[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 22, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51258-51269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-24141]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 0, 1, 61 and 69

[CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 98-157; CCB/CPD File No. 98-63; FCC 99-
206]


Access Charge Reform; Price Cap Performance Review for Local 
Exchange Carriers; Petition of U S West Communications, Inc. for 
Forbearance From Regulation as a Dominant Carrier in the Phoenix, AZ 
MSA; Interexchange Carrier Purchases of Switched Access Services 
Offered by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document revises the rules that govern the provision of 
interstate access services by those incumbent local exchange carriers 
subject to price cap regulation to advance the pro-competitive, de-
regulatory national policies embodied in the Telecommunications Act of 
1996. With these revisions, the Commission continues the process it 
began in 1997 to reform the regulation of interstate access charges in 
order to accelerate the development of competition in all 
telecommunications markets and to ensure that the Commission's own 
regulations do not unduly interfere with the operation of these markets 
as competition develops.

DATES: Effective October 22, 1999, except for 47 CFR 1.774, 61.47, 
69.709, 69.711, 69.713, 69.729, which contain information collection 
requirements that have not been approved by OMB. The Commission will 
publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective 
date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tamara Preiss, Deputy Division Chief, 
Common Carrier Bureau, Competitive Pricing Division, (202) 418-1520. 
For additional information concerning the information collections 
contained in this Report and Order contact Judy Boley at 202-418-0214, 
or via the Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Access 
Reform Fifth Report and Order adopted August 5, 1999, and released 
August 25, 1999. The Order was accompanied by a Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) printed elsewhere in this Federal Register 
issue. The full text of this Report and Order (and the accompanying 
Notice), as well as the complete files for the relevant dockets, is 
available for inspection and copying during the weekday hours of 9:00 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th St. 
SW, Room CY-A257, Washington DC, or copies may be purchased from the 
Commission's duplicating contractor, ITS Inc., 1231 20th St. NW, 
Washington DC 20036; (202) 857-3088. The complete text of the Order 
also may be obtained through the World Wide Web, at http://www.fcc.gov/
Bureaus/Common__Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99206.wp.
    This Report and Order contains new and/or modified information 
collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). It 
has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
review under the PRA.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This Report and Order contains either a new or modified information 
collection. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce 
paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collections 
contained in this Order, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995, Public Law 104-12. Written comments by the public on the 
information collections are due 30 days after date of publication in 
the Federal Register. OMB notification of action is due November 22, 
1999.

[[Page 51259]]

Comments should address: (1) Whether the new or modified collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the Commission, including whether the information shall practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on the respondents including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    OMB Approval Number: 3060-0760.
    Title: Access Charge Reform--CC Docket No. 96-262 (First Report and 
Order), Second Order on Reconsideration and Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, Third Report and Order, and Fifth Report and Order.
    Form No.: N/A.
    Type of Review: Revised collection.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for profit.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of     Est. time per   Total annual
                          Section/title                              responses       response         burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Showings Under Market-Based Approach............................              13            2117          27,520
Cost Study......................................................              13               8             104
Tariff Filings..................................................              13              35             455
Third Party Disclosure..........................................              14             160           2,240
Contract Based Tariffs..........................................              13              60             780
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Annual Burden: 30,829 hrs.
    Estimated Cost Per Respondent: $600.
    OMB Control No.: 3060-0526.
    Title: Density Pricing Plan.
    Form No.: N/A.
    Type of Review: Revised Collection.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for Profit.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Number of      Est. time per     Total annual
                        Section/title                             responses         response          burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density Pricing Plan.........................................              13               48              624
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Costs Per Respondents: $0.
    OMB Control No.: 3060-0770.
    Title: Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers--CC 
Docket No. 94-1 (New Services).
    Form No.: N/A.
    Type of Review: Revised Collection.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for Profit.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Number of      Est. time per     Total annual
                        Section/title                             responses         response          burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Services.................................................              13               10              130
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Costs Per Respondents: $0.
    Needs and Uses: The Commission provides detailed rules for 
implementing the market-based approach, pursuant to which price cap 
LECs would receive pricing flexibility in the provision of interstate 
access services as competition for those services develops. The Order 
grants immediate pricing flexibility to price cap LECs in the form of 
streamlined introduction of new services, geographic deaveraging of 
rates for services in the trunking basket, and removal of certain 
interstate interexchange services from price cap regulation and 
provides for additional pricing flexibility upon showings.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Fifth Report and 
Order contains a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis regarding the 
Order which is set forth in the Order. A brief description of the 
analysis follows. Pursuant to section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, the Commission performed a comprehensive analysis of the Order 
with regard to small entities. This analysis includes: (1) A succinct 
statement of the need for, and objectives of, the Commission's 
decisions in the Order; (2) a summary of the significant issues raised 
by the public comments in response to the initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis, a summary of the Commission's assessment of these 
issues, and a statement of any changes made in the Order as a result of 
the comments; (3) a description of and an estimate of the number of 
small entities to which the Order will apply; (4) a description of the 
projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of 
the Order, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which 
will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills 
necessary for compliance with the requirement; and (5) a description of 
the steps the Commission has taken to minimize the significant economic 
impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of 
applicable statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and 
legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the Order and 
why each one of the other significant alternatives to each of the 
Commission's decisions which affect small entities was rejected.

Synopsis of Order

I. Introduction

    1. In this Order, the Commission revises the rules that govern the 
provision of interstate access services by those incumbent local 
exchange carriers (ILECs) subject to price cap regulation 
(collectively, ``price cap LECs'') to advance the pro-competitive, de-
regulatory national policies embodied in the Telecommunications Act of 
1996

[[Page 51260]]

