Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2001 / Notices 20455

LAKES DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. AND

WOODSTONE TORONTO

DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. V. SOUTHERN

ENERGY NY-GEN, L.L.C.

OTHER#S P–10482,043, WOODSTONE

LAKES DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. AND

WOODSTONE TORONTO

DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. V. SOUTHERN

ENERGY NY-GEN, L.L.C.

Consent Agenda—Energy Projects—

Certificates

CAC–1.

DOCKET# CP01–97,000, NORNEW ENERGY

SUPPLY, INC. AND NORSE PIPELINE,

L.L.C.

CAC–2.

DOCKET# CP01–17,000, ALGONQUIN GAS

TRANSMISSION COMPANY

CAC–3.

DOCKET# CP98–795,001, TRANSWESTERN

PIPELINE COMPANY

CAC–4.

DOCKET# CP00–6,002, GULFSTREAM

NATURAL GAS SYSTEM, L.L.C.

OTHER#S CP00–8,002, GULFSTREAM

NATURAL GAS SYSTEM, L.L.C.

CP00–7,002, GULFSTREAM NATURAL GAS

SYSTEM, L.L.C.

CAC–5.

DOCKET# CP00–48,002, TENNESSEE GAS

PIPELINE COMPANY

OTHER#S CP00–48,000, TENNESSEE GAS

PIPELINE COMPANY

Energy Projects—Hydro Agenda

H–1.

RESERVED

Energy Projects—Certificates Agenda

C–1.

RESERVED

Markets, Tariffs and Rates—Electric Agenda

E–1.

RESERVED

Markets, Tariffs and Rates—Gas Agenda

G–1.

RESERVED

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–10078 Filed 4–19–01; 11:53 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6967–1]

National Drinking Water Advisory

Council Notice of Open Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Under section 10(a)(2) of

Public Law 92–423, ‘‘The Federal

Advisory Committee Act,’’ notice is

hereby given that a meeting of the

National Drinking Water Advisory

Council established under the Safe

Drinking Water Act, as amended (42

U.S.C. S3300f et seq.), will be held on

May 16, 2001, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m.,

May 17, from 9 a.m. until 3 p.m. at the

Camino Real Hotel, 101 South El Paso

St., El Paso, Texas. At this meeting the

National Drinking Water Advisory

Council will provide input on strategies

concerning microbial contamination;

make recommendations on the

formation of a new subcommittee on

infrastructure issues; hear presentations

on EPA efforts concerning Clean Water

Act and Safe Drinking Water Act

program integration for source water

protection; discuss implementation of

new regulations; and receive updates on

regulatory actions and the Research

subcommittee.

The meeting is open to the public.

The Council encourages the hearing of

outside statements and will allocate one

hour for this purpose. Oral statements

will be limited to five minutes, and it is

preferred that only one person present

the statement. Any outside parties

interested in presenting an oral

statement should petition the Council

by telephone at (202) 260–9194 before

May 4, 2001.

Any person who wishes to file a

written statement can do so before or

after a Council meeting. Written

statements received prior to the meeting

will be distributed to all members of the

Council before any final discussion or

vote is completed. Any statements

received after the meeting will become

part of the permanent meeting file and

will be forwarded to the Council

members for their information.

Members of the public that would like

to attend the meeting, present an oral

statement, or submit a written

statement, should contact Ms. Janet

Pawlukiewicz, Designated Federal

Officer, National Drinking Water

Advisory Council, U.S. EPA, Office of

Ground Water and Drinking Water

(4601), 401 M Street SW., Washington,

DC 20460. The telephone number is

Area Code (202) 260–9194 or 260–5509

or E-Mail pawlukiewicz.janet@epa.gov.

Dated: April 10, 2001.

Janet Pawlukiewicz,

Acting Director, Office of Ground Water and

Drinking Water.

[FR Doc. 01–9486 Filed 4–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

[CC Docket No. 01–9; FCC 01–130]

Application by Verizon New England

Inc., Bell Atlantic Communications,

Inc. (d/b/a Verizon Long Distance),

NYNEX Long Distance Company (d/b/

a Verizon Enterprise Solutions) and

Verizon Global Networks Inc., Pursuant

to Section 271 of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996, for

Authorization To Provide In-Region

InterLATA Services in the State of

Massachusetts

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In this document the Federal

Communications Commission grants the

section 271 application of Verizon New

England Inc., et al. (Verizon) for

authority to enter the interLATA

telecommunications market in the state

of Massachusetts. The Commission

grants Verizon’s application based on

our conclusion that Verizon has

satisfied all of the statutory

requirements for entry, and opened its

local exchange markets to full

competition.

