[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 240 (Thursday, December 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65336-65340]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-31486]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 61
[CC Docket No. 93-129; CC Docket No. 86-10; FCC 96-392]
800 Data Base Access Tariffs and the 800 Service Management
System Tariff; Provision of 800 Services
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 26, 1996, the Commission adopted a Report and
Order that concludes and terminates an investigation into tariffs filed
by local exchange carriers (LECs) in March 1993, for 800 data base
services. This Order requires LECs that filed tariffs for 800 data base
services in accordance with the Commission's rules in CC Docket No. 86-
10, to recalculate their price cap indexes and resubmit their tariffs.
In the Order, we examine terms and conditions of the LECs' tariffs for
compliance with various Commission Orders concerning 800 data base
service. We also determine the reasonableness of the price cap LECs'
restructure of their 800 data base service rates, the reasonableness of
certain exogenous costs claimed by those LECs and the allocation of
those exogenous costs between the interstate and intrastate
jurisdictions.
With regard to the Bell Operating Companies' (BOC) central data
base service tariff, we determine the reasonableness of a number of
tariff provisions as well as the reasonableness of the costs and cost
allocations underlying the BOCs' rates for that service. Finally, in
this Order we deny an application for review filed by several LECs
seeking reversal of the cost disclosure requirements imposed by the
Bureau in this investigation and we grant GTE's revised petition for
waiver of the cost disclosure requirements. By issuing this Order, the
Commission intended to bring tariffs filed by LECs and BOCs into
compliance with the requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, the Commission's rules and the policies adopted for 800 data
base services in CC Docket 86-10.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 13, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Scott, Competitive Pricing
Division, Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 418-1528.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order adopted September 26, 1996, and released October 28, 1996.
The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection
and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Public Reference
Room (Room 230), 1919 M St., NW, Washington, DC. The complete text of
this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy
contractor, International Transcription Service, Suite 140, 2100 M
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.
Summary of Report and Order
In CC Docket 86-10, the Commission required all LECs to convert
simultaneously on May 1, 1993, to a new ``data base'' system of 800
access. LECs decided to implement this data base system by linking
their signalling system 7 (SS7) networks with data bases containing
customer information associated with each 800 number, including the
inter-exchange carrier (IXC) selected by the 800 subscriber, to deliver
calls to that 800 number. There are two types of 800 data base access
services that IXCs may purchase from the LECs: ``basic'' query service
and ``vertical features.'' The LECs were required to tariff the 800
data base basic query service, which is the access service used to
route 800 calls to the customer's chosen IXC. Other 800 data base
service capabilities, such as sophisticated routing, were classified as
``vertical features'' that the LECs also had to tariff. The LECs filed
800 data base access service tariffs in March 1993. The Common Carrier
Bureau suspended these tariffs for one day, imposed an accounting
order, and initiated this investigation.
Terms and Conditions of the LEC 800 Data Base Tariffs
1. Area of Service (AOS) Routing in Basic Query Service
(a). Although we encourage LECs to offer more refined routing, we
decline to expand our requirement beyond LATA-wide routing.
(b). We conclude that BellSouth does not clearly state in its
tariff that it offers AOS routing at the LATA level. We therefore
require BellSouth to file tariff
[[Page 65337]]
revisions clearly indicating that it offers AOS routing at the LATA
level.
(c). We now clarify that LECs must provide multiple-carrier
terminations. We do not, however, require the LECs to provide any
additional physical facilities, such as circuits, to provide multiple-
carrier terminations. Those LECs that fail to provide for multiple-
carrier terminations--US West, Centel, Century, NECA, Rochester, SNET
and United--must revise their tariffs to do so.
2. LEC Charges for Data Base Queries When Calls Are Incomplete
(a). The LECs may continue to assess query charges even when the
associated call is not delivered to the IXC
(b). LECs with tariffs that vaguely define when a query charge will
apply, such as when a query is ``processed,'' ``attempted,'' or
``received,'' must revise their tariffs to replace these terms with
language expressly stating that they will assess a charge only for a
``completed'' query and defining that term.
3. Marketing of Vertical Features to End Users
(a). The Commission has established a policy that LECs may not
market vertical features to 800 service subscribers, and no one now
challenges that ruling. We find no reason why LECs need to modify their
tariffs to prohibit such a practice.
