,

and other back office systems. If an

incumbent LEC has not compiled such

information for itself, the Third R&O

does not require the incumbent to

conduct a plant inventory and construct

a database on behalf of requesting

carriers.

33. The Third R&O concludes that

lack of access to the incumbent LEC’s

OSS impairs the ability of requesting

carriers to provide the services they seek

to offer. The incumbents’ OSS provides

access to key information that is

unavailable outside the incumbents’

networks and is critical to the ability of

other carriers to provide local exchange

and exchange access service.

34. Operator Services and Directory

Assistance: The Third R&O finds that

incumbent LECs are not required to

offer unbundled access to their operator

services and directory assistance (OS/

DA), except in the limited circumstance

where an incumbent LEC does not

provide customized routing, including

compatible signaling protocol, to a

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2547

requesting carrier to allow it to route

traffic to alternative OS/DA providers.

Operator services are any automatic or

live assistance to a consumer to arrange

for billing or completion of a telephone

call. Directory assistance is a service

that allows subscribers to retrieve

telephone numbers of other subscribers.

35. The Third R&O finds that where

incumbent LECs provide customized

routing, including compatible signaling

protocol, lack of access to the

incumbents’ OS/DA service on an

unbundled basis does not materially

diminish a requesting carrier’s ability to

offer telecommunications service. The

record provides significant evidence of

a wholesale market in the provision of

OS/DA services and opportunities for

self-provisioning OS/DA services.

Moreover, the evidence regarding the

differences in cost, timeliness, quality,

interoperability and ubiquity between

the incumbent LEC’s OS/DA service and

alternative OS/DA services, provided

either through self-provisioning or

third-party alternatives, does not

demonstrate that lack of unbundled

access to the incumbent’s OS/DA

service would materially diminish a

requesting carrier’s ability to offer the

services it seeks to provide. The nondiscrimination requirements of section

251(b)(3) of the 1996 Act, coupled with

evidence of multiple providers of OS/

DA service in the marketplace, provide

strong evidence that competitors are not

impaired without access to the

incumbent LEC’s OS/DA service as an

unbundled network element. The Third

R&O also finds that declining to require

incumbent LECs to unbundle OS/DA

service is consistent with the goals of

the Act, because it will reduce

competitors’ reliance on the incumbent

LEC’s network and create new

opportunities for competitors of OS/DA

service to differentiate their services

through increased quality and lower

prices.

36. In instances where the requesting

carrier obtains the unbundled switching

element from the incumbent, the lack of

customized routing, including

compatible signaling protocol,

effectively precludes requesting carriers

from using alternative OS/DA providers

and, consequently, would materially

diminish the requesting carrier’s ability

to provide the services it seeks to offer.

Thus, the Third R&O requires

incumbent LECs, to the extent they have

not accommodated technologies used

for customized routing, to offer OS/DA

as an unbundled network element.

37. Other Issues: The Third R&O

concludes that the prices, terms, and

conditions set forth under sections 251

and 252 of the 1996 Act do not

presumptively apply to the network

elements on the competitive checklist of

section 271. In circumstances where a

checklist network element is no longer

unbundled, the Commission has

determined that a competitor is not

impaired in its ability to offer services

without access to that element. Such a

finding in the case of switching for large

volume customers is predicated in large

part upon the fact that competitors can

acquire switching in the marketplace at

a price set by the marketplace. Under

these circumstances, it would be

counterproductive to mandate that the

incumbent offers the element at

forward-looking prices. Rather, the

market price should prevail, as opposed

to a regulated rate which, at best, is

designed to reflect the pricing of a

competitive market.

38. A number of parties, including

competitive LECs and state

commissions, argue that the

Commission should either identify a

new network element comprised of the

unbundled loop, multiplexing/

concentrating equipment, and dedicated

transport, (the enhanced extended link

or ‘‘EEL’’), or, alternatively, reinstate

§§ 51.315(c) through (f) of the

Commission’s Rules (47 CFR 51.315(c)

through (f)), which require incumbent

LECs to provide unbundled loop and

transport elements on a combined basis.

The Third R&O declines to define the

EEL as a separate network element in

this Order. The Eighth Circuit Court of

Appeals is currently reviewing whether

§§ 51.315(c) through (f) should be

reinstated, and the Commission states in

the Third R&O that it therefore sees no

reason to decide whether the EEL

should be a separate network element in

light of the Eighth Circuit’s review of

those rules. The Third R&O also

declines to reinstate §§ 51.315(c)

through (f), based on the pending Eighth

Circuit litigation.

39. The Third R&O also clarifies that

under existing law (47 CFR 51.309(a),

51.315(b)), a requesting carrier is

entitled to obtain existing combinations

of loop and transport between the end

user and the incumbent LEC’s serving

center on a restricted basis at unbundled

network element prices. In particular,

any requesting carrier that is collected

in a serving wire center is free to order

loops and transport to that serving wire

center as unbundled network elements

because those elements meet the

unbundling standard. Moreover, to the

extent those unbundled network

elements are already combined as a

special access circuit, the incumbent

may not separate them under rule

51.315(b), which was reinstated by the

Supreme Court. In such circumstances,

it would be impermissible for an

incumbent LEC to require that a

requesting carrier provide a certain

amount of local service over such

facilities.

40. Moreover, where the requesting

carrier is collocated and has selfprovisioned transport or obtained

transport from an alternative provider,

but is purchasing unbundled loops, that

carrier may provide only exchange

access over those facilities. Thus, for

instance, a requesting carrier is entitled

to purchase unbundled loops in order to

provide advanced services (e.g.,

interstate special access xDSL service).