DATES: Effective May 3, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric

Einhorn, Attorney-Advisor, Policy and

Program Planning Division, Common

Carrier Bureau, (202) 418–1580, or via

the Internet at eeinhorn@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s

Memorandum Opinion and Order in CC

Docket No. 01–9 released April 16,

2001. The complete text of this

document is available for inspection

and copying during normal business

hours in the FCC Reference Information

Center, Courtyard Level, 445 12th

Street, SW., Washington, DC, and also

may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services

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

SW., Washington, DC. It is also available

on the Commission’s website at http://

www.fcc.gov/ccb/ppp/2001ord.html.

Synopsis of the Order

1. History of the Application. On

January 16, 2001, Verizon filed an

application (Massachusetts II

Application), pursuant to section 271 of

the Communications Act of 1996, with

the Commission to provide in-region,

interLATA service in the state of

Massachusetts. The Massachusetts II

Application incorporated by reference

the record that developed in an earlier

20456 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2001 / Notices

proceeding evaluating Verizon’s first

Massachusetts application

(Massachusetts I Application), which

was filed on September 22, 2000, and

withdrawn on December 18, 2000.

2. The State Commission’s

Evaluation. The Massachusetts

Department of Telecommunications and

Energy (Massachusetts Department)

advised the Commission, following

sixteen months of extensive review, that

Verizon met the checklist requirements

of section 271(c) and has taken the

statutorily required steps to open its

local markets to competition.

Consequently, the Massachusetts

Department recommended that the

Commission approve Verizon’s inregion, interLATA entry in both its

October 16, 2000 evaluation of the

Massachusetts I Application, and its

February 6, 2001 evaluation of the

Massachusetts II Application.

3. The Department of Justice’s

Evaluation. The Department of Justice

(DOJ) filed its evaluation of Verizon’s

Massachusetts I Application on October

27, 2000. It recommended that the

Commission not approve the

application until Verizon had

demonstrated that it provides

nondiscriminatory access to and

suitable performance measures

regarding DSL loops. The DOJ submitted

an evaluation of Verizon’s

Massachusetts II Application on

February 21, 2001. It stated that

although ‘‘a number of changes have

taken place’’ since its evaluation of the

Massachusetts I Application, it still

could not find at that stage of the

proceeding that Verizon had adequately

demonstrated its ability to provide

nondiscriminatory access to DSL loops.

Recognizing that its evaluation reflected

only the evidence in the record at the

time, however, the DOJ urged the

Commission to consider the full record

in its final determination.

Primary Issues in Dispute

Checklist Item 2—Unbundled Network

Elements

4. Pricing of Network Elements. The

Commission finds that Verizon’s

charges for UNEs made available in

Massachusetts to other

telecommunications carriers are just,

reasonable, and nondiscriminatory in

compliance with checklist item 2.

Verizon relies on switching, transport,

and signaling rates equivalent to those

currently in place in New York. The

Commission finds that Verizon’s

voluntarily-adopted rates that are

equivalent to those currently in place in

New York provide competitive LECs

with rates that are within a reasonable

TELRIC (total element long-run

incremental costs) range. As the

Commission noted in the SWBT Kansas/

Oklahoma Order (66 FR 8596, February

1, 2001), under appropriate

circumstances, a BOC’s UNE rates will

be entitled to a presumption of TELRIC

compliance if they are adopted in whole

from another state whose rates have

been found to comply with TELRIC, and

if costs are demonstrated to be at or

above the costs in the state whose rates

were adopted. The Commission finds

that Verizon’s Massachusetts rates meet

the TELRIC-presumption test set forth in

the SWBT Kansas/Oklahoma Order.

Additionally, the Commission finds the

Massachusetts loop rates to be within

the range that the reasonable application

of TELRIC principles would produce.

5. Access to Operations Support

Systems (OSS). The Commission

concludes that Verizon provides

nondiscriminatory access to its

operations support systems (OSS).