4. Responsible Organization (Resporg) Services in the LEC 800 Data Base
Tariffs
(a). We conclude that provision of Resporg service is not a common
carrier activity, and thus should not be tariffed. We therefore require
LECs to remove Resporg service rates from their tariffs.
800 Data Base Access Tariffs for Price Cap Carriers
5. Exogenous Treatment of Overhead Costs
(a). Bell Atlantic, SNET and United sought to recover costs
incurred specifically to implement basic 800 data base query service
through a general overhead factor, with no justification that these
costs met the standard established for exogenous treatment. We will
disallow the claims of Bell Atlantic, United and SNET for recovery of
overhead costs associated with providing 800 data base basic query
service.
(b). We will allow exogenous treatment of the administrative and
other costs claimed by the price cap LECs.
6. Jurisdictional Allocations of 800 Data Base Costs
(a). All LECs should use the separations procedures described in
Part 36 of the rules to determine the amount of annual 800 data base
costs for which they seek exogenous cost treatment in their interstate
filings.
(b). US West's assertion that the Constitution requires that it be
allowed to recover through interstate service tariffs costs not
assigned to the interstate jurisdiction is incorrect. The Commission
actions in this Order do not constitute a ``permanent physical
occupation authorized by government.''
(c). The Order and Appendix C list the allowable exogenous cost for
each LEC. The LECs must recalculate their Price Cap Indices (PCIs) to
remove any of their costs that we have disallowed.
7. Adequacy of Ameritech's Cost Support
(a). In its supplemental direct case, filed March 15, 1994,
Ameritech states that the revised cost support demonstrates the
validity of its original cost support, which was based on CCSCIS. We
conclude that we cannot use the figures for exogenous costs that
Ameritech claims. We will allow Ameritech exogenous treatment of an
amount equal to the average amount of 800 data base costs we allow the
BOCs to treat as exogenous in this Order.
8. Exogenous Treatment for Regional Data Base (SCP) Costs
(a). We will allow the LECs exogenous treatment for the portion of
their investment in shared regional data bases used exclusively to
provide 800 data base service.
(b). United and GTE claim significantly higher exogenous costs for
regional data bases than those of any of the other LECs except Bell
Atlantic. We will allow exogenous treatment for the full amount of
regional data base costs claimed by GTE and for the reduced amount
currently requested by United.
(c). We conclude that Bell Atlantic failed to meet its burden of
showing that its regional data base costs are reasonable and were
incurred specifically for the provision of 800 data base basic service.
We find it reasonable, however, for Bell Atlantic to claim exogenous
treatment for the average of the amount of regional data base costs
that other BOCs have claimed.
9. Exogenous Treatment for Costs of Signalling Links Between the
Regional Transfer Points and the Regional Data Bases (RSTP/SCP) and
Between the Regional Data Bases and the Central Data Base (SCP/SMS)
(a). We will allow exogenous treatment of the costs, as itemized in
a chart in the Order, for the signalling links between the regional
data bases and the central data base.
(b). We find that the costs for the data links between the transfer
points and the regional data bases, and SNET's costs for technician
labor were specifically incurred to provide 800 data base query service
and are not unreasonable. The Commission therefore will allow exogenous
treatment for these costs, as itemized in the chart in the Order.
(c). We conclude that Bell Atlantic and United have not shown that
the costs of ports on their regional transfer points were incurred
specifically to provide 800 data base basic query service and are not
core SS7 costs. Therefore, we deny exogenous cost treatment for Bell
Atlantic's and United's regional transfer point port costs.
10. Exogenous Treatment for Local Signal Transfer Point/Regional Signal
Transfer Point Signalling Link Costs
(a). We will not allow exogenous treatment for the signalling links
between the local and regional transfer points.
(b). Bell Atlantic and United are claiming transfer point port
costs associated with the links between the local and regional transfer
points. We deny exogenous cost treatment for Bell Atlantic's and
United's ports on their regional and local transfer points.
11. Exogenous Treatment for Service Origination Point (SSP) Costs
(a). We find that the LECs have met their burden with respect to
their claims for exogenous treatment for service origination point
software, including right-to-use fees. Therefore, we conclude that
exogenous treatment is justified for the costs of this software.
(b). Bell Atlantic also has met its burden of demonstrating that
the costs for converting its end office switches from six-digit to
three-digit screening were reasonable, and were incurred specifically
to provide 800 data base service and are not ``core SS7'' costs. We
will allow exogenous treatment for these costs.
