78 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 1998 / Notices

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that

does not display a valid control number.

Comments are requested concerning (a)

whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s

burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected; and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

DATES: Written comments should be

submitted on or before March 3, 1998.

If you anticipate that you will be

submitting comments, but find it

difficult to do so within the period of

time allowed by this notice, you should

advise the contact listed below as soon

as possible.

ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to Judy

Boley, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 234, 1919 M St.,

NW, Washington, DC 20554 or via

internet to jboley@fcc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

additional information or copies of the

information collection(s), contact Judy

Boley at 202–418–0214 or via internet at

jboley@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Control No.: 3060–0639.

Title: Implementation of Section

309(j) of the Communications Act,

Competitive Bidding, PP Docket

Number 93–253, First Report and Order.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a

currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for

profit.

Number of Respondents: 400.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1 hour.

Frequency of Response: On occasion

reporting requirement.

Cost to Respondents: N/A.

Total Annual Burden: 400 hours.

Needs and Uses: Section 3002 of the

Balanced Budget Act of 1997 amended

Section 309(j), to, in effect, reduce the

situations in which the use of random

selection is appropriate. While the

Commission proposes to reduce the

number of respondents, it does not

reduce the burden hours required to

complete an individual information

collection. The Commission seeks

comment on this proposal and other

methods by which the burden on

respondents may be reduced.

The Commission will use the

information to determine whether the

public interest would be served by

granting a transfer of control or an

assignment of a license awarded

through lottery procedures. The

foregoing estimates include the time for

reviewing instructions, searching

existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and

completing and reviewing the burden

estimates or any other aspect of the

collection of information.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–34149 Filed 12–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

[CC Docket No. 97–208; FCC 97–418]

Application of BellSouth Corporation,

et al. Pursuant to Section 271 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

Amended, to Provide In-Region

InterLATA Services in South Carolina

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Memorandum Opinion

and Order (Order) in CC Docket No. 97–

208 concludes that BellSouth

Corporation, et al. (BellSouth) has not

satisfied the requirements of section

271(c)(1) of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended (Act). The

Commission therefore denies, pursuant

to section 271(d)(3), BellSouth’s

application to provide in-region

interLATA services in South Carolina.

The Order declines to grant BellSouth

authority to provide in-region

interLATA services in South Carolina.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 24, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Pryor, Attorney, Policy and

Program Planning Division, Common

Carrier Bureau, (202) 418–1580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Order

adopted December 24, 1997, and

released December 24, 1997. The full

text of this Order is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center, 1919 M St., N.W., Room 239,

Washington, D.C. The complete text also

may be obtained through the World

Wide Web, at http://www.fcc.gov/

Bureaus/Common Carrier/Orders/fcc97–

228.wp, or may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th St.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

Synopsis Of Order

1. On September 30, 1997, BellSouth

Corporation, BellSouth

Telecommunications, Inc., and

BellSouth Long Distance, Inc.

(collectively, BellSouth) filed an

application for authorization under

section 271 of the Act, to provide inregion interLATA services in the State

of South Carolina. In this Order, the

Commission concludes that BellSouth

may not obtain authorization to provide

in-region, interLATA services in South

Carolina pursuant to section 271(c)(1)(B)

at this time because it has failed to meet

its burden of demonstrating that it has

received no qualifying requests for

access and interconnection that, if

implemented, would satisfy the

requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A).

The Commission further concludes that

BellSouth has not yet demonstrated that

it has fully implemented the

competitive checklist in section

271(c)(2)(B). In particular, the

Commission finds that BellSouth has

not met its burden of showing that it

meets the competitive checklist with

respect to: (1) access to its operations

support systems; (2) access to network

elements; and (3) resale. The

Commission concludes that BellSouth

complies with the requirement to

provide access to 911 and E911 services,

and that BellSouth’s inbound

telemarketing script is consistent with

the Act. The Commission therefore

denies, pursuant to section 271(d)(3),

BellSouth’s application to provide inregion interLATA services in South

Carolina.

2. Compliance with Section

271(c)(1)(B). The Commission concludes

that BellSouth may not obtain

authorization to provide in-region,

interLATA services in South Carolina

pursuant to section 271(c)(1)(B) at this

time because it has failed to meet its

burden of demonstrating that it has

received no qualifying requests for

access and interconnection that, if

implemented, would satisfy the

requirements of section 271(c)(1)(A).

The Commission, as an initial matter,

clarifies its standard for evaluating

qualifying requests and the role of

reasonable steps in its evaluation.

3. The Commission further concludes

that MCI’s provision of telephone

exchange service on a test basis, at no

charge, to the homes of nineteen MCI

employees, does not qualify MCI as a

competing provider under section

271(c)(1)(A), and therefore BellSouth

has not satisfied the requirements of

section 271(c)(1)(A).

4. Compliance with the Competitive

Checklist in Section 271(c)(2)(B). For the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 1998 / Notices 79

reasons set forth below, the Commission

concludes that BellSouth has not yet

demonstrated by a preponderance of the

evidence that it has fully implemented

the competitive checklist. As a

preliminary matter, the Commission

concludes that a BOC ‘‘generally offers’’

a checklist item if it makes the checklist

item available as both a legal and a

practical matter.