Verizon demonstrates that its preordering systems permit competing

carriers to build and use application-toapplication interfaces and integrate preordering and ordering interfaces. The

interfaces are consistently available and

provide reasonably prompt response

times. The Commission also finds that

Verizon offers nondiscriminatory access

to the OSS functions associated with

determining whether a loop can support

DSL. With respect to Verizon’s ordering

OSS, the Commission finds that

Verizon’s OSS provides timely

confirmation notices, rejection notices,

completion notices, and jeopardy

information. The Commission also finds

that Verizon’s OSS are capable of

achieving high overall levels of flowthrough. Regarding provisioning, the

Commission concludes that Verizon

provisions competing carriers’ resale

and UNE–P orders in substantially the

same time and manner as it provisions

orders for its own retail customers. With

respect to maintenance and repair, the

Commission finds that Verizon offers

requesting carriers access to the same

functions that are available to Verizon’s

retail representatives, and that it

provides nondiscriminatory access to

the maintenance and repair systems and

processes. With respect to billing,

Verizon demonstrates that it provides

timely and accurate usage information

to competing carriers, as well as

wholesale bills in a manner that affords

competing carriers a meaningful

opportunity to compete. Finally, the

Commission concludes that Verizon has

a sufficient process in place for

handling changes to its OSS, that

competing carriers have input in this

process, and that Verizon adheres to it

over time. Verizon also provides the

documentation and help desk support

that competitors need to build interfaces

and make full use of the OSS Verizon

provides to them.

6. UNE Combinations. The

Commission concludes that Verizon

provides nondiscriminatory access to

combinations of UNEs. The record

indicates first that Verizon provides

access to UNE combinations, and also

that it provides access to UNEs in a

manner that allows requesting carriers

to combine those elements. The

Commission bases its conclusion on

evidence of actual commercial usage,

and also on Verizon’s legal obligation to

provide such access as established in its

tariff and interconnection agreements.

7. Checklist Item 4—Unbundled Local

Loops. Verizon has adequately

demonstrated that it provides

unbundled local loops as required by

section 271. More specifically, Verizon

establishes that it provides access to

loop make-up information in

compliance with the UNE Remand

Order and nondiscriminatory access to

stand alone xDSL-capable loops and

high-capacity loops. Also, Verizon

provides voice grade loops, both as new

loops and through hot-cut conversions,

in a nondiscriminatory manner. Finally,

Verizon has demonstrated that it has a

line-sharing and line-splitting

provisioning process that affords

competitors nondiscriminatory access to

these facilities.

8. In the Commission’s overview of

Verizon’s performance data, it relies on

Massachusetts performance data

collected and submitted by Verizon

under the state-adopted carrier-tocarrier standards. Verizon provides

evidence and performance data

establishing that it can efficiently

furnish unbundled loops, for the

provision of both traditional voice

services and various advanced services,

to other carriers in a nondiscriminatory

manner. Verizon also establishes that it

provides competing services with voice

grade unbundled loops through new

stand-alone loops and hot-cuts in

substantially the same time and manner

compared to its retail affiliates.

9. The Commission also finds that

Verizon provides nondiscriminatory

access to the high-frequency portion of

the loop and it makes it possible for

competing carriers to provide voice and

data service over a single loop (‘‘line

splitting’’). Moreover, Verizon

demonstrates that it provides

maintenance and repair functions, for

both line-shared and stand-alone xDSLcapable and voice-grade loops, for

competing carriers in substantially the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2001 / Notices 20457

same time and manner as Verizon does

for its own retail services.

Other Checklist Items

10. Checklist Item 1—Interconnection.

Based on the evidence in the record, the

Commission concludes that Verizon

demonstrates that it provides

interconnection in accordance with the

requirements of section 251(c)(2) and as

specified in section 271 and applied in

the Commission’s prior orders. Pursuant

to this checklist item, Verizon must

allow other carriers to interconnect their

networks to its network for the mutual

exchange of traffic, using any available

method of interconnection at any

available point in Verizon’s network.

The Commission finds that Verizon

makes interconnection available at any

technically feasible point, including the

option interconnect at only one

technically feasible point within a

LATA.

11. Verizon demonstrates that its

collocation offerings in Massachusetts

satisfy the requirements of sections 251

and 271 of the Act. Verizon provides

physical and virtual collocation through

state-approved tariffs. Verizon’s

Massachusetts physical and virtual

collocation tariffs are virtually identical

to the New York physical and virtual

collocation tariffs, which we found to

satisfy checklist item 1 in our Bell

Atlantic New York Order. Verizon

demonstrates that it offers

interconnection in Massachusetts to

other telecommunications carriers at

just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory

rates, in compliance with checklist item

1.