(1996 Act). With these revisions, the Commission continues the process 
it began in 1997, with the Access Reform First Report and Order (62 FR 
31868, June 11, 1997), to reform regulation of interstate access 
charges in order to accelerate the development of competition in all 
telecommunications markets and to ensure that the Commission's own 
regulations do not unduly interfere with the operation of these markets 
as competition develops.
    2. In the Access Reform First Report and Order, the Commission 
adopted a primarily market-based approach to drive interstate access 
charges toward the costs of providing these services. The Commission 
envisioned that this approach would enable it to give carriers 
progressively greater flexibility to set rates as competition develops, 
until competition gradually replaces regulation as the primary means of 
setting prices. In this Order, the Commission fulfills its commitment 
to provide detailed rules for implementing the market-based approach, 
pursuant to which price cap LECs would receive pricing flexibility in 
the provision of interstate access services as competition for those 
services develops.
    3. The pricing flexibility framework the Commission adopts in this 
Order is designed to grant greater flexibility to price cap LECs as 
competition develops, while ensuring that: (1) Price cap LECs do not 
use pricing flexibility to deter efficient entry or engage in 
exclusionary pricing behavior; and (2) price cap LECs do not increase 
rates to unreasonable levels for customers that lack competitive 
alternatives. In addition, these reforms will facilitate the removal of 
services from price cap regulation as competition develops in the 
marketplace, without imposing undue administrative burdens on the 
Commission or the industry.
    4. Specifically, this Order grants immediate pricing flexibility to 
price cap LECs in the form of streamlined introduction of new services, 
geographic deaveraging of rates for services in the trunking basket, 
and removal, upon implementation of toll dialing parity, of certain 
interstate interexchange services from price cap regulation. The 
Commission also establishes a framework for granting price cap LECs 
greater flexibility in the pricing of all interstate access services 
once they satisfy certain competitive criteria. In Phase I, the 
Commission allows price cap LECs to offer contract tariffs and volume 
and term discounts for those services for which they make a specific 
competitive showing. In Phase II, the Commission permits price cap LECs 
to offer dedicated transport and special access services free from the 
Commission's part 69 rate structure and part 61 price cap rules, 
provided that the LECs can demonstrate a significantly higher level of 
competition for those services. This Order amends the Commission's 
rules, as revised in 1998 Beinnial Regulatory Review--Part 61 of the 
Commission's Rules and Related Tariffing Requirements, 64 FR 46584 
(August 26, 1999).

II. Background

A. Price Cap Regime

    5. To recover the costs of providing interstate access services, 
incumbent LECs charge IXCs and end users for access services in 
accordance with the Commission's part 69 access charge rules. Part 69 
establishes two basic categories of access services: Special access 
services and switched access services. Special access services do not 
use local switches; instead they employ dedicated facilities that run 
directly between the end user and the IXC's point of presence (POP). 
Switched access services, on the other hand, use local exchange 
switches to route originating and terminating interstate toll calls. 
The Commission has not prescribed specific rate elements in part 69 for 
special access services. Part 69 does establish specific switched 
access elements and a mandatory switched access rate structure for each 
element.
    6. Interoffice transmission services, known as transport services, 
carry interstate switched access traffic between an IXC's POP and the 
end office that serves the end user customer. Incumbent LEC 
transmission facilities that carry switched interstate traffic between 
an IXC's POP and the incumbent LEC end office serving the POP (this 
office is called the serving wire center, or SWC), are known as 
entrance facilities. Incumbent LECs currently offer two types of 
interstate switched transport service between a SWC and an end user's 
end office. Under the first service, direct-trunked transport, calls 
are transported between the SWC and the end office by means of a direct 
trunk, a dedicated facility, that does not pass through an intervening 
switch. The second service, tandem-switched transport, routes calls 
from the SWC to the end office through a tandem switch located between 
the SWC and the end office. Traffic travels over a dedicated circuit 
from the SWC to the tandem switch and then over a shared circuit, which 
carries the calls of many different IXCs, from the tandem switch to the 
incumbent LEC end office. Incumbent LEC tandem switches and end office 
switches switch interstate traffic between the transport trunks 
carrying traffic to and from the IXC POPs and the end users' local 
loops.
    7. Charges for special access services generally are divided into 
channel termination charges and channel mileage charges. Channel 
termination charges recover the costs of facilities between the 
customer's premises and the LEC end office and the costs of facilities 
between the IXC POP and the serving wire center. Channel mileage 
charges recover the costs of facilities (also known as interoffice 
facilities) between the serving wire center and the LEC end office 
serving the end user.
    8. In 1990, the Commission replaced rate-of-return regulation for 
the BOCs and GTE with an incentives-based system of regulation that 
encourages companies to: (1) Improve their efficiency by developing 
profit-making incentives to reduce costs; (2) invest efficiently in new 
plant and facilities; and (3) develop and deploy innovative service 
offerings. The price cap plan is designed to replicate some of the 
efficiency incentives found in fully competitive markets and to act as 
a transitional regulatory scheme until actual competition makes price 
cap regulation unnecessary.
    9. Under the original price cap plan, interstate access services 
were grouped into four different baskets: The common line, traffic-
sensitive, special access, and interexchange baskets. In the Second 
Transport Order (59 FR 10300, March 4, 1994), the Commission combined 
transport and special access services into the newly created trunking 
basket. Each basket is subject to a price cap index (PCI), which caps 
the total charges a LEC may impose for interstate access services in 
that basket. The PCI is adjusted annually by a measure of inflation 
minus a ``productivity factor,'' or ``X-Factor.'' A separate adjustment 
is made to the PCI for ``exogenous'' cost changes, which are changes 
outside the carrier's control and not otherwise reflected in the price 
cap formula.
    10. Within the traffic-sensitive and trunking baskets, services are 
grouped into service categories and subcategories. Rate revisions for 
these services are limited by upper and, in the original price cap 
plan, lower pricing bands established for that particular service. 
Originally, the pricing band limits for most of the service categories 
and subcategories were set at five percent above and below the Service 
Band Index (SBI). In 1995, however, the Commission increased the lower 
pricing bands to ten percent for those service categories in the 
trunking and traffic-sensitive baskets and 15 percent for those 
services subject to density zone

[[Page 51261]]

pricing. These pricing bands give price cap LECs the ability to raise 
and lower rates for elements or services as long as the actual price 
index (API) for the relevant basket does not exceed the PCI for that 
basket, and the prices for each category of services within the basket 
are within the established pricing bands. Together, the PCI and pricing 
bands restrict a price cap LEC's ability to offset price reductions for 
services that are subject to competition with price increases for 
services that are not subject to competition.