[[Page 65338]]
12. Exogenous Treatment of Tandem Switch Costs
(a). Only Pacific currently seeks exogenous treatment for the costs
of upgrading tandem switches to add increased capacity at the tandem
and to add service origination point capability at the tandem. We do
not find Pacific's claims persuasive since those facilities can be used
to provide a wide variety of services.
13. Exogenous Treatment for 800 Service Central Data Base (SMS) Costs
(a). Because the central data base is used solely to provide 800
data base service and does not provide routing for message telephone
traffic or support other services, it is clearly not a ``core SS7''
cost. Therefore, we will allow the regional data base operators to
treat the costs associated with their central data base contracts as
exogenous.
14. Exogenous Treatment of Repair Center Costs
(a). Every LEC has to perform the same customer service functions
under the 800 data base access system that it did under the previous
NXX access system. The Commission will not allow exogenous treatment
for the costs that Bell Atlantic incurs to operate its 800 data base
repair center.
15. Exogenous Treatment for Billing System Modification Costs
(a). US West, SNET, Bell Atlantic and GTE, seeking exogenous
treatment for billing system changes, have made a sufficient showing
that they had to add new technical capabilities to their systems in
order to handle billing data for 800 data base traffic. Therefore, we
will allow exogenous cost treatment for these expenses.
16. Methodology for Exogenous Cost Adjustment
(a). We conclude that the method used by Bell Atlantic, BellSouth,
Pacific and United in calculating the PCIs to restructure services in
their traffic sensitive baskets and to include new exogenous costs
achieved reasonable results that conform to price cap principles.
Because this method does not comply with our rules, however, we grant
on our own motion a waiver of Sec. 61.47(a) of the rules for the
limited purpose of allowing LECs to use this method.
(b). The method used by Ameritech, NYNEX, SNET, Southwestern and US
West complies with our price cap rules.
17. Reasonableness of the Price Cap LECs' Use of Demand To Demonstrate
Compliance With the Price Cap Restructure Rules
(a). We direct LECs that, in their ratemaking calculations based
their exogenous costs on a one-year base period, to revise their
exogenous costs to reflect levelization over five years. Therefore, US
West and Pacific must amend their filings to use five-year levelized
costs.
(b). BellSouth, Southwestern, Pacific and US West each used a one-
year period to determine demand. The use of a one-year base period for
the determination of demand is consistent with the Commission's rules
and we will not prohibit it.
(c). Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, NYNEX, United and GTE used a five-
year period to determine demand. Section 61.3(e) of the Commission's
rules specifies a one-year base period to determine demand. Those LECs
that used a five-year base period for calculating levelized demand are
hereby granted a waiver of Sec. 61.3(e) to allow them to use a five-
year base period in this instance.
18. Reasonableness of Price Cap LECs' Ratemaking Methodologies To
Develop Vertical Features Rates
(a). We find that, with the exception of Ameritech and US West, the
data provided by the LECs to support their vertical features rates
comply with the Commission's cost support requirements for new
services. We therefore will allow these vertical feature rates to take
effect as filed.
(b). We cannot accept the vertical features costs that Ameritech
and US West claim. For this reason, we will not allow Ameritech or US
West to impose any rates for vertical features that exceed the average
rates for the vertical features that we allow the BOCs to charge in
this Order. The rates proposed by Ameritech fall below this average and
are therefore considered reasonable. US West must revise its rate for
the POTS translation feature to an amount not to exceed $0.0006932,
which is the average of the rates charged by the other BOCs for that
vertical feature.
800 Data Base Access Tariffs for Rate-of-Return Carriers
19. Tariffing When Originating LEC Does Not Have a Service Origination
Point (SSP)
(a) The Ordering and Billing Forum (OBF) of the Exchange Carrier
Standards Association has adopted a resolution that would resolve which
carrier--the originating LEC or the neighboring LEC--may charge an IXC
for a query when the originating LEC routes an 800 service call to a
neighboring LEC for processing. We will not impose any further
requirements on the LECs in this proceeding.
20. Pass-Through of Regional Data Base Operator Rate Reductions
(a) We require that the rate-of-return LECs that purchase query
service from regional data base operators file, in accordance with
paragraph 321 of this Order, tariff revisions reflecting the flow-
through of any basic query rate reductions to their own customers--IXCs
that purchase query service from them.