41. The Third R&O also clarifies that

interexchange carriers are entitled to use

unbundled dedicated transport from

their point of presence to a serving wire

center in order to provide local

telephone exchange service. Such

carriers are entitled to obtain such

dedicated transport links pursuant to

the unbundling standard.

42. The Third R&O concludes that the

record is insufficient to allow the

Commission to determine whether or

how its rules should apply in the

discrete situation involving the use of

dedicated transport links between the

incumbent LEC’s serving wire center

and an inertexchange carrier’s switch or

point of presence (referred to as

‘‘entrance facilities’’). The Commission

believes that it should explore fully the

policy ramifications of applying its rules

in a way that potentially could cause a

significant reduction of the incumbent

LEC’s special access revenues prior to

full implementation of access charge

and universal service reform. Therefore,

it sets certain discrete issues for further

comment as described below in the

Fourth Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking in this docket.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Analysis

43. The actions contained in this

Third R&O have been analyzed with

respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995 and found to impose no burden

on the public.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

44. As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

was incorporated in the Notice in CC

Docket 96–98 (64 FR 20238, April 26,

1999). The Commission sought written

public comments on the proposals in

the Notice, including comments on the

IRFA. The Commission’s Final

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)

in the Third R&O conforms to the RFA.

2548 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Need for, and Objectives of the Third

Report and Order

45. This R&O responds to the

Supreme Court’s January, 1999 decision

that directs the Commission to revise

the standards used to determine which

network elements incumbent LECs must

unbundle pursuant to section 251 of the

Act. More specifically, this Third R&O

gives substance to the ‘‘necessary’’ and

‘‘impair’’ standards set in section

251(d)(2) of the Act. Applying these

standards, and considering the

availability of the elements outside of

the incumbent’s network, this Third

R&O adopts a list of network elements

that must be unbundled on a national

basis, subject to certain discrete

geographic and product market

exceptions. It also announces that the

Commission will reexamine the national

list of unbundled elements in three

years. It reaffirms a state commission’s

authority to require incumbent LECs to

unbundle additional elements, as long

as the unbundling obligations: (1) are

consistent with the requirements of

section 251; (2) do not substantially

prevent implementation of the

requirements of that section and the

purposes of the Act; and (3) are

consistent with the national policy

framework established in the Third

R&O. Finally the Third R&O reaffirms

that incumbent LECs are obligated to

offer combinations of loop,

multiplexing/concentrating equipment,

and dedicated transport if they are

currently combined.

Summary of Significant Issues Raised

by the Public Comments in Response to

the IRFA

46. No comments were submitted in

direct response to the IRFA. The

Commission did, however, receive some

general small-business-related

comments which are discussed

throughout the Third R&O and are

summarized in subsection 5 of the

FRFA, infra.

Description and Estimate of the Number

of Small Entities to Which Rules Will

Apply

47. In the FRFA to the Commission’s

Local Competition First Report and

Order, the Commission adopted the

analysis and definitions set forth in

determining the small entities affected

by the Third R&O for purposes of this

FRFA. The RFA directs agencies to

provide a description of and, where

feasible, an estimate of the number of

small entities that will be affected by

rules (5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3)). The RFA

generally defines the term ‘‘small

entity’’ as having the same meaning as

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental

jurisdiction.’’ (5 U.S.C. 601(6). The RFA

defines a ‘‘small business’’ to be the

same as a ‘‘small business concern’’

under the Small Business Act, unless

the Commission has developed one or

more definitions that are appropriate to

its activities. (5 U.S.C. 601(3). Under the

Small Business Act, a ‘‘small business

concern’’ is one that: (1) is

independently owned and operated; (2)

is not dominant in its field of operation;

and (3) meets any additional criteria

established by the Small Business

Administration (SBA (15 U.S.C. 632)).

Below, the Commission describes and

estimates the number of small entities

that may be affected by the rules

adopted in the Third R&O.

48. The Commission has included

small incumbent LECs in this RFA

analysis. As noted, a ‘‘small business’’

under the RFA is one that, inter alia,

meets the pertinent small business size

standard (e.g., a telephone

communications business having 1,500

or fewer employees), and ‘‘is not

dominant in its field of operation.’’ (5

U.S.C. 601(3)). The SBA’s Office of

Advocacy contends that, for RFA

purposes, small incumbent LECs are not

dominant in their field of operation

because any such dominance is not

national in scope. The Commission has

therefore included small incumbent

LECs in this RFA analysis, although it

emphasizes that this RFA action has no

effect on the Commission’s analyses and

determinations in other non-RFA

contexts.

49. The United States Bureau of the

Census (the Census Bureau) reports that

at the end of 1992, there were 3,497

firms engaged in providing telephone

services, as defined therein, for at least

one year. (United States Department of

Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992

Census of Transportation,

Communications and Utilities:

Establishment and Firm Size, at Firm

Size 1–123 (1995) (1992 Census)). These

firms include a variety of different

categories of carriers, including LECs,

interexchange carriers, competitive

access providers, wireless providers,

operator service providers, pay

telephone operators, wireless providers,

and resellers. At least some of these

3,497 telephone service firms may not

qualify as small entities because they

are not ‘‘independently owned and

operated.’’ (15 U.S.C. 632(a)(1)). For

example, a wireless provider that is

affiliated with a LEC having more than

1,500 employees would not meet the

definition of a small business. It seems

reasonable to conclude, therefore, that

fewer than 3,497 of these telephone

service firms are small entities that may

be affected by the Third R&O. Since

1992, however, many new carriers have

entered the telephone services

marketplace. At least some of these new

entrants may be small entities that are

affected by the Third R&O.