B. Pricing Flexibility

    11. When it adopted the LEC Price Cap Order (55 FR 42375, October 
19, 1990), the Commission required price cap LECs to offer all 
interstate special and switched access services at geographically 
averaged rates for each study area. Since that time, the Commission has 
taken significant steps to increase the LECs' pricing flexibility and 
ability to respond to the advent of competition in the exchange access 
market. In the Special Access and Switched Transport Expanded 
Interconnection Orders (57 54323, November 19, 1992; 58 FR 48756, 
September 17, 1993), the Commission permitted LECs to introduce density 
zone pricing for high capacity special access and switched transport 
services in a study area, provided that they could demonstrate the 
presence of ``operational'' special access and switched transport 
expanded interconnection arrangements and at least one competitor in 
the study area. The Commission also permitted price cap LECs to offer 
volume and term discounts for special access and switched transport 
services upon specific competitive showings.
    12. Subsequently, the Commission eliminated the lower service band 
indices, concluding that this action would lead to lower prices and 
encourage LECs to charge rates that reflect the underlying costs of 
providing exchange access services. The Commission found that the PCI 
and upper pricing bands adequately control predatory pricing and that 
greater downward pricing flexibility would benefit consumers both 
directly through lower prices and indirectly by encouraging only 
efficient competitive entry.
    13. In that same order, the Commission also relaxed the procedures 
for introducing new switched access services, in response to arguments 
that new services and technologies do not fit the part 69 rate 
structure requirements. The Commission prescribed the original rate 
structure for introducing new switched access services in 1983. At that 
time, incumbent LECs were required to file a part 69 waiver each time 
they wanted to introduce a new rate element for switched access service 
that did not conform to the prescribed switched access rate structure. 
A part 69 waiver required incumbent LECs to demonstrate that ``special 
circumstances warrant deviation from the general rule and that such 
deviation will serve the public interest.'' Incumbent LECs also had to 
comply with the ``new services'' test, which required an incumbent LEC 
to demonstrate that its tariffed rates for new services would recover 
no more than the carrier's direct costs of providing the service, plus 
a reasonable amount of overhead, and no less than the carrier's direct 
costs of providing the service. Finally, incumbent LECs were directed 
to file their tariffs introducing a new service on at least fifteen 
days' notice and to incorporate the new service into the appropriate 
price cap basket and indices within six to eighteen months after the 
new service tariff became effective.
    14. The Commission found that the part 69 rate structure imposed a 
costly, time-consuming, and unnecessary burden on incumbent LECs and 
significantly impeded the introduction of new services. Accordingly, 
the Commission modified the part 69 rate structure rules to permit an 
incumbent LEC to introduce a new service by filing a petition based on 
a ``public interest'' standard that is easier to satisfy than the 
general standard applicable to waivers of the its rules. In addition, 
under the new rules, once an initial incumbent LEC has satisfied the 
public interest requirement for establishing new rate elements for a 
new switched access service, another incumbent LEC may file a petition 
seeking authority to introduce an identical new service, and its 
petition will be reviewed within ten days of the release of a Public 
Notice. The LEC may introduce the new rate element following the ten-
day period, unless the Common Carrier Bureau (the Bureau) informs the 
LEC before that time that its new service does not qualify for ``me 
too'' treatment.
    15. The Commission also recognized that additional modifications to 
the Part 69 rate structure could increase consumer choice, streamline 
regulation, and increase consumer welfare by increasing incentives for 
innovation. The Commission, therefore, sought comment on whether to 
permit price cap LECs to establish new switched access rate elements 
without prior approval. It also invited comment on whether to eliminate 
the new services test and permit LECs to offer new services free from 
price cap regulation. In the Access Reform First Report and Order, the 
Commission deferred resolution of these issues, as well as other issues 
concerning the timing and degree of pricing flexibility, to a future 
report and order.

III. Summary

A. Pricing Flexibility

    16. Since the release of the Access Reform First Report and Order, 
the Commission has re-examined the record generated in response to the 
Access Reform NPRM (62 FR 4670, January 31, 1997) and the Price Cap 
Second FNPRM (60 FR 49539, September 26, 1995); it has observed 
competition develop in the marketplace; and the it has invited parties 
to update and refresh the record relating to access charge reform to 
reflect any changes that may have taken place since May 1997. In 
addition, the Commission has received and reviewed several petitions 
(and the associated records) from BOCs seeking pricing flexibility in 
the form of forbearance from dominant carrier regulation in the 
provision of certain special access and high capacity services. 
Although the Commission's current price cap regime gives LECs some 
pricing flexibility and considerable incentives to operate efficiently, 
significant regulatory constraints remain. As the market becomes more 
competitive, such constraints become counter-productive. The Commission 
recognizes that the variety of access services available on a 
competitive basis has increased significantly since the adoption of its 
price cap rules. Therefore, in response to changing market conditions, 
the Commission grants price cap LECs immediate flexibility to deaverage 
services in the trunking basket and to introduce new services on a 
streamlined basis. The Commission also removes certain interstate 
interexchange services from price cap regulation upon implementation of 
intra-and interLATA toll dialing parity, and the it establishes a 
framework for granting price cap LECs further pricing flexibility upon 
satisfaction of certain competitive showings and seek comment on 
additional flexibility for certain switched access services.
1. Immediate Regulatory Relief
    17. As discussed above, the original rate structure for interstate 
switched transport services required price cap LECs to charge averaged 
rates throughout a study area. The Commission subsequently found that 
this requirement forced LECs to price above cost in the high-traffic, 
lower-cost

[[Page 51262]]