(b) In the future, for any tariffed 800 data base access service
they provide, the rate-of-return LECs and Rochester must also flow-
through to their customers any further significant reductions in the
basic query charges they pay to regional data base operators.
21. Adjustment for Unbillable Queries
(a). The unbillable query rates estimated by some rate-of-return
LECs are unsupported by the cost data they provide. We find that a more
reasonable and better supported unbillable query rate for carriers to
use in their rate calculations is 5 percent--the maximum estimated rate
for NECA members. Therefore, all rate-of-return LECs must limit their
unbillable query rate adjustment factor to no more than 5 percent.
(b). Any LEC that wishes to apply a higher adjustment factor must
justify that factor in a separate tariff filing or in its next rate-of-
return represcription proceeding.
800 Service Management System Tariff
22. Liability Provisions
(a). We do not find the patent infringement provisions of the
central data base tariff to be unreasonable. Therefore these provisions
do not deviate from standard tariff practices and we will not require
the BOCs to change them.
(b). We find that the liability insurance requirements, on the
other hand, are unreasonable and we will require the BOCs to eliminate
them.
23. Incorporation by Reference of the Industry Guidelines for 800
Number Administration
(a). We will require the BOCs to remove the provisions
incorporating these guidelines by reference into the central data base
tariff.
(b). The central data base tariff contains provisions requiring the
Resporg to notify directly and obtain the acceptance of any IXC to
which traffic
[[Page 65339]]
for a specific 800 number will be routed. We find those provisions to
be reasonable and adequate to meet Commission requirements.
24. Changes in Resporg Procedures
(a). We require the BOCs, within sixty days of the date of this
Order, to file tariff revisions that include accelerated procedures for
accepting Resporg change requests. The tariffs shall include a
provision that will require the Number Administration and Service
Center (NASC) to make Resporg changes within a specified number of
days.
25. Other Central Data Base (SMS) Tariff Terms and Conditions
(a). We find that the provision that grants a pro rata credit to an
IXC when the central data base is unavailable for use for an
unscheduled period of greater than three hours is not unreasonable.
(b). Of the other issues raised with respect to central data base
tariff terms and conditions, we only find unreasonable that provision
permitting the central data base to bill Resporgs based on estimated
transactions, with vague promises to reconcile the bills at some future
date. The BOCs are required to modify these provisions to provide that
Resporgs will be billed for actual, rather than estimated, usage.
26. Reasonableness of Costs and Cost Allocations
(a). We find that the BOCs' allocation of computer maintenance
costs based on relative lines of code of the software programs to be
maintained is reasonable.
(b). We find that the BOCs' allocation of central processor costs
based on relative use is reasonable.
(c). We believe that a business should have sufficient working
capital to pay its bills in a timely fashion and that holding an amount
equal to one month's revenues is a sound business policy. We will
therefore not require the BOCs to reduce their central data base costs
by an additional $3.56 million.
(d). We have reviewed the BOCs' cost support and find that the
information and data provided by the BOCs in their direct case and in
the Description and Justification for their rate revisions in
Transmittal No. 7 comply with the requirements of Section 61.38. We
therefore find that the revisions filed under Transmittal No. 7 do not
result in unreasonable rates.
(e). There is no basis for Allnet's claim that rates for services
offered to the regional data base operators are unreasonably
discriminatory.
(f). Southwestern's decision to reclassify as nonregulated the data
processing services provided to the central data base is consistent
with our rules.
27. Affiliate Transactions
(a). For purposes of the affiliate transactions rules, we will
treat Southwestern's provision of data processing services for the
central data base as a transaction between DSMI and Southwestern. Since
Southwestern actually provides ``Computer Bureau Service'' to DSMI at a
``negotiated price,'' we require it to revise its cost manual to state
this. We require Southwestern to revise its cost manual to state
whether it records the services it provides DSMI at fully distributed
costs calculated in accordance with Commission rules and, if not, the
methodology it uses. If Southwestern has been using a methodology that
does not comply with the rules, Southwestern shall also adjust its
books to the extent necessary to account correctly for the services
Southwestern's Kansas City Data Center has provided DSMI and report any
such adjustments to the Commission. Southwestern shall take each of
these steps within 30 days of this Order's release.
