[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 245 (Thursday, December 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66931-66933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-32321]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 20, 51 and 90
[CC Docket No. 96-98, CC Docket No. 95-185, GN Docket No. 93-252; FCC
96-476]
Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the
Telecommunications Act of 1996; Interconnection Between Local Exchange
Carriers and Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers; Implementation
of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; Petition for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document summarizes the Reconsideration released December
13, 1996 which clarifies the statutory requirements of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act) as it pertains to
incumbent local exchange carrier's (LEC) provision of access for
requesting telecommunications carriers to Operations Support Systems
(OSS) functions. The intended effect is to clarify the Commission's
rules published August 29, 1996 (61FR 45476) regarding the provision of
access to OSS functions.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This clarification is effective December 19, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Gelb, Attorney, Common Carrier
Bureau, Policy and Planning Division, (202) 418-1580.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Order on Reconsideration adopted December 13, 1996 and released
December 13, 1996. The full text of this Order is available for
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M St., NW., Washington, DC. The
complete text may also be obtained through the World Wide Web at http:/
/www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common Carrier/Orders/fcc96476.wp, or may be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M St., NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
There are no new rules or modifications to existing rules are
adopted in this Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act
There are no new or modified collections of information required by
this Order.
Synopsis of Second Order on Reconsideration
1. In this Order, we address two petitions for reconsideration of
the First Report and Order in this proceeding that question the
Commission's rule concerning the obligation of incumbent local exchange
carriers (LECs) to provide access to their operational support systems
(OSS) functions by January 1, 1997. See Implementation of the Local
Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket
No. 96-98, First Report and Order, FCC 96-325 (released August 8,
1996), 61 FR 45476 (August 29, 1996)
[[Page 66932]]
(First Report and Order), Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 13042
(1996) (First Reconsideration), further recon. pending, pet. for review
pending sub nom. and partial stay granted, Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC,
No. 96-3221 and consolidated cases (8th Circuit filed September 6,
1996), partial stay lifted in part, Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC, No.
96-3321 and consolidated cases, 1996 WL 589284 (8th Circuit October 15,
1996). Because these petitions raise issues that are particularly time
sensitive, we address them in this order. We will address petitions for
reconsideration of other aspects of our August 8, 1996 Order, including
other issues relating to access to OSS functions, in the future.
2. In the First Report and Order, the Commission concluded that an
incumbent LEC is required to provide access to OSS functions pursuant
to its obligation to offer access to unbundled network elements under
section 251(c)(3) as well as its obligation to furnish access on a
nondiscriminatory basis to all unbundled network elements and services
made available for resale, under section 251(c)(3) and (c)(4). In this
Second Order on Reconsideration, we decline to extend the January 1,
1997 date established in the First Report and Order. In the First
Report and Order, we based our determination that incumbent LECs must
provide access to OSS functions on two distinct requirements in section
251(c). First, under section 251(c)(3), for purposes of providing
access to OSS functions as a network element, an incumbent must be able
to provide, upon request, access to OSS functions pursuant to an
implementation schedule developed through negotiation or arbitration.
Second, under section 251(c)(3) and (c)(4), in order to comply with the
requirement to provide nondiscriminatory access to unbundled elements
and services for resale, incumbent LECs also are required, by January
1, 1997, to offer nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions. If an
incumbent uses electronic interfaces for its own internal purposes, or
offers access to electronic interfaces to its customers or other
carriers, the incumbent must offer at least equivalent access to
requesting telecommunications carriers.
3. Section 251(c)(3) of the Communications Act of 1934, as added by
the Telecommunications Act of 1996, requires incumbent LECs ``to
provide, to any requesting telecommunications carriers for the
provision of a telecommunications service, nondiscriminatory access to
network elements on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible
point on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and
nondiscriminatory.'' The Commission was charged with identifying
network elements and determining whether it is technically feasible for
incumbent LECs to provide access to such elements on an unbundled
basis. The Commission identified OSS functions as a network element,
and determined that it is technically feasible for incumbent LECs to
provide access to OSS functions for unbundling and resale. The
Commission defined OSS functions as consisting of pre-ordering,
ordering, provisioning, maintenance and repair, and billing. First
Report and Order at paragraph 523 n.1273. See also 47 CFR 51.319. This
determination reflects the Commission's conclusion that access to OSS
functions is necessary for meaningful competition, and that failing to
provide such access would impair the ability of requesting
telecommunications carriers to provide competitive service.