areas where competition is more likely to develop. In the Switched 
Transport Expanded Interconnection Order, therefore, the Commission 
created a density zone pricing plan that allows some degree of 
deaveraging of rates for switched transport services. It concluded that 
relaxing the pricing rules in this manner would enable price cap LECs 
to respond to increased competition in the interstate switched 
transport market.
    18. Although the density zone pricing plan afforded some pricing 
flexibility to price cap LECs, it contained several constraints, such 
as the increased scrutiny applicable to plans with more than three 
zones. The Commission now concludes that market forces, as opposed to 
regulation, are more likely to compel LECs to establish efficient 
prices. Accordingly, for purposes of deaveraging rates for services in 
the trunking basket, the Commission eliminates the limitations inherent 
in the its current density zone pricing plan and allow price cap LECs 
to define the scope and number of zones within a study area, provided 
that each zone, except the highest-cost zone, accounts for at least 15 
percent of the incumbent LEC's trunking basket revenues in the study 
area and that annual price increases within a zone do not exceed 15 
percent. In addition, the Commission eliminates the requirement that 
LECs file zone pricing plans prior to filing their tariffs.
    19. The Commission also permits price cap LECs to introduce new 
services on a streamlined basis, without prior approval. Generally, the 
Commission modifies the its rules to eliminate the public interest 
showing required by Sec. 69.4(g) and to eliminate the new services test 
(except in the case of loop-based new services) required under 
Secs. 61.49(f) and (g) of the Commission's rules. These modifications 
will eliminate the delays that now exist for the introduction of new 
services as well as encourage efficient investment and innovation.
    20. Certain interstate interexchange services provided by price cap 
LECs are found in the interexchange basket, including interstate 
intraLATA services and certain interstate interLATA services called 
``corridor services.'' In this Order, the Commission allows price cap 
LECs to remove from the interexchange basket, and, hence, price cap 
regulation, their interstate intraLATA toll services and corridor 
services, provided the price cap LEC has implemented intra-and 
interLATA toll dialing parity in all of the states in which it provides 
local exchange service. The presence of competitive alternatives for 
these services, coupled with implementation of dialing parity, should 
prevent price cap LECs from exploiting over a sustained period any 
market power may possess with respect to these services and thus 
warrants removal of these services from price cap regulation.
2. Relief That Requires a Competitive Showing
    21. In addition, the Commission adopts a framework for granting 
further regulatory relief upon satisfaction of certain competitive 
showings. Relief generally will be granted in two phases and on an MSA 
(Metropolitan Statistical Area) basis. To obtain Phase I relief, price 
cap LECs must demonstrate that competitors have made irreversible, sunk 
investments in the facilities needed to provide the services at issue. 
For instance, for dedicated transport and special access services, 
price cap LECs must demonstrate that unaffiliated competitors have 
collocated in at least 15 percent of the LEC's wire centers within an 
MSA or collocated in wire centers accounting for 30 percent of the 
LEC's revenues from these services within an MSA. Higher thresholds 
apply, however, for channel terminations between a LEC end office and 
an end user customer. In that case, the LEC must demonstrate that 
unaffiliated competitors have collocated in 50 percent of the price cap 
LEC's wire centers within an MSA or collocated in wire centers 
accounting for 65 percent of the price cap LEC's revenues from this 
service within an MSA. For traffic-sensitive, common line, and the 
traffic-sensitive components of tandem-switched transport services, a 
LEC must show that competitors offer service over their own facilities 
to 15 percent of the price cap LEC's customer locations within an MSA. 
Phase I relief permits price cap LECs to offer, on one day's notice, 
volume and term discounts and contract tariffs for these services, so 
long as the services provided pursuant to contract are removed from 
price caps. To protect those customers that may lack competitive 
alternatives, however, LECs receiving Phase I flexibility must maintain 
their generally available, price cap constrained tariffed rates for 
these services.
    22. To obtain Phase II relief, price cap LECs must demonstrate that 
competitors have established a significant market presence (i.e., that 
competition for a particular service within the MSA is sufficient to 
preclude the incumbent from exploiting any individual market power over 
a sustained period) for provision of the services at issue. Phase II 
relief for dedicated transport and special access services is warranted 
when a price cap LEC demonstrates that unaffiliated competitors have 
collocated in at least 50 percent of the LEC's wire centers within an 
MSA or collocated in wire centers accounting for 65 percent of the 
LEC's revenues from these services within an MSA. Again, a higher 
threshold applies to channel terminations between a LEC end office and 
an end user customer. In that case, a price cap LEC must show that 
unaffiliated competitors have collocated in 65 percent of the LEC's 
wire centers within an MSA or collocated in wire centers accounting for 
85 percent of the LEC's revenues from this service within an MSA. Phase 
II relief permits price cap LECs to file tariffs for these services on 
one day's notice, free from both the Commission's Part 61 rate level 
and its Part 69 rate structure rules.

B. CLEC Access Charges

    23. In the Access Reform NPRM, the Commission sought comment on 
whether CLECs have market power in the provision of terminating access 
services and whether to regulate these services. In the Access Reform 
First Report and Order, it decided to treat CLECs as non-dominant in 
the provision of terminating access service, because they did not 
appear at that time to possess market power. The Commission stated, 
however, that it would revisit the issue of regulating CLEC terminating 
access rates if there were sufficient indications that CLECs were 
imposing unreasonable terminating access charges.
    24. On October 23, 1998, AT&T filed a petition for declaratory 
ruling requesting that the Commission confirm that, under existing 
Commission rules and policies, an IXC may elect not to accept service 
at a price chosen by the CLEC. In its petition, AT&T alleges that some 
CLECs impose switched access charges significantly higher than those 
charged by the ILEC competitors in the same area. AT&T points to a 
Commission pronouncement in the Access Reform First Report and Order 
that ``terminating rates that exceed those charged by the ILEC serving 
the same market may suggest that a CLEC's terminating access rates are 
excessive,'' thereby warranting Commission regulation.
    25. In this Order, the Commission denies AT&T's petition. The 
Commission finds, however, that the record developed in response to 
AT&T's petition suggests the need for the it to revisit the issue of 
CLEC access rates.

[[Page 51263]]

IV. Procedural Issues and Ordering Clauses

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    25. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in Access 
Reform NPRM. The Commission sought written comments on the proposals in 
the Access Reform NPRM, including the IRFA. Its Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in this Order conforms to the RFA, as 
amended. To the extent that any statement contained in this FRFA is 
perceived as creating ambiguity with respect to the Commission's rules 
or statements made in preceding sections of this Order, the rules and 
statements set forth in those preceding sections shall be controlling.
1. Need For and Objectives of This Report and Order
    27. This proceeding is being conducted to advance the pro-
competitive, de-regulatory national policies embodied in the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Commission continues the process it 
began in 1997 with the Access Reform First Report and Order to reform 
regulation of interstate access charges in order to accelerate the 
development of competition in all telecommunications markets and to 
ensure that the its own regulations do not unduly interfere with the 
operation of these markets as competition develops.
2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in 
Response to the IRFA
    28. The Commission has already addressed the general concerns 
raised by Rural Telephone Coalition that this proceeding may ``prejudge 
and prejudice'' a later rulemaking for non price cap LECs, and that the 
delay in implementing that rulemaking may injure non-price cap LECs. 
Otherwise, the comments filed do not address the specific issues 
contained in this Order.
3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Rules Will Apply
    29. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity `` as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned 
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA). The Small Business Administration has defined a 
small business for Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) category 
4813 (Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone) to be a small 
entity that has no more than 1500 employees.
    Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected:
    30. The Commission has included small incumbent LECs in this 
present RFA analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the 
RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size 
standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or 
fewer employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' 
The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small 
incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any 
such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. The Commission has 
therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although 
it emphasizes that this RFA action has no effect on FCC analyses and 
determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
    31. Price Cap Local Exchange Carriers. The rulemaking contained in 
this Order applies only to price cap LECs. The Commission does not have 
data specifying the number of these carriers that are either dominant 
in their field of operations, are not independently owned and operated, 
or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to 
estimate with greater precision the number of price cap LECs that would 
qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. However, 
there are only 13 price cap LECs. Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that significantly fewer than 13 providers of local exchange 
service are small entities or small price cap LECs that may be affected 
by these proposals.
4. Summary Analysis of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and 
Other Compliance Requirements
    32. In this Report and Order, the Commission adopts changes in 
pricing flexibility to price cap LECs in the form of streamlined 
introduction of new services, geographic deaveraging of rates for 
services in the trunking basket, and removal of interexchange services 
from price cap regulation. These changes will affect all price cap 
LECs, including small price cap LECs, and will require small price cap 
LECs to make one or more tariff filings should they desire to obtain 
the additional pricing flexibility, which will involve the usage of 
legal skills, and possibly accounting, economic, and financial skills.
5. Burdens on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 
and Rejected
    33. In Sections III, IV, and V, the Commission adopts forms of 
regulatory relief for price cap LECs that can be granted under current 
market conditions and do not require a further competitive showing. 
Price cap LECs each will have to file at least one tariff to implement 
this relief, but the administrative burdens they will face in future 
filings will diminish as a result. In Section VI, the Commission grants 
additional pricing flexibility to price cap LECs that make 
``competitive showings,'' or satisfy ``triggers,'' to demonstrate that 
market conditions in particular areas warrant the relief at issue. In 
order to minimize the administrative burdens on price cap LECs, the 
Commission bases its triggering mechanisms on objectively measurable 
criteria.
    34. The Commission considered and rejected alternative triggers and 
granting a different amount of pricing flexibility. In setting the 
triggers and relief in the manner the Commission did, it attempted to 
balance the interests of price cap LECs in being able to gain 
regulatory relief, with its interest in protecting ratepayers from 
unreasonable rate levels and new entrants from anti-competitive 
actions.
6. Report to Congress
    35. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order, 
including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. In 
addition, the Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order, 
including FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration. A copy of this Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries 
thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    36. On April 1, 1997, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
approved all of the Commission's proposed information collection 
requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The OMB 
made one recommendation, suggesting that the Commission tries ``to 
minimize the number of new filings that firms must create in order to 
be compliant with the rules adopted * * *'' The