(b). We require Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, NYNEX, Pacific
and Southwestern to revise their cost manuals to bring their treatment
of services received from DSMI into compliance with the affiliate
transactions rules. These revisions will also be due 30 days from this
Order's release.
(c). The BOCs are disclosing in their cost allocation manuals that
they purchase software systems and support from Bellcore at fully-
distributed costs. Therefore, these transactions comply with the
requirements of Sec. 32.27(d) of the Commission's rules.
28. Allocation to Interstate Jurisdiction
(a). We will allow the BOCs to assign all of the costs of providing
the central data base service directly to the interstate jurisdiction,
provided that this assignment does not result in the double recovery of
costs relating to the central data base service through charges put in
place at the state level.
(b). If any state requires the BOCs to file a tariff for the
central data base that would result in costs being reassigned to the
intrastate jurisdiction, we would require the BOCs to revise their
rates to reflect those reductions in their interstate costs.
Joint Application for Review
29. We conclude that the Common Carrier Bureau acted correctly when
it required the LECs either to disclose the proprietary cost models
they used to develop their 800 data base vertical features rates or to
use alternative cost methodologies. We, therefore, deny the joint
application for review of the 800 Cost Disclosure Order. We also deny
US West's petition for reconsideration of the 800 Cost Disclosure
Order.
GTE Revised Petition for Waiver
30. We conclude that GTE's provision of its proprietary cost
support information under the terms of its non-disclosure agreement was
not unreasonable. Accordingly, we grant GTE's revised waiver request.
United and GTE Petitions for Stay and Applications for Review
31. We affirm the Bureau's action in partially suspending GTE and
United's 800 data base query rates for a five month period and deny
their applications for review of that action.
32. We dismiss as moot the petitions for stay filed by GTE and
United because the partial rate suspension for which they seek a stay
expired on October 1, 1993.
Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, It is ordered that, pursuant to authority contained in
sections 1, 4, 201-205 and 218 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 151, 154, 201-205 and 218, that the policies
and requirements set forth herein are adopted.
It is further ordered that this Order will be effective January 13,
1997.
It is further ordered, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), that the tariff
provisions filed by the Ameritech Operating Companies, the Bell
Atlantic Telephone Company, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., GTE
Telephone Service Company and the GTE Telephone Operating Companies,
Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Southern New England Telephone Company,
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, U S West Communications, Inc. and
the United Telephone Companies are unlawful to the extent indicated
herein.
It is further ordered that the Bell Atlantic Telephone Company, GTE
Telephone Service Company, the GTE Telephone Operating Companies,
Southern New England Telephone Company, the NYNEX Telephone Companies,
Pacific Telephone Company, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, U S
West Communications, Inc. and the United Telephone Companies shall
adjust their PCIs to reflect the disallowances ordered in
[[Page 65340]]
paragraph 86 and Appendix C of the Order.
It is further ordered that the costs of the Ameritech Companies
that exceed the average of the allowed exogenous costs for the other
Bell Operating Companies, as specified in paragraph 90 of the Order are
disallowed.
It is further ordered that Bell Atlantic shall adjust its PCI to
reflect the disallowances required in paragraphs 57, 102, 110, 115, 116
and 136 of the Order.
It is further ordered that BellSouth shall modify its tariff as
required in paragraph 26 of the Order, and adjust its PCI to reflect
the disallowance in paragraph 115 of the Order.
It is further ordered that Southern New England Telephone Company
shall adjust its PCI to reflect the disallowance in paragraph 57 of the
Order.
It is further ordered that the New York and the NYNEX Telephone
Company shall adjust its PCI to reflect the disallowance in paragraph
115 of the Order.
It is further ordered that the Pacific Bell Telephone Company shall
adjust its PCI to reflect the disallowance in paragraph 125 of the
Order and shall modify its tariff as required in paragraph 174 of the
Order.
It is further ordered that U S West Communications, Inc. shall
modify its tariff as required in paragraphs 27, 174 and 195 of the
Order.
It is further ordered that the United Telephone Company shall
adjust its PCI to reflect the disallowances in paragraphs 57, 110, 115
and 116 of the Order, and modify its tariff as required in paragraph 27
of the Order.
It is further ordered that, any local exchange carrier that filed
tariffs subject to Secs. 61.41 through 61.49 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 61.41 through 61.49, shall recalculate the relevant indexes
pursuant to the adjustments ordered in paragraphs 307 through 315 of
the Order. The local exchange carriers shall file the revised indexes
no later than 30 days after the release of this order by letter
addressed to the Secretary, FCC.