12. Checklist Item 3—Poles, Ducts,

Conduits and Rights of Way. Based on

the evidence in the record, the

Commission concludes, as the

Massachusetts Department does, that

Verizon demonstrates that it provides

nondiscriminatory access to its poles,

ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way at

just and reasonable rates in accordance

with section 271(c)(2)(B)(iii). The

Commission rejects commenters’

requests to find Verizon’s policies and

practices nondiscriminatory, because

section 224(c)(1) gives Massachusetts

jurisdiction over such matters.

13. Checklist Item 5—Unbundled

Local Transport. Section 271(c)(2)(B)(v)

of the competitive checklist requires a

BOC to provide ‘‘local transport from

the trunk side of a wireline local

exchange carrier switch unbundled from

switching or other services.’’ The

Commission concludes, based upon the

evidence in the record, that Verizon

demonstrates that it provides both

shared and dedicated transport in

compliance with the requirements of

checklist item 5.

14. Checklist Item 13—Reciprocal

Compensation. Based on the evidence

in the record, the Commission

concludes that Verizon demonstrates

that it has entered into reciprocal

compensation arrangements in

accordance with the requirements of

section 252(d)(2) and is making all

required payments in a timely fashion.

Verizon thus satisfies the requirements

of checklist item 13.

15. Checklist Item 14—Resale. Based

on the evidence in the record, we

conclude that Verizon demonstrates that

it makes telecommunications services

available in Massachusetts for resale in

accordance with sections 251(c)(4) and

252(d)(3), and thus satisfies the

requirements for checklist item 14. The

Commission rejects commenters’

assertions that Verizon should fail this

item because its advanced services

affiliate was not offering advanced

services at resale discounts in

accordance with ASCENT v. FCC,

because the mandate in that decision

had not been issued when Verizon filed

its Massachusetts II Application.

16. Checklist Items 6–12. An applicant

under section 271 must demonstrate

that it complies with checklist item 6

(unbundled local switching), item 7

(911/E911 access and directory

assistance/operator services), item 8

(white page directory listings), item 9

(numbering administration), item 10

(databases and associated signaling),

item 11 (number portability), and item

12 (local dialing parity). Based on the

evidence in the record, and in

accordance with Commission rules and

orders concerning compliance with

section 271 of the Act, the Commission

concludes that Verizon demonstrates

that it is in compliance with checklist

items 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 in

Massachusetts. The Massachusetts

Department also concludes that Verizon

complies with the requirements of each

of these checklist items.

17. Compliance with Section 271(c)(1)(A).

The Commission concludes that Verizon

demonstrates that it satisfies the

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

based on the interconnection

agreements it has implemented with

competing carriers in Massachusetts.

The record demonstrates that competing

LECs serve a sufficient number of

business and residential customers

using predominantly their own

facilities. The Massachusetts

Department likewise concluded that

Verizon satisfies the requirements of

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

18. Section 272 Compliance. Verizon

has demonstrated that it complies with

the requirements of section 272.

Significantly, Verizon provides

evidence that it maintains the same

structural separation and

nondiscrimination safeguards in

Massachusetts as it does in New York,

a state in which Verizon has already

received section 271 authority.

19. Public Interest Analysis. The

Commission concludes that approval of

this application is consistent with the

public interest. It views the public

interest requirement as an opportunity

to review the circumstances presented

by the applications to ensure that no

other relevant factors exist that would

frustrate the congressional intent that

markets be open, as required by the

competitive checklist, and that entry

will therefore serve the public interest

as Congress expected. While no one

factor is dispositive in this analysis, the

Commission’s overriding goal is to

ensure that nothing undermines its

conclusion that markets are open to

competition.

20. Among other factors, the

Commission may review the local and

long distance markets to ensure that

there are not unusual circumstances that

would make entry contrary to the public

interest under the particular

circumstances of this Application. The

Commission finds that, consistent with

its extensive review of the competitive

checklist, barriers to competitive entry

in the local market have been removed

and the local exchange market today is

open to competition. The Commission

also finds that the record confirms our

view that a BOC’s entry into the long

distance market will benefit consumers

and competition if the relevant local

exchange market is open to competition

consistent with the competitive

checklist.

21. The Commission also finds that

the performance monitoring and

enforcement mechanisms developed in

Massachusetts, in combination with

other factors, provide meaningful

assurance that Verizon will continue to

satisfy the requirements of section 271

after entering the long distance market.

22. Section 271(d)(6) Enforcement

Authority. Working with the

Massachusetts Department, the

Commission intends to monitor closely

post-entry compliance and to enforce

the provisions of section 271 using the

various enforcement tools Congress

provided us in the Communications

Act.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–10090 Filed 4–19–01; 1:14 pm]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P