[[Page 51264]]

Commission has carefully considered the recommendation of OMB, and in 
the course of preparing this Order, it has decided to modify several of 
the collection requirements proposed in the Access Reform NPRM. This 
Order has greatly reduced the number of filings a price cap LEC will 
have to submit to receive pricing flexibility. In addition, many of the 
filings should take less time to make than was originally proposed. For 
example, the Commission estimates that based on the competitive 
triggers it adopted, it should only take five hours each to make two 
Phase II showings per MSA for all special access and dedicated 
transport services, whereas the original filing to OMB estimated that 
each Phase II showing would take approximately 300 hours.

D. Ordering Clauses

    37. Accordingly, It is Ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 
201-205, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, 303(r), 403, and section 553 of 
Title 5, United States Code, that revisions to Parts 1, 61, and 69 of 
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Parts 1, 61, 69, are adopted as set 
forth in the rule changes in this Order.
    38. It is further ordered that the rule revisions adopted in this 
Order will be effective 30 days after publication of this Order in the 
Federal Register. The collections of information contained within are 
contingent upon approval by the Office of Management and Budget.
    39. It is further ordered that, pursuant to section 10(c) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, 47 USC. 160(c), the period for review by 
the Commission of the petition for forbearance filed by U S West 
Communications, Inc., CC Docket No. 98-157, is extended by 90 days.
    40. It is further ordered that the petition for declaratory ruling 
filed by AT&T, CCB/CPD File No. 98-63, is denied. 

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 0

    Organization and functions.

47 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedure, Communications common 
carriers, Telecommunications.

47 CFR Part 61

    Communications common carriers, Telephone.

47 CFR Part 69

    Communications common carriers, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.

Rule Changes

    Accordingly, parts 0, 1, 61, and 69 of Title 47 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations are amended to read as follows:

PART 0--COMMISSION ORGANIZATION

    1. The authority citation for part 0 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155, 
225, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 0.291 is amended by adding paragraph (i) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 0.291  Authority delegated.

* * * * *
    (j) Authority concerning petitions for pricing flexibility. (1) The 
Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, shall have authority to act on petitions 
filed pursuant to part 69, subpart H, of this chapter for pricing 
flexibility involving special access and dedicated transport services. 
This authority is not subject to the limitation set forth in paragraph 
(a)(2) of this section.
    (2) The Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, shall not have authority to 
act on petitions filed pursuant to part 69, subpart H, of this chapter 
for pricing flexibility involving common line and traffic sensitive 
services.

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

    3. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79 et seq., 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 
155, 225, and 303(r).

    4. Amend Sec. 1.773 by adding paragraph (a)(1)(v) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 1.773   Petitions for suspension or rejection of new tariff 
filings.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (v) For the purposes of this section, any tariff filing by a price 
cap LEC filed pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 61.42(d)(4)(ii) of 
this chapter will be considered prima facie lawful, and will not be 
suspended by the Commission unless the petition requesting suspension 
shows each of the following:
    (A) That there is a high probability the tariff would be found 
unlawful after investigation;
    (B) That any unreasonable rate would not be corrected in a 
subsequent filing;
    (C) That irreparable injury will result if the tariff filing is not 
suspended; and
    (D) That the suspension would not otherwise be contrary to the 
public interest.
* * * * *
    5. Add Sec. 1.774 to read as follows:


Sec. 1.774  Pricing flexibility

    (a) Petitions. (1) A petition seeking pricing flexibility for 
specific services pursuant to part 69, subpart H, of this chapter, with 
respect to a metropolitan statistical area (MSA), as defined in 
Sec. 22.909(a) of this chapter, or the non-MSA parts of a study area, 
must show that the price cap LEC has met the relevant thresholds set 
forth in part 69, subpart H, of this chapter.
    (2) The petition must make a separate showing for each MSA for 
which the petitioner seeks pricing flexibility, and for the portion of 
the study area that falls outside any MSA.
    (3) Petitions seeking pricing flexibility for services described in 
Secs. 69.709(a) and 69.711(a) of this chapter must include:
    (i) The total number of wire centers in the relevant MSA or non-MSA 
parts of a study area, as described in Sec. 69.707 of this chapter;
    (ii) The number and location of the wire centers in which 
competitors have collocated in the relevant MSA or non-MSA parts of a 
study area, as described in Sec. 69.707 of this chapter;
    (iii) In each wire center on which the price cap LEC bases its 
petition, the name of at least one collocator that uses transport 
facilities owned by a provider other than the price cap LEC to 
transport traffic from that wire center; and
    (iv)(A) The percentage of the wire centers in the relevant MSA or 
non-MSA area, as described in Sec. 69.707 of this chapter, in which 
competitors have collocated and use transport facilities owned by a 
provider other than the price cap LEC to transport traffic from that 
wire center; or
    (B) The percentage of total base period revenues generated by the 
services at issue in the petition that are attributable to wire centers 
in the relevant MSA or non-MSA area, as described in Sec. 69.707 of 
this chapter, in which competitors have collocated and use transport 
facilities owned by a provider other than the price cap LEC to 
transport traffic from that wire center.
    (4) Petitions seeking pricing flexibility for services described in 
Sec. 69.713(a) of this chapter must make a showing sufficient to meet 
the relevant requirements of Sec. 69.713 of this chapter.
    (b) Confidential treatment. A price cap LEC wishing to request 
confidential treatment of information contained in a pricing 
flexibility petition should