50. The SBA has developed a

definition of small entities for telephone

communications companies other than

radiotelephone (wireless) companies.

The Census Bureau reports that there

were 2,321 such telephone companies

that had been operating for at least one

year at the end of 1992. (1992 Census at

Firm Size 1–123). According to the

SBA’s definition, a wireline telephone

company is a small business if it

employs no more than 1,500 persons.

(13 CFR 121.201, Standard Industrial

Classification Code 4812). All but 26 of

the 2,321 wireline companies listed by

the Census Bureau were reported to

have fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus,

even if all 26 of those companies had

more than 1,500 employees, there

would still be 2,295 wireline companies

that might qualify as small entities.

Although it seems certain that some of

these carriers are not independently

owned and operated, the Commission is

unable at this time to estimate with

greater precision the number of wireline

carriers and service providers that

would qualify as small business

concerns under the SBA’s definition.

Consequently, it estimates that fewer

than 2,295 of these wireline companies

are small entities that the Third R&O

may affect. Since 1992, however, many

wireline carriers have entered the

telephone services marketplace. Many

of these new entrants may be small

entities that are affected by the Third

R&O.

51. Incumbent Local Exchange

Carriers. Neither the Commission nor

the SBA has developed a definition

specifically directed toward small

incumbent LECs. The closest applicable

definition under SBA rules is for

telephone communications companies

other than radiotelephone (wireless)

companies. The most reliable source of

information regarding the number of

LECs nationwide of which the

Commission is aware appears to be the

data that the Commission collects

annually in connection with the

Telecommunications Relay Service

(TRS). According to the Commission’s

most recent data, 1,410 companies

reported that they were engaged in the

provision of local exchange services.

(Federal Communications Commission,

Carrier Locator: Interstate Service

Providers, Fig. 1 (January 1999) (Carrier

Locator Report)). Although it seems

certain that some of these carriers are

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2549

not independently owned and operated

or have more than 1,500 employees, the

Commission is unable at this time to

estimate with greater precision the

number of small incumbent LECs that

would qualify as small business

concerns under SBA’s definition.

Consequently, the Commission

estimates that there are fewer than 1,410

small incumbent LECs that may be

affected by the decisions and rules

adopted in the Third R&O.

Description of Projected Reporting,

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance

Requirements

52. Pursuant to sections 251(c) and (d)

of the 1996 Act, incumbent LECs,

including those that qualify as small

entities, are required to provide

nondiscriminatory access to unbundled

network elements. The only exception

to this rule is those carriers that qualify

and have gone through the process of

obtaining an exemption, suspension or

modification pursuant to section 251(f)

of the Act. The Third R&O interprets the

‘‘necessary’’ and ‘‘impair’’ standards of

section 251(d)(2) in such a way that it

fulfills the Supreme Court’s requirement

that the Commission apply some

limiting standard to an incumbent LEC’s

251(c) obligations. In the Third R&O, the

Commission identifies a minimum set of

network elements that incumbent LECs

are obligated to offer to requesting

carriers on an unbundled basis

nationwide: (1) local loops, including

dark fiber and high-capacity loops; (2)

subloops; (3) network interface devices;

(4) local switching, except under certain

conditions; (5) interoffice transport; (6)

signaling and call-related databases; (7)

operations support systems; and (8) in

very limited situations, packet

switching. State commissions may

require incumbent LECs to provide

additional network elements on an

unbundled basis. The Third R&O also

clarifies that incumbent LECs are

obligated to provide access to

combinations of loop, multiplexing/

concentrating equipment and dedicated

transport if they are currently combined.

Compliance with the rules and

decisions adopted in this Third R&O

may require the use of engineering,

technical, operational, accounting,

billing, and legal skills.

Steps Taken to Minimize the Economic

Impact of This Order on Small Entities,

and Alternatives Considered

53. As the Commission concluded in

the original FRFA, and as discussed

more thoroughly, the Commission

believes that its actions establishing a

minimum national list of unbundled

network elements in this Third R&O

facilitates the development of

competition in the local exchange and

exchange access markets. This decision

decreases entry barriers and provides

reasonable opportunities for all carriers,

including small entities, to provide local

exchange and exchange access services.

54. National requirements for

unbundling allows requesting carriers,

including small entities, to take

advantage of economies of scale in the

network. Requesting carriers, which

may include small entities, should have

access to the same technologies and

economies of scale and scope available

to incumbent LECs. Having such access

will facilitate competition and help

lower prices for all consumers,

including individuals and small

entities. A minimum national list of

unbundled network elements also

should facilitate the development of

consistent standards and help resolve

issues without imposing additional

litigation costs on parties, including

small entities.

55. Establishing a minimum national

list of unbundled network elements

facilitates negotiations and reduces

regulatory burdens for all parties,

including small entities. Adopting a

national list lowers requesting carrier’s

cost by enabling them to implement

regional and/or national business plans.

In reaching this conclusion, the

Commission considered one proposal to

adopt national standards that would be

applied by state commissions on a

market-by-market basis. The

Commission concluded that this

approach would lead to greater

uncertainty in the market and would

hinder the development of competition.

It also found that it would complicate

the negotiation of interconnection

agreements and lead to increased

litigation. Furthermore, this approach

would increase the administrative

burden on state commissions and

parties arbitrating interconnection

agreements before these state

commissions. All of these factors would

slow the development of competition.

Therefore, the Commission adopted a

national list.

Report to Congress

56. The Commission will send a copy

of the Third R&O, including this FRFA,

in a report to be sent to Congress

pursuant to the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996. (5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A)). In

addition, the Commission will send a

copy of the Third R&O, including the

FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration. The Third R&O and

FRFA, or summaries thereof, are also

published in the Federal Register. (5

U.S.C. 604(b)).