4. In the First Report and Order, we concluded that obligations
imposed by section 251(c)(3) to provide access to unbundled network
elements require the incumbent LEC to make modifications to the extent
necessary to accommodate a request from a telecommunications carrier.
In the case of access to OSS functions, we recognized that, ``although
technically feasible, providing nondiscriminatory access to operations
support systems functions may require some modifications to existing
systems necessary to accommodate such access by competing providers.''
For example, incumbent LECs may need to decide upon interface design
specifications and modify and test software.
5. We further concluded in the First Report and Order, based on the
record, that January 1, 1997 was a reasonable date by which most, if
not all, incumbent LECs could provide access to OSS functions. We
concluded that:
in order to comply fully with section 251(c)(3) an incumbent LEC
must provide, upon request, nondiscriminatory access to operations
support systems functions for pre-ordering, ordering, provisioning,
maintenance and repair, and billing of unbundled network elements
under section 251(c)(3) and resold services under section 251(c)(4).
Incumbent LECs that currently do not comply with this requirement of
section 251(c)(3) must do so as expeditiously as possible, but in
any event no later than January 1, 1997.
The Commission found it ``reasonable to expect that by January 1,
1997, new entrants will be able to compete for end user customers by
obtaining nondiscriminatory access to operations support systems
functions.'' Thus, under our rules, incumbent LECs must have made
modifications to their OSS necessary to provide access to OSS functions
by January 1, 1997.
6. In order to comply with its obligation to offer access to OSS
functions as an unbundled network element by January 1, 1997, an
incumbent LEC must, at a minimum, establish and make known to
requesting carriers the interface design specifications that the
incumbent LEC will use to provide access to OSS functions. Information
regarding interface design specifications is critical to enable
competing carriers to modify their existing systems and procedures or
develop new systems to use these interfaces to obtain access to the
incumbent LEC's OSS functions. For example, if an incumbent LEC adopted
the Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) standard to provide access to
some or all of its OSS functions, it would need to provide sufficiently
detailed information regarding its use of this standard so that
requesting carriers would be able to develop and maintain their own
systems and procedures to make effective use of this standard. As with
all other network elements, the obligation arises only if a
telecommunications carrier has made a request for access to OSS
functions pursuant to section 251(c)(3), and the actual provision of
access to OSS functions by an incumbent LEC must be governed by an
implementation schedule established through negotiation or arbitration.
7. The issue of nondiscrimination under several provisions of
sections 251 (c)(3) and (c)(4) is independent of the issue of access to
unbundled network elements under section 251(c)(3). We concluded in the
First Report and Order that section 251 establishes a separate basis
for requiring incumbent LECs to provide access to their OSS functions.
Specifically, we found that the obligation to offer access to OSS
functions was an essential component of an incumbent LEC's duty to
offer nondiscriminatory access to all network elements under section
251(c)(3), and to provide services for resale without conditions or
limitations that are unreasonable or discriminatory under section
251(c)(4). We observed that the ``just, reasonable and
nondiscriminatory'' standard of section 251(c)(3) requires incumbent
LECs to provide network elements on terms and conditions that ``provide
an efficient competitor with a meaningful opportunity to compete.''