[[Page 51265]]

demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the information 
should be withheld from public inspection in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec. 0.459 of this chapter.
    (c) Oppositions. Any interested party may file comments or 
oppositions to a petition for pricing flexibility. Comments and 
oppositions shall be filed no later than 15 days after the petition is 
filed. Time shall be computed pursuant to Sec. 1.4.
    (d) Replies. The petitioner may file a reply to any oppositions 
filed in response to its petition for pricing flexibility. Replies 
shall be filed no later than 10 days after comments are filed. Time 
shall be computed pursuant to Sec. 1.4.
    (e) Copies, service. (1)(i) Any price cap LEC filing a petition for 
pricing flexibility must submit its petition pursuant to the 
Commission's Electronic Tariff Filing System (ETFS), following the 
procedures set forth in Sec. 61.14(a) of this chapter.
    (ii) The price cap LEC must provide to each party upon which the 
price cap LEC relies to meet its obligations under paragraph 
(a)(3)(iii) of this section, the information it provides about that 
party in its petition, even if the price cap LEC requests that the 
information be kept confidential under paragraph (b) of this section.
    (A) The price cap LEC must certify in its pricing flexibility 
petition that it has made such information available to the party.
    (B) The price cap LEC may provide data to the party in redacted 
form, revealing only that information to the party that relates to the 
party.
    (C) The price cap LEC must provide to the Commission copies of the 
information it provides to such parties.
    (2)(i) Interested parties filing oppositions or comments in 
response to a petition for pricing flexibility may file those comments 
through ETFS.
    (ii) Any interested party electing to file an opposition or comment 
in response to a pricing flexibility petition through a method other 
than ETFS must file an original and four copies of each opposition or 
comment with the Commission, as follows: the original and three copies 
of each pleading shall be filed with the Secretary, FCC, Room CY-A257, 
445 Twelfth St. S.W., Washington, D.C., 20554; one copy must be 
delivered directly to the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 Twentieth St. N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20036. Additional, separate copies shall be served simultaneously upon 
the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau; the Chief, Competitive Pricing 
Division; and the Chief, Tariff and Pricing Analysis Branch of the 
Competitive Pricing Division.
    (iii) In addition, oppositions and comments shall be served either 
personally or via facsimile on the petitioner. If an opposition or 
comment is served via facsimile, a copy of the opposition or comment 
must be sent to the petitioner via first class mail on the same day as 
the facsimile transmission.
    (3) Replies shall be filed with the Commission through ETFS. In 
addition, petitioners choosing to file a reply must serve a copy on 
each party filing an opposition or comment, either personally or via 
facsimile. If a reply is served via facsimile, a copy of the reply must 
be sent to the recipient of that reply via first class mail on the same 
day as the facsimile transmission.
    (f) Disposition. (1) A petition for pricing flexibility pertaining 
to special access and dedicated transport services shall be deemed 
granted unless the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, denies the petition no 
later than 90 days after the close of the pleading cycle. The period 
for filing applications for review begins the day the Bureau grants or 
denies the petition, or the day that the petition is deemed denied. 
Time shall be computed pursuant to Sec. 1.4.
    (2) A petition for pricing flexibility pertaining to common-line 
and traffic-sensitive services shall be deemed granted unless the 
Commission denies the petition no later than five months after the 
close of the pleading cycle. Time shall be computed pursuant to 
Sec. 1.4.

PART 61--TARIFFS

    6. The authority citation continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205, and 403 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 
154(j), 201-205, and 403, unless otherwise noted.

    7. Amend Sec. 61.3 by revising paragraph (m) and adding paragraphs 
(nn), (oo), and (pp), to read as follows:


Sec. 61.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (m) Contract-based tariff. A tariff based on a service contract 
entered into between a non-dominant carrier and a customer, or between 
a customer and a price cap local exchange carrier which has obtained 
permission to offer contract-based tariff services pursuant to Part 69, 
Subpart H, of this chapter.
* * * * *
    (nn) Corridor service. ``Corridor service'' refers to interLATA 
services offered in the ``limited corridors'' established by the 
District Court in United States v. Western Electric Co., Inc., 569 F. 
Supp. 1057, 1107 (D.D.C. 1983).
    (oo) Toll dialing parity. ``Toll dialing parity'' exists when there 
is dialing parity, as defined in Sec. 51.5 of this chapter, for toll 
services.
    (pp) Loop-based services. Loop-based services are services that 
employ Subcategory 1.3 facilities, as defined in Sec. 36.154 of this 
chapter.
* * * * *
    8. Amend Sec. 61.42 by redesignating paragraph (d)(4) as (d)(4)(i), 
and adding paragraph (d)(4)(ii), to read as follows:


Sec. 61.42  Price cap baskets and service categories.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) If a price cap carrier has implemented interLATA and intraLATA 
toll dialing parity everywhere it provides local exchange services at 
the holding company level, that price cap carrier may file a tariff 
revision to remove corridor and interstate intraLATA toll services from 
its interexchange basket.
* * * * *
    9. Amend Sec. 61.45 by revising paragraph (d)(1)(vii) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 61.45  Adjustments to the PCI for local exchange carriers.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (vii) Retargeting the PCI to the level specified by the Commission 
for carriers whose base year earnings are below the level of the lower 
adjustment mark, subject to the limitation in Sec. 69.731 of this 
chapter.
* * * * *
    10. Amend Sec. 61.46 to add paragraph (i) to read as follows:


Sec. 61.46  Adjustments to the API.

* * * * *
    (i) In no case shall a price cap local exchange carrier include 
data associated with services offered pursuant to contract tariff in 
the calculations required by this section.
    11. Section 61.47 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), 
introductory text, (e) introductory text, and (e)(1) and by adding 
paragraphs (f) and (k) to read as follows:


Sec. 61.47  Adjustments to the SBI; pricing bands.