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)

57. As required by the RFA, the

Commission has prepared an Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

of the possible significant economic

impact on small entities by the policies

and rules proposed in this Fourth

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

Written public comments are requested

on this IRFA. Comments must be

identified as responses to the IRFA and

must be filed by the deadlines for

comments on the Fourth Further Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking provided above

in section VII. The Commission will

send a copy of the Fourth Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

including this IRFA, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration. (5 U.S.C.

603(a)). In addition, the Fourth Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and

IRFA, or summaries thereof, are now

also published in the Federal Register.

Need for, and Objectives of, the

Proposed Rules

58. In this proceeding commenters

have argued that allowing requesting

carriers to obtain combinations of loop

and transport unbundled network

elements based on forward-looking cost

would provide opportunities for

arbitrage of special access services. The

Commission recognizes that special

access has historically been provided by

incumbent LECs at prices that are higher

than the unbundled network element

pricing scheme of section 252(d)(1).

Accordingly, in this Fourth Further

Notice, the Commission seeks comment

on the legal and policy bases for

precluding requesting carriers from

substituting dedicated transport for

special access entrance facilities. The

Commission asks whether there is any

basis in the statute or our rules under

which incumbent LECs could decline to

provide entrance facilities at unbundled

network element prices.

59. The Commission also invites

parties to refresh the record on whether

requesting carriers may use unbundled

dedicated or shared transport facilities

in conjunction with unbundled

switching to originate or terminate

interstate toll traffic to customers to

whom the requesting carrier does not

provide local exchange service.

Legal Basis

60. Sections 1 through 4, 10, 201, 202,

251 through 254, 271, and 303(r) of the

Communications Act, as amended, 47

2550 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

U.S.C. 151 through 54, 160, 201, 202,

251 through 54, 271, and 303(r).

Description and Estimate of the Number

of Small Entities to Which the Proposed

Rules Will Apply

61. In the FRFA in the Third R&O, the

Commission has described the entities

possibly affected by that decision. The

Commission anticipates that the same

entities, as well as those described

below, could be affected by any action

taken in response to the Fourth Further

Notice. The Commission therefore

incorporates the description and

estimates used in the FRFA in the Third

R&O and adds the following

descriptions.

62. Competitive Local Exchange

Carriers. Neither the Commission nor

SBA has developed a definition of small

entities specifically directed toward

providers of competitive local exchange

services. The most reliable source of

information regarding the number of

competitive LECs nationwide of which

the Commission is aware appears to be

the data it collected in the August, 1999

Local Competition Report. According to

the Commission’s most recent data, 158

companies reported that they were local

service competitors holding numbering

codes. (Federal Communications

Commission, Local Competition Report,

August 1999, at 45, table 4.1)). Although

it seems certain that some of these

carriers are not independently owned

and operated, or have more than 1,500

employees, the Commission is unable at

this time to estimate with greater

precision the number of competitive

LECs that would qualify as small

business concerns under SBA’s

definition. Consequently, the

Commission estimates that there are

fewer than 158 small entity competitive

LECs that may be affected by the

decisions and rules adopted in response

to the Fourth Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking.

63. Competitive Access Providers.

Neither the Commission nor SBA has

developed a definition of small entities

specifically directed toward providers of

competitive access services (CAPs). The

closest applicable definition under SBA

rules is for telephone communications

companies other than radiotelephone

(wireless) companies. The most reliable

source of information regarding the

number of CAPs nationwide of which

the Commission is aware appears to be

the data that we collect annually in

connection with the TRS Worksheet.

According to the Commission’s most

recent data, 129 companies reported

that they were engaged in the provision

of competitive access services. (Carrier

Locator Report at Fig.1)). Although it

seems certain that some of these carriers

are not independently owned and

operated, or have more than 1,500

employees, the Commission is unable at

this time to estimate with greater

precision the number of competitive

LECs that would qualify as small

business concerns under SBA’s

definition. Consequently, the

Commission estimates that there are

fewer than 129 small entity competitive

LECs that may be affected by the

decisions and rules adopted in response

to the Fourth Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking.

Description of Projected Reporting,

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance

Requirements

64. If the Commission does not

establish any restrictions on the use of

unbundled network elements or

combinations of network elements, no

additional compliance requirements are

anticipated from further consideration

of this issue. If, however, restrictions on

access to network elements are imposed,

and depending on how the restrictions

are imposed, competitive LECs, CAPs

and other purchasers of unbundled

network elements, including small

entities, may be subject to additional

reporting, recordkeeping and other

compliance requirements. Incumbent

LECs, including small incumbent LECs,

would also be impacted because they

would have to keep track of competitive

LEC filings and whether the use of the

unbundled network element changed in

such a way that a restriction would

attach. If restrictions are placed on the

use of unbundled network elements or

combinations of such elements,

compliance with these requests may

require the use of engineering,

technical, operational, accounting,

billing, and legal skills.

Steps Taken to Minimize Significant

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and

Significant Alternatives Considered

65. If requesting carriers can

substitute unbundled network elements,

such as transport, for entrance facilities,

incumbent LECs, including small

entities, may be significantly

economically impacted. On the other

hand, substituting unbundled network

elements for entrance facilities could

benefit competitive LECs, CAPs, and

other purchasers of unbundled network

elements. The Commission will evaluate

in this proceeding whether there are

legal grounds for restricting such access.

If no such grounds exist, and instead if

the statute requires unrestricted access

to these unbundled network elements or

combinations, then the Commission will

have no alternative other than

implementation of the statutory

requirements for unrestricted access.

