[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