Incumbent
[[Page 66933]]
LECs must offer network elements on terms and conditions equally to all
requesting carriers, and, where applicable, those terms and conditions
must be equal to the terms and conditions on which an incumbent LEC
provisions such elements to itself or its customers. Therefore, we held
that the duty to provide nondiscriminatory access imposed by section
251(c)(3) and the duty to provide resale services under
nondiscriminatory conditions imposed by section 251(c)(4) mandates
equivalent access to OSS functions that an incumbent uses for its own
internal purposes or offers to its customers or other carriers. By
January 1, 1997, to the extent that an incumbent LEC provides
electronic pre-ordering, ordering, provisioning, maintenance and
repair, or billing to itself, its customers, or other carriers, the
incumbent LEC must provide at least equivalent electronic access to
requesting carriers in the provision of unbundled network elements or
services for resale that it is obligated to provide pursuant to an
agreement approved by the state commission.
8. In the First Report and Order, we noted the progress that had
been made by several incumbent LECs toward meeting their obligation to
provide nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions to requesting
carriers. We are encouraged by reports that this progress has continued
since the release of our Order. Further, for the most part, incumbent
LECs have set implementation schedules for themselves that would bring
them into compliance with section 251(c) by early 1997. Therefore, we
find no basis in the record for postponing the date by which access to
OSS must be offered. We believe that many individual carriers are
taking actions to modify their systems to provide the necessary access
to OSS functions required by the 1996 Act. We also note that several
state arbitrations completed thus far have adopted schedules that
require substantial implementation of access to OSS functions by
January 1, 1997.
9. Although the requirement to provide nondiscriminatory access to
network elements and services for resale includes an obligation to
provide access to OSS functions no later than January 1, 1997, we do
not anticipate initiating enforcement action against incumbent LECs
that are making good faith efforts to provide such access within a
reasonable period of time, pursuant to an implementation schedule
approved by the relevant state commission. We do not, however, preclude
initiating enforcement action where circumstances warrant. We further
note that providing access to OSS functions is a critical requirement
for complying with section 251, and incumbent LECs that do not provide
access to OSS functions, in accordance with the First Report and Order,
are not in full compliance with section 251. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C.
271(c)(2)(B) (requiring compliance with provisions of section 251 as a
precondition for Bell Operating Company (BOC) entry into in-region
interLATA markets).
10. We also note that, if an incumbent LEC with fewer than two
percent of the subscriber lines nationwide is unable to offer
nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions by January 1, 1997, it may
seek a suspension or modification of this requirement from the relevant
state commission. 47 U.S.C. 251(f)(2). In addition, rural telephone
companies are exempt from the requirements of section 251(c), as set
forth in section 251(f)(1), except when and to the extent otherwise
determined by state commissions. 47 U.S.C. 251(f)(1).
11. Finally, it is apparent from arbitration agreements and ex
parte submissions that access to OSS functions can be provided without
national standards. See supra para. 10. We therefore reject the
petitions of LECC and Sprint to delay the requirement to provide
nondiscriminatory access to OSS functions until national standards have
been fully developed. We conclude that such a requirement would
significantly and needlessly delay competitive entry. In the First
Report and Order, we stated that, in order to ensure continued progress
in establishing national standards, we would ``monitor closely the
progress of industry organizations as they implement the rules adopted
in this proceeding.'' We continue to encourage parties to develop
national standards for access to OSS functions, but decline to
condition the requirement to provide access to OSS functions upon the
creation of such standards.
12. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1-4, 201-
205, 214, 251, 252, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201-205, 251, 252, and 303(r), the Second
Order on Reconsideration is Adopted.
13. It is further ordered, pursuant to section 405 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 405, and section
1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.106 (1995), that the
petitions for reconsideration filed by the Local Exchange Carrier
Coalition and the Sprint Corporation are DENIED, to the extent that
they seek deferral of the January 1, 1997 date regarding access to OSS
functions.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 1
Communications common carriers, Telecommunications.
47 CFR Part 20
Communications common carriers.
47 CFR Part 51
Communications common carriers, Telecommunications.
47 CFR Part 90
Common carriers.
Federal Communications Commission.
Shirley S. Suggs,
Chief, Publications Branch.
[FR Doc. 96-32321 Filed 12-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