Federal Rules that May Duplicate,

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed

Rules

66. Ordering Clauses

Effective February 17, 2000, except as

specified in the regulations.

67. The Commission will send a copy

of this Third Report and Order,

including the Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration.

The Commission will send a copy of

this Fourth Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, including the Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 51

Communications, Common Carriers,

Telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

Rule Changes

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Federal Communications

Commission amends 47 CFR part 51 as

follows:

PART 51—INTERCONNECTION

1. The authority citation for part 51

continues to read:

Authority: Sections 1–5, 7, 201–05, 207–

09, 218, 225–27, 251–54, 271, 332, 48 Stat.

1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 151

through 55, 157, 201 through 205, 207

through 209, 218, 225 through 227, 251

through 254, 271, and 332, unless otherwise

noted.

2. Section 51.5 is amended by revising

the following definition to read as

follows:

§ 51.5 Terms and definitions.

* * * * *

Pre-ordering and ordering. Preordering and ordering includes the

exchange of information between

telecommunications carriers about:

current or proposed customer products

and services; or unbundled network

elements, or some combination thereof.

This information includes loop

qualification information, such as the

composition of the loop material,

including but not limited to: fiber optics

or copper; the existence, location and

type of any electronic or other

equipment on the loop, including but

not limited to, digital loop carrier or

other remote concentration devices,

feeder/distribution interfaces, bridge

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2551

taps, load coils, pair-gain devices,

disturbers in the same or adjacent

binder groups; the loop length,

including the length and location of

each type of transmission media; the

wire gauge(s) of the loop; and the

electrical parameters of the loop, which

may determine the suitability of the

loop for various technologies.

* * * * *

3. Section 51.317 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 51.317 Standards for requiring the

unbundling of network elements.

(a) Proprietary network elements. A

network element shall be considered to

be proprietary if an incumbent LEC can

demonstrate that it has invested

resources to develop proprietary

information or functionalities that are

protected by patent, copyright or trade

secret law. The Commission shall

undertake the following analysis to

determine whether a proprietary

network element should be made

available for purposes of section

251(c)(3) of the Act:

(1) Determine whether access to the

proprietary network element is

‘‘necessary.’’ A network element is

‘‘necessary’’ if, taking into consideration

the availability of alternative elements

outside the incumbent LEC’s network,

including self-provisioning by a

requesting carrier or acquiring an

alternative from a third-party supplier,

lack of access to the network element

precludes a requesting

telecommunications carrier from

providing the services that it seeks to

offer. If access is ‘‘necessary,’’ then,

subject to any consideration of the

factors set forth under paragraph (c) of

this section, the Commission may

require the unbundling of such

proprietary network element.

(2) In the event that such access is not

‘‘necessary,’’ the Commission may

require unbundling subject to any

consideration of the factors set forth

under paragraph (c) of this section if it

is determined that:

(i) The incumbent LEC has

implemented only a minor modification

to the network element in order to

qualify for proprietary treatment;

(ii) The information or functionality

that is proprietary in nature does not

differentiate the incumbent LEC’s

services from the requesting carrier’s

services; or

(iii) Lack of access to such element

would jeopardize the goals of the 1996

Act.

(b) Non-proprietary network elements.

The Commission shall undertake the

following analysis to determine whether

a non-proprietary network element

should be made available for purposes

of section 251(c)(3) of the Act:

(1) Determine whether lack of access

to a non-proprietary network element

‘‘impairs’’ a carrier’s ability to provide

the service it seeks to offer. A requesting

carrier’s ability to provide service is

‘‘impaired’’ if, taking into consideration

the availability of alternative elements

outside the incumbent LEC’s network,

including self-provisioning by a

requesting carrier or acquiring an

alternative from a third-party supplier,

lack of access to that element materially

diminishes a requesting carrier’s ability

to provide the services it seeks to offer.

The Commission will consider the

totality of the circumstances to

determine whether an alternative to the

incumbent LEC’s network element is

available in such a manner that a

requesting carrier can provide service

using the alternative. If the Commission

determines that lack of access to an

element ‘‘impairs’’ a requesting carrier’s

ability to provide service, it may require

the unbundling of that element, subject

to any consideration of the factors set

forth under section 51.317(c).

(2) In considering whether lack of

access to a network element materially

diminishes a requesting carrier’s ability

to provide service, the Commission

shall consider the extent to which

alternatives in the market are available

as a practical, economic, and

operational matter. The Commission

will rely upon the following factors to

determine whether alternative network

elements are available as a practical,

economic, and operational matter:

(i) Cost, including all costs that

requesting carriers may incur when

using the alternative element to provide

the services it seeks to offer;

(ii) Timeliness, including the time

associated with entering a market as

well as the time to expand service to

more customers;

(iii) Quality;

(iv) Ubiquity, including whether the

alternatives are available ubiquitously;

(v) Impact on network operations.

(3) In determining whether to require

the unbundling of any network element

under this rule, the Commission may

also consider the following additional

factors:

(i) Whether unbundling of a network

element promotes the rapid

introduction of competition;

(ii) Whether unbundling of a network

element promotes facilities-based

competition, investment, and

innovation;

(iii) Whether unbundling of a network

element promotes reduced regulation;

(iv) Whether unbundling of a network

element provides certainty to requesting

carriers regarding the availability of the

element;

(v) Whether unbundling of a network

element is administratively practical to

apply.

(4) If an incumbent LEC is required to

provide nondiscriminatory access to a

network element in accordance with

§ 51.311 and section 251(c)(3) of the Act

under § 51.319 of this section or any

applicable Commission Order, no state

commission shall have authority to

determine that such access is not

required. A state commission must

comply with the standards set forth in

this § 51.317 when considering whether

to require the unbundling of additional

network elements. With respect to any

network element which a state

commission has required to be

unbundled under this § 51.317, the state

commission retains the authority to

subsequently determine, in accordance

with the requirements of this rule, that

such network element need no longer be

unbundled.

