[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