    (a) In connection with any price cap tariff filing proposing 
changes in the rates of services in service categories, subcategories, 
or density zones, the

[[Page 51266]]

carrier must calculate an SBI value for each affected service category, 
subcategory, or density zone pursuant to the following methodology: * * 
*
* * * * *
    (e) Pricing bands shall be established each tariff year for each 
service category and subcategory within a basket. Each band shall limit 
the pricing flexibility of the service category, subcategory, as 
reflected in the SBI, to an annual increase of a specified percent 
listed in this paragraph, relative to the percentage change in the PCI 
for that basket, measured from the levels in effect on the last day of 
the preceding tariff year. For local exchange carriers subject to price 
cap regulation as that term is defined in Sec. 61.3(x), there shall be 
no lower pricing band for any service category or subcategory.
    (1) Five percent: 

(i) Local switching (traffic sensitive basket)
(ii) Information (traffic sensitive basket)
(iii) Database Access services (traffic sensitive basket)
(iv) 800 Database Vertical Services subservice (traffic sensitive 
basket)
(v) Billing Name and Address (traffic sensitive basket)
(vi) Local switching trunk ports (traffic sensitive basket)
(vii) Signalling Transfer Point Port Termination (traffic sensitive 
basket)
(viii) Voice grade (trunking basket)
(ix) Audio/Video (trunking basket)
(x) Total High Capacity (trunking basket)
(xi) DS1 subservice (trunking basket)
(xii) DS3 subservice (trunking basket)
(xiii) Wideband (trunking basket)

    (f) A local exchange carrier subject to price cap regulation may 
establish density zones pursuant to the requirements set forth in 
Sec. 69.123 of this chapter, for any service in the trunking basket, 
other than the interconnection charge set forth in Sec. 69.124 of this 
chapter. The pricing flexibility of each zone shall be limited to an 
annual increase of 15 percent, relative to the percentage change in the 
PCI for that basket, measured from the levels in effect on the last day 
of the preceding tariff year. There shall be no lower pricing band for 
any density zone.
* * * * *
    (k) In no case shall a price cap local exchange carrier include 
data associated with services offered pursuant to contract tariff in 
the calculations required by this section.
    12. In Sec. 61.49, revise paragraphs (f)(2) and (g) introductory 
text, and add paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(4) to read as follows:


Sec. 61.49  Supporting information to be submitted with letters of 
transmittal for tariffs of carriers subject to price cap regulation.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) Each tariff filing submitted by a price cap LEC that introduces 
a new loop-based service, as defined in Sec. 61.3(pp) of this part--
including a restructured unbundled basic service element (BSE), as 
defined in Sec. 69.2(mm) of this chapter, that constitutes a new loop-
based service--that is or will later be included in a basket, must be 
accompanied by cost data sufficient to establish that the new loop-
based service or unbundled BSE will not recover more than a just and 
reasonable portion of the carrier's overhead costs.
    (3) A price cap LEC may submit without cost data any tariff filings 
that introduce new services, other than loop-based services.
    (4) A price cap LEC that has removed its corridor or interstate 
intraLATA toll services from its interexchange basket pursuant to 
Sec. 61.42(d)(4)(ii), may submit its tariff filings for corridor or 
interstate intraLATA toll services without cost data.
    (g) Each tariff filing submitted by a local exchange carrier 
subject to price cap regulation that introduces a new loop-based 
service or a restructured unbundled basic service element (BSE), as 
defined in Sec. 69.2(mm) of this chapter, that is or will later be 
included in a basket, or that introduces or changes the rates for 
connection charge subelements for expanded interconnection, as defined 
in Sec. 69.121 of this chapter, must also be accompanied by:
* * * * *
    13. Add Sec. 61.55 to read as follows:


Sec. 61.55  Contract-based tariffs.

    (a) This section shall apply to price cap LECs permitted to offer 
contract-based tariffs under Sec. 69.727(a) of this chapter.
    (b) Composition of contract-based tariffs shall comply with 
Secs. 61.54(b) through (i).
    (c) Contract-based tariffs shall include the following:
    (1) The term of contract, including any renewal options;
    (2) A brief description of each of the services provided under the 
contract;
    (3) Minimum volume commitments for each service;
    (4) The contract price for each service or services at the volume 
levels committed to by the customers;
    (5) A general description of any volume discounts built into the 
contract rate structure; and
    (6) A general description of other classifications, practices, and 
regulations affecting the contract rate.
    14. Amend Sec. 61.58 to add paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 61.58  Notice requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) Tariffs for new services filed by price cap local exchange 
carriers shall be filed on at least one day's notice.
    (c) Contract-based tariffs filed by price cap local exchange 
carriers pursuant to Sec. 69.727(a) of this chapter shall be filed on 
at least one day's notice.
    (d)(1) A local exchange carrier that is filing a tariff revision to 
remove its corridor or interstate intraLATA toll services from its 
interexchange basket pursuant to Sec. 61.42(d)(4)(ii) shall submit such 
filing on at least fifteen days' notice.
    (2) A local exchange carrier that has removed its corridor and 
interstate intraLATA toll services from its interexchange basket 
pursuant to Sec. 61.42(d)(4)(ii) shall file subsequent tariff filings 
for corridor or interstate intraLATA toll services on at least one 
day's notice.
* * * * *

PART 69--ACCESS CHARGES

    15. The authority citation for part 69 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202, 203, 205, 218, 220, 254, 
403.

    16. Amend Sec. 69.3 by revising paragraph (e)(7) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 69.3  Filing of access service tariffs.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (7) Such a tariff shall not contain charges for any access elements 
that are disaggregated or deaveraged within a study area that is used 
for purposes of jurisdictional separations, except as otherwise 
provided in this chapter.
* * * * *
    17. Amend Sec. 69.4 by revising paragraph (g)(1) and adding 
paragraph (i), to read as follows:


Sec. 69.4  Charges to be filed.

* * * * *
    (g)(1) Local exchange carriers subject to price cap regulation, as 
that term is defined in Sec. 61.3(x) of this chapter, may establish 
appropriate rate elements for a new service, within the meaning of 
Sec. 61.3(t) of this chapter, in any tariff filing with a scheduled 
effective date after October 22, 1999.
* * * * *
    (i) Paragraphs (b) and (h) of this section are not applicable to a 
price cap local exchange carrier to the extent that

[[Page 51267]]

it has been granted the pricing flexibility in Sec. 69.727(b)(1).
    18. In Sec. 69.110, revise paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec. 69.110  Entrance facilities.

* * * * *
    (e) Except as provided in paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this 
section, and subpart H of this part, telephone companies shall not 
offer entrance facilities based on term discounts or volume discounts 
for multiple DS3s or any other service with higher volume than DS3.
* * * * *
    19. Amend Sec. 69.123 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (e)(2), and 
(f)(1), to read as follows:


Sec. 69.123  Density pricing zones.