It is further ordered that any local exchange carrier that filed
tariffs subject to Secs. 61.41 through 61.49 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 61.41 through 61.49, and, after the adjustments ordered in
paragraphs 307 through 315 of the Order, has an API that exceeds its
PCI shall file tariff revisions that will reduce the API to a level
below the PCI. These tariff revisions shall be filed no later than 30
days after the release of this Order to be effective on not less than
15 days' notice.
It is further ordered that the Commission delegates authority to
the Bureau to take action necessary to ensure that the Local Exchange
Carriers properly adjust their relevant Price Cap Indices to reflect
the requirements of this order.
It is further ordered that Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, Pacific and
United are granted a waiver of Sec. 61.47(a) of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 61.47(a), as discussed in paragraph 164 of the Order.
It is further ordered that Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, GTE, NYNEX and
United are granted a waiver of Sec. 61.3(e) of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 61.3(e), as discussed in paragraph 176 of the Order.
It is further ordered that any local exchange carrier that offers a
tariffed 800 data base query service through the use of a regional data
base not owned by that local exchange carrier shall file revisions
concerning the application of the per-query charge, as specified in
paragraph 204 of the Order.
It is further ordered that any local exchange carrier that filed
tariffs subject to Sec. 61.38 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 61.38,
and uses a rate adjustment factor for unbillable queries exceeding 5
percent, shall make the filings required by paragraph 210 of the Order.
It is further ordered that Central Telephone Company, Century
Telephone of Ohio, Inc., National Exchange Carrier Association,
Rochester Telephone Company and Southern New England Telephone Company
shall file the tariff amendments ordered in paragraph 27 of the Order.
It is further ordered that the Bell Operating Companies shall amend
BOC Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, as required by paragraphs 218, 223, 228 and
234 of the Order.
It is further ordered that local exchange carriers shall file
tariff revisions removing Resporg service from their interstate Access
Tariffs pursuant to paragraph 47 of the Order. These revisions shall be
filed no later than 90 days from the release of this order to be
effective on not less than 15 days' notice. Carriers should reference
this order as the authority for these filings.
It is further ordered that local exchange carriers shall reclassify
their Resporg assets and related expenses to nonregulated status no
later than the scheduled effective date of the tariff revisions
removing the Resporg service from the Interstate Access Tariff.
It is further ordered that local exchange carriers required to file
a cost allocation manual pursuant to Sec. 64.903 of the Commission's
rules or by Commission order shall file revisions to their manuals
implementing the reclassification required herein no later than 30 days
after the release of this order, to be effective 60 days after the
filing date.
It is further ordered that any local exchange carrier whose tariff
is a subject of this investigation shall take any other action required
by this Order but not otherwise specifically enumerated in these
ordering clauses.
Accordingly, It is further ordered that the motions to accept late
filed pleadings, filed by the Pacific and Nevada Bell Telephone
Companies and the Ameritech Operating Companies, are granted.
It is further ordered that the petition for clarification filed by
MCI Telecommunications Corporation, is denied.
It is further ordered that the petition for reconsideration filed
by US West Communications, Inc., is denied.
It is further ordered that the petitions for review filed by the
GTE Service Corporation and the United Telephone Company, are denied.
It is further ordered that the petitions for stay filed by the GTE
Service Corporation and the United Telephone Company, are dismissed.
It is further ordered that the joint application for review, filed
by the Ameritech Operating Companies, Bell Atlantic Telephone Company,
Pacific Bell Telephone Company, the NYNEX Telephone Companies and U S
West Communications, Inc., of the 800 Cost Disclosure Order, is denied.
It is further ordered that the request for non-disclosure submitted
in GTE's Revised Petition for Waiver of the cost support requirements
in 800 Data Base Access Tariffs and the 800 Service Management System
Tariff, Order Designating Issues for Investigation is granted to the
extent provided herein.
It is further ordered that for the purposes of filing tariff
revisions pursuant to this Order, Sec. 61.58 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 61.58, is waived. Local exchange carriers shall reference the
``FCC'' number of this Order as the authority for these filings.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 61
Communications common carriers, Reporting and record-keeping
requirements, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-31486 Filed 12-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P