4. Section 51.319 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 51.319 Specific unbundling

requirements.

(a) Local loop and subloop. An

incumbent LEC shall provide

nondiscriminatory access, in accordance

with § 51.311 and section 251(c)(3) of

the Act, to the local loop and subloop,

including inside wiring owned by the

incumbent LEC, on an unbundled basis

to any requesting telecommunications

carrier for the provision of a

telecommunications service.

(1) Local loop. The local loop network

element is defined as a transmission

facility between a distribution frame (or

its equivalent) in an incumbent LEC

central office and the loop demarcation

point at an end-user customer premises,

including inside wire owned by the

incumbent LEC. The local loop network

element includes all features, functions,

and capabilities of such transmission

facility. Those features, functions, and

capabilities include, but are not limited

to, dark fiber, attached electronics

(except those electronics used for the

provision of advanced services, such as

Digital Subscriber Line Access

Multiplexers), and line conditioning.

The local loop includes, but is not

limited to, DS1, DS3, fiber, and other

high capacity loops. The requirements

in this section relating to dark fiber are

not effective until May 17, 2000.

(2) Subloop. The subloop network

element is defined as any portion of the

loop that is technically feasible to access

at terminals in the incumbent LEC’s

outside plant, including inside wire. An

2552 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

accessible terminal is any point on the

loop where technicians can access the

wire or fiber within the cable without

removing a splice case to reach the wire

or fiber within. Such points may

include, but are not limited to, the pole

or pedestal, the network interface

device, the minimum point of entry, the

single point of interconnection, the

main distribution frame, the remote

terminal, and the feeder/distribution

interface. The requirements in this

section relating to subloops and inside

wire are not effective until May 17,

2000.

(i) Inside wire. Inside wire is defined

as all loop plant owned by the

incumbent LEC on end-user customer

premises as far as the point of

demarcation as defined in § 68.3 of this

chapter, including the loop plant near

the end-user customer premises.

Carriers may access the inside wire

subloop at any technically feasible point

including, but not limited to, the

network interface device, the minimum

point of entry, the single point of

interconnection, the pedestal, or the

pole.

(ii) Technical feasibility. If parties are

unable to reach agreement, pursuant to

voluntary negotiations, as to whether it

is technically feasible, or whether

sufficient space is available, to

unbundle the subloop at the point

where a carrier requests, the incumbent

LEC shall have the burden of

demonstrating to the state, pursuant to

state arbitration proceedings under

section 252 of the Act, that there is not

sufficient space available, or that it is

not technically feasible, to unbundle the

subloop at the point requested.

(iii) Best practices. Once one state has

determined that it is technically feasible

to unbundle subloops at a designated

point, an incumbent LEC in any state

shall have the burden of demonstrating,

pursuant to state arbitration proceedings

under section 252 of the Act, that it is

not technically feasible, or that

sufficient space is not available, to

unbundle its own loops at such a point.

(iv) Rules for collocation. Access to

the subloop is subject to the

Commission’s collocation rules at

§§ 51.321 through 51.323.

(v) Single point of interconnection.

The incumbent LEC shall provide a

single point of interconnection at multiunit premises that is suitable for use by

multiple carriers. This obligation is in

addition to the incumbent LEC’s

obligation to provide nondiscriminatory

access to subloops at any technically

feasible point. If parties are unable to

negotiate terms and conditions

regarding a single point of

interconnection, issues in dispute,

including compensation of the

incumbent LEC under forward-looking

pricing principles, shall be resolved

under the dispute resolution processes

in section 252 of the Act.

(3) Line conditioning. The incumbent

LEC shall condition lines required to be

unbundled under this section wherever

a competitor requests, whether or not

the incumbent LEC offers advanced

services to the end-user customer on

that loop.

(i) Line conditioning is defined as the

removal from the loop of any devices

that may diminish the capability of the

loop to deliver high-speed switched

wireline telecommunications capability,

including xDSL service. Such devices

include, but are not limited to, bridge

taps, low pass filters, and range

extenders.

(ii) Incumbent LECs shall recover the

cost of line conditioning from the

requesting telecommunications carrier

in accordance with the Commission’s

forward-looking pricing principles

promulgated pursuant to section

252(d)(1) of the Act.

(iii) Incumbent LECs shall recover the

cost of line conditioning from the

requesting telecommunications carrier

in compliance with rules governing

nonrecurring costs in § 51.507 (e).

(iv) In so far as it is technically

feasible, the incumbent LEC shall test

and report trouble for all the features,

functions, and capabilities of

conditioned lines, and may not restrict

testing to voice-transmission only.

(b) Network interface device. An

incumbent LEC shall provide

nondiscriminatory access, in accordance

with § 51.311 and section 251(c)(3) of

the Act, to the network interface device

on an unbundled basis to any requesting

telecommunications carrier for the

provision of a telecommunications

service. The network interface device

network element is defined as any

means of interconnection of end-user

customer premises wiring to the

incumbent LEC’s distribution plant,

such as a cross connect device used for

that purpose. An incumbent LEC shall

permit a requesting telecommunications

carrier to connect its own loop facilities

to on-premises wiring through the

incumbent LEC’s network interface

device, or at any other technically

feasible point.