5. With respect to the first checklist

item addressed, the Commission

concludes, consistent with the

Department of Justice’s finding, that

BellSouth has failed to demonstrate by

a preponderance of the evidence that it

provides nondiscriminatory access to all

of the operations support systems (OSS)

functions provided to competing

carriers, as required by the competitive

checklist. First, the Commission

describes BellSouth’s OSS. Second, the

Commission outlines its general

approach to analyzing the adequacy of

a BOC’s OSS. Third, the Commission

analyzes the evidence concerning

competing carriers’ access to OSS

functions for resale services and

unbundled network elements. Based on

the evidence in the record, the

Commission concludes that BellSouth

has not demonstrated that the access to

certain OSS functions that it provides to

competing carriers for pre-ordering,

ordering, and provisioning of resale

services and pre-ordering of unbundled

network elements is equivalent to the

access it provides to itself. Finally, in

order to provide additional guidance,

the Commission highlights a number of

other OSS-related issues that are of

concern to the Commission.

6. The next checklist item the

Commission addresses is access to

unbundled network elements. The

Commission concludes that BellSouth

does not meet this checklist item

because it has not demonstrated by a

preponderance of the evidence that it

can make available, as a legal and

practical matter, access to unbundled

network elements in a manner that

allows competing carriers to recombine

them. The Commission concludes that

the statement of generally available

terms (SGAT) is deficient because it

fails to include sufficiently detailed

terms and conditions for access to

network elements for the purposes of

recombining them. The Commission

finds that the SGAT lacks crucial details

such as which elements will be

separated and which will be provided in

combination, and how and at what cost.

The Commission concludes that, in

particular, BellSouth has failed to

demonstrate that it can provide access

to such elements through the one

method that it has identified for such

access—collocation. The Commission

finds that BellSouth fails to demonstrate

that it offers or can timely provide

collocation for the purposes of

recombining unbundled network

elements. The Commission finds it

significant that BellSouth’s SGAT does

not commit to any provisioning

intervals for implementing collocation

requests. The Commission further finds

that the record indicates that, in

practice, it is taking BellSouth a long

time to implement collocation requests.

The Commission further finds that

BellSouth has made no showing that

there has been actual commercial usage

or testing of collocation anywhere in its

region for the purpose of recombining

UNEs. Thus, the Commission

concludes, BellSouth has not

demonstrated that it can timely deliver

unbundled network elements to

collocation spaces for combining, or that

the resulting provision of these

combined elements will be at an

acceptable level of quality.

7. The Commission also addresses the

checklist item that requires incumbent

LECs to offer for resale at wholesale

rates any telecommunications service

that the carrier provides at retail, and

not to prohibit, or to impose

unreasonable or discriminatory

conditions or limitations on, the resale

of such telecommunications service.

The Commission concludes that

BellSouth does not meet this checklist

item because it refuses to offer contract

service arrangements, which are

contractual agreements made between a

carrier and a specific, typically highvolume, customer, at a wholesale

discount. The Commission concludes

that BellSouth’s argument that CSAs

should not be further discounted

because they have already been

discounted from the tariff rate has been

previously considered and rejected by

the Commission. The Commission

further finds that failure to offer CSAs

to resellers at a discount impedes

competition for large-volume customers

and thus impairs use of resale as a

vehicle for competitors to enter

BellSouth’s market.

8. The Commission also addresses the

part of the checklist item that requires

BellSouth to provide nondiscriminatory

access to 911 and E911 services. The

Commission concludes that BellSouth

has made a prima facie case that it offers

nondiscriminatory access to 911 and

E911 services. Because no commenter

has produced evidence to demonstrate

that BellSouth is not currently offering

nondiscriminatory access to 911 and

E911 services, the Commission

concludes that BellSouth satisfies this

part of the checklist item.

9. Compliance with Section 272. The

Commission concludes that BellSouth’s

inbound telemarketing script is

consistent with the Act. The

Commission concludes that a BOC,

during an inbound telephone call, may

recommend its own long distance

affiliate, as long as it

contemporaneously states that other

carriers also provide long distance

service and offers to read a list of all

available interexchange carriers in

random order.

10. Public Interest. Based on the

Commission’s conclusions that

BellSouth has not fully implemented

the competitive checklist, the

Commission need not and does not

address the issue of whether BellSouth

has demonstrated that the authorization

it seeks is consistent with the public

interest, convenience, and necessity, as

required by section 271(d)(3)(C).

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–34144 Filed 12–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

DATE & TIME: Tuesday, January 6, 1998

at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to

the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Compliance matters pursuant to 2

U.S.C. § 437g.

Audits conducted pursuant to 2

U.S.C. § 437g, § 438(b), and Title 26,

U.S.C.

Matters concerning participation in

civil actions or proceedings or

arbitration.

Internal personnel rules and

procedures or matters affecting a

particular employee.

DATE & TIME: Thursday, January 8, 1998

at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. (ninth Floor).

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the

public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Correction and Approval of Minutes.

Audit: San Diego Host Committee/Sail

to Victory ’96 (continued from meeting

of December 4, 1997).

Audit: Committee on Arrangements

for the 1996 Republican National