(c) Switching capability. An

incumbent LEC shall provide

nondiscriminatory access, in accordance

with § 51.311 and section 251(c)(3) of

the Act, to local circuit switching

capability and local tandem switching

capability on an unbundled basis,

except as set forth in § 51.319(c)(2), to

any requesting telecommunications

carrier for the provision of a

telecommunications service. An

incumbent LEC shall be required to

provide nondiscriminatory access in

accordance with § 51.311 and section

251(c)(3) of the Act to packet switching

capability on an unbundled basis to any

requesting telecommunications carrier

for the provision of a

telecommunications service only in the

limited circumstance described in

§ 51.319(c)(4).

(1) Local circuit switching capability,

including tandem switching capability.

The local circuit switching capability

network element is defined as:

(i) Line-side facilities, which include,

but are not limited to, the connection

between a loop termination at a main

distribution frame and a switch line

card;

(ii) Trunk-side facilities, which

include, but are not limited to, the

connection between trunk termination

at a trunk-side cross-connect panel and

a switch trunk card; and

(iii) All features, functions and

capabilities of the switch, which

include, but are not limited to:

(A) The basic switching function of

connecting lines to lines, lines to trunks,

trunks to lines, and trunks to trunks, as

well as the same basic capabilities made

available to the incumbent LEC’s

customers, such as a telephone number,

white page listing and dial tone, and

(B) All other features that the switch

is capable of providing, including but

not limited to, customer calling,

customer local area signaling service

features, and Centrex, as well as any

technically feasible customized routing

functions provided by the switch.

(2) Notwithstanding the incumbent

LEC’s general duty to unbundle local

circuit switching, an incumbent LEC

shall not be required to unbundle local

circuit switching for requesting

telecommunications carriers when the

requesting telecommunications carrier

serves end-users with four or more voice

grade (DS0) equivalents or lines,

provided that the incumbent LEC

provides nondiscriminatory access to

combinations of unbundled loops and

transport (also known as the ‘‘Enhanced

Extended Link’’) throughout Density

Zone 1, and the incumbent LEC’s local

circuit switches are located in:

(i) The top 50 Metropolitan Statistical

Areas as set forth in Appendix B of the

Third Report and Order and Fourth

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

in CC Docket No. 96–98, and

(ii) In Density Zone 1, as defined in

§ 69.123 of this chapter on January 1,

1999.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2553

(3) Local tandem switching capability.

The tandem switching capability

network element is defined as:

(i) Trunk-connect facilities, which

include, but are not limited to, the

connection between trunk termination

at a cross connect panel and switch

trunk card;

(ii) The basic switch trunk function of

connecting trunks to trunks; and

(iii) The functions that are centralized

in tandem switches (as distinguished

from separate end office switches),

including but not limited, to call

recording, the routing of calls to

operator services, and signaling

conversion features.

(4) Packet switching capability. (i) The

packet switching capability network

element is defined as the basic packet

switching function of routing or

forwarding packets, frames, cells or

other data units based on address or

other routing information contained in

the packets, frames, cells or other data

units, and the functions that are

performed by Digital Subscriber Line

Access Multiplexers, including but not

limited to:

(ii) The ability to terminate copper

customer loops (which includes both a

low band voice channel and a high-band

data channel, or solely a data channel);

(iii) The ability to forward the voice

channels, if present, to a circuit switch

or multiple circuit switches;

(iv) The ability to extract data units

from the data channels on the loops,

and

(v) The ability to combine data units

from multiple loops onto one or more

trunks connecting to a packet switch or

packet switches.

(5) An incumbent LEC shall be

required to provide nondiscriminatory

access to unbundled packet switching

capability only where each of the

following conditions are satisfied. The

requirements in this section relating to

packet switching are not effective until

May 17, 2000.

(i) The incumbent LEC has deployed

digital loop carrier systems, including

but not limited to, integrated digital

loop carrier or universal digital loop

carrier systems; or has deployed any

other system in which fiber optic

facilities replace copper facilities in the

distribution section (e.g., end office to

remote terminal, pedestal or

environmentally controlled vault);

(ii) There are no spare copper loops

capable of supporting xDSL services the

requesting carrier seeks to offer;

(iii) The incumbent LEC has not

permitted a requesting carrier to deploy

a Digital Subscriber Line Access

mulltiplexer in the remote terminal,

pedestal or environmentally controlled

vault or other interconnection point, nor

has the requesting carrier obtained a

virtual collocation arrangement at these

subloop interconnection points as

defined by paragraph (b) of this section;

and

(iv) The incumbent LEC has deployed

packet switching capability for its own

use.

(d) Interoffice transmission facilities.

An incumbent LEC shall provide

nondiscriminatory access, in accordance

with § 51.311 and section 251(c)(3) of

the Act, to interoffice transmission

facilities on an unbundled basis to any

requesting telecommunications carrier

for the provision of a

telecommunications service. The

requirements in this section relating to

dark fiber transport are not effective

until May 17, 2000.

(1) Interoffice transmission facility

network elements include:

(i) Dedicated transport, defined as

incumbent LEC transmission facilities,

including all technically feasible

capacity-related services including, but

not limited to, DS1, DS3 and OCn

levels, dedicated to a particular

customer or carrier, that provide

telecommunications between wire

centers owned by incumbent LECs or

requesting telecommunications carriers,

or between switches owned by

incumbent LECs or requesting

telecommunications carriers;

(ii) Dark fiber transport, defined as

incumbent LEC optical transmission

facilities without attached multiplexing,

aggregation or other electronics;

(iii) Shared transport, defined as

transmission facilities shared by more

than one carrier, including the

incumbent LEC, between end office

switches, between end office switches

and tandem switches, and between

tandem switches, in the incumbent LEC

network.

(2) The incumbent LEC shall:

(i) Provide a requesting

telecommunications carrier exclusive

use of interoffice transmission facilities

dedicated to a particular customer or

carrier, or use the features, functions,

and capabilities of interoffice

transmission facilities shared by more

than one customer or carrier.

(ii) Provide all technically feasible

transmission facilities, features,

functions, and capabilities that the

requesting telecommunications carrier

could use to provide

telecommunications services;

(iii) Permit, to the extent technically

feasible, a requesting

telecommunications carrier to connect

such interoffice facilities to equipment

designated by the requesting

telecommunications carrier, including

but not limited to, the requesting

telecommunications carrier’s collocated

facilities; and

(iv) Permit, to the extent technically

feasible, a requesting

telecommunications carrier to obtain the

functionality provided by the

incumbent LEC’s digital cross-connect

systems in the same manner that the

incumbent LEC provides such

functionality to interexchange carriers.

(e) Signaling networks and callrelated databases. An incumbent LEC

shall provide nondiscriminatory access,

in accordance with § 51.311 and section

251(c)(3) of the Act, to signaling

networks, call-related databases, and

service management systems on an

unbundled basis to any requesting

telecommunications carrier for the

provision of a telecommunications

service.

(1) Signaling networks. Signaling

networks include, but are not limited to,

signaling links and signaling transfer

points.

(i) When a requesting

telecommunications carrier purchases

unbundled switching capability from an

incumbent LEC, the incumbent LEC

shall provide access from that switch in

the same manner in which it obtains

such access itself.

(ii) An incumbent LEC shall provide

a requesting telecommunications carrier

with its own switching facilities access

to the incumbent LEC’s signaling

network for each of the requesting

telecommunications carrier’s switches.

This connection shall be made in the

same manner as an incumbent LEC

connects one of its own switches to a

signaling transfer point.

(2) Call-related databases. Call-related

databases are defined as databases, other

than operations support systems, that

are used in signaling networks for

billing and collection, or the

transmission, routing, or other provision

of a telecommunications service.

(i) For purposes of switch query and

database response through a signaling

network, an incumbent LEC shall

provide access to its call-related

databases, including but not limited to,

the Calling Name Database, 911

Database, E911 Database, Line

Information Database, Toll Free Calling

Database, Advanced Intelligent Network

Databases, and downstream number

portability databases by means of

physical access at the signaling transfer

point linked to the unbundled

databases. The requirements in this

section relating to the Calling Name

Database, 911 Database, and E911

Database are not effective until May 17,

2000.

2554 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(ii) Notwithstanding the incumbent

LEC’s general duty to unbundle callrelated databases, an incumbent LEC

shall not be required to unbundle the

services created in the AIN platform and

architecture that qualify for proprietary

treatment.

(iii) An incumbent LEC shall allow a

requesting telecommunications carrier

that has purchased an incumbent LEC’s

local switching capability to use the

incumbent LEC’s service control point

element in the same manner, and via the

same signaling links, as the incumbent

LEC itself.

(iv) An incumbent LEC shall allow a

requesting telecommunications carrier

that has deployed its own switch, and

has linked that switch to an incumbent

LEC’s signaling system, to gain access to

the incumbent LEC’s service control

point in a manner that allows the

requesting carrier to provide any callrelated database-supported services to

customers served by the requesting

telecommunications carrier’s switch.

(v) An incumbent LEC shall provide

a requesting telecommunications carrier

with access to call-related databases in

a manner that complies with section 222

of the Act.

(3) Service management systems:

(i) A service management system is

defined as a computer database or

system not part of the public switched

network that, among other things:

(A) Interconnects to the service

control point and sends to that service

control point the information and call

processing instructions needed for a

network switch to process and complete

a telephone call; and

(B) Provides telecommunications

carriers with the capability of entering

and storing data regarding the

processing and completing of a

telephone call.

(ii) An incumbent LEC shall provide

a requesting telecommunications carrier

with the information necessary to enter

correctly, or format for entry, the

information relevant for input into the

incumbent LEC’s service management

system.

(iii) An incumbent LEC shall provide

a requesting telecommunications carrier

the same access to design, create, test,

and deploy Advanced Intelligent

Network-based services at the service

management system, through a service

creation environment, that the

incumbent LEC provides to itself.

(iv) An incumbent LEC shall provide

a requesting telecommunications carrier

access to service management systems

in a manner that complies with section

222 of the Act.

(f) Operator services and directory

assistance. An incumbent LEC shall

provide nondiscriminatory access in

accordance with § 51.311 and section

251(c)(3) of the Act to operator services

and directory assistance on an

unbundled basis to any requesting

telecommunications carrier for the

provision of a telecommunications

service only where the incumbent LEC

does not provide the requesting

telecommunications carrier with

customized routing or a compatible

signaling protocol. Operator services are

any automatic or live assistance to a

consumer to arrange for billing or

completion, or both, of a telephone call.

Directory assistance is a service that

allows subscribers to retrieve telephone

numbers of other subscribers.

(g) Operations support systems. An

incumbent LEC shall provide

nondiscriminatory access in accordance

with § 51.311 and section 251(c)(3) of

the Act to operations support systems

on an unbundled basis to any requesting

telecommunications carrier for the

provision of a telecommunications

service. Operations support system

functions consist of pre-ordering,

ordering, provisioning, maintenance

and repair, and billing functions

supported by an incumbent LEC’s

databases and information. An

incumbent LEC, as part of its duty to

provide access to the pre-ordering

function, must provide the requesting

carrier with nondiscriminatory access to

the same detailed information about the

loop that is available to the incumbent

LEC. The requirements in this section

relating to loop qualification

information are not effective until May

17, 2000.

[FR Doc. 00–1036 Filed 1–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P