    (a)(1) Incumbent local exchange carriers not subject to price cap 
regulation may establish a reasonable number of density pricing zones 
within each study area that is used for purposes of jurisdictional 
separations, in which at least one interconnector has taken the 
subelement of connection charges for expanded interconnection described 
in Sec. 69.121(a)(1).
    (2) Such a system of pricing zones shall be designed to reasonably 
reflect cost-related characteristics, such as the density of total 
interstate traffic in central offices located in the respective zones.
    (3) Non-price cap incumbent local exchange carriers may establish 
only one set of density pricing zones within each study area, to be 
used for the pricing of both special and switched access pursuant to 
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
    (b)(1) Incumbent local exchange carriers subject to price cap 
regulation may establish any number of density zones within a study 
area that is used for purposes of jurisdictional separations, provided 
that each zone, except the highest-cost zone, accounts for at least 15 
percent of that carrier's trunking basket revenues within that study 
area, calculated pursuant to the methodology set forth in Sec. 69.725.
    (2) Price cap incumbent local exchange carriers may establish only 
one set of density pricing zones within each study area, to be used for 
the pricing of all services within the trunking basket for which zone 
density pricing is permitted.
    (3) An access service subelement for which zone density pricing is 
permitted shall be deemed to be offered in the zone that contains the 
telephone company location from which the service is provided.
    (4) An access service subelement for which zone density pricing is 
permitted which is provided to a customer between telephone company 
locations shall be deemed to be offered in the highest priced zone that 
contains one of the locations between which the service is offered.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) Notwithstanding Sec. 69.3(e)(7), incumbent local exchange 
carriers subject to price cap regulation may charge different rates for 
services in different zones pursuant to Sec. 61.47(f) of this chapter, 
provided that the charges for any such service are not deaveraged 
within any such zone.
    (f)(1) An incumbent local exchange carrier that establishes density 
pricing zones under this section must reallocate additional amounts 
recovered under the interconnection charge prescribed in Sec. 69.124 of 
this subpart to facilities-based transport rates, to reflect the higher 
costs of serving lower density areas. Each incumbent local exchange 
carrier must reallocate costs from the interexchange charge each time 
it increases the ratio between the prices in its lowest-cost zone and 
any other zone in that study area.
* * * * *
    20. Amend part 69 by adding subpart H to read as follows:

Subpart H--Pricing Flexibility

Sec.
69.701  Application of rules in this supbart.
69.703  Definitions.
69.705  Procedure.
69.707  Geographic scope of petition.
69.709  Dedicated transport and special access services other than 
channel terminations between LEC end offices and customer premises.
69.711  Channel terminations between LEC end offices and customer 
premises.
69.713  Common line, traffic-sensitive, and tandem-switched 
transport services.
69.714-69.724  [Reserved]
69.725  Attribution of revenues to particular wire centers.
69.727  Regulatory relief.
69.729  New services.
69.731  Low-end adjustment mechanism.

Subpart H--Pricing Flexibility


Sec. 69.701  Application of rules in this subpart.

    The rules in this subpart apply to all incumbent LECs subject to 
price cap regulation, as defined in Sec. 61.3(x) of this chapter, 
seeking pricing flexibility on the basis of the development of 
competition in parts of its service area.


Sec. 69.703  Definitions.

    For purposes of this subpart:
    (a) Channel terminations.
    (1) A channel termination between an IXC POP and a serving wire 
center is a dedicated channel connecting an IXC POP and a serving wire 
center, offered for purposes of carrying special access traffic.
    (2) A channel termination between a LEC end office and a customer 
premises is a dedicated channel connecting a LEC end office and a 
customer premises, offered for purposes of carrying special access 
traffic.
    (b) Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). This term shall have the 
definition provided in Sec. 22.909(a) of this chapter.
    (c) Interexchange Carrier Point of Presence (IXC POP). The point of 
interconnection between an interexchange carrier's network and a local 
exchange carrier's network.
    (d) Wire center. For purposes of this subpart, the term ``wire 
center'' shall refer to any location at which an incumbent LEC is 
required to provide expanded interconnection for special access 
pursuant to Sec. 64.1401(a) of this chapter, and any location at which 
an incumbent LEC is required to provide expanded interconnection for 
switched transport pursuant to Sec. 64.1401(b)(1) of this chapter.
    (e) Study area. A common carrier's entire service area within a 
state.


Sec. 69.705  Procedure.

    Price cap LECs filing petitions for pricing flexibility shall 
follow the procedures set forth in Sec. 1.774 of this chapter.


Sec. 69.707  Geographic scope of petition.

    (a) MSA. (1) A price cap LEC filing a petition for pricing 
flexibility in an MSA shall include data sufficient to support its 
petition, as set forth in this subpart, disaggregated by MSA.
    (2) A price cap LEC may request pricing flexibility for two or more 
MSAs in a single petition, provided that it submits supporting data 
disaggregated by MSA.
    (b) Non-MSA. (1) A price cap LEC will receive pricing flexibility 
with respect to those parts of a study area that fall outside of any 
MSA, provided that it provides data sufficient to support a finding 
that competitors have collocated in a number of wire centers in that 
non-MSA region sufficient to satisfy the criteria for the pricing 
flexibility sought in the petition, as set forth in this subpart, if 
the region at issue were an MSA.
    (2) The petitioner may aggregate data for all the non-MSA regions 
in a single study area for which it requests pricing flexibility in its 
petition.
    (3) A petitioner may request pricing flexibility in the non-MSA 
regions of

[[Page 51268]]

two or more of its study areas, provided that it submits supporting 
data disaggregated by study area.


Sec. 69.709  Dedicated transport and special access services other than 
channel terminations between LEC end offices and customer premises.

    (a) Scope. This paragraph governs requests for pricing flexibility 
with respect to the following services:
    (1) Entrance facilities, as described in Sec. 69.110.
    (2) Transport of traffic over dedicated transport facilities 
between the serving wire center and the tandem switching office, as 
described in Sec. 69.111(a)(2)(iii).
    (3) Direct-trunked transport, as described in Sec. 69.112.
    (4) Special access services, as described in Sec. 69.114, other 
than channel terminations as defined in Sec. 69.703(a)(2) of this part.
    (b) Phase I Triggers. To obtain Phase I pricing flexibility, as 
specified in Sec. 69.727(a) of this part, for the services described in 
paragraph (a) of this section, a price cap LEC must show that, in the 
relevant area as described in Sec. 69.707 of this part, competitors 
unaffiliated with the price cap LEC have collocated:
    (1) In fifteen percent of the petitioner's wire centers, and that 
at least one such collocator in each wire center is using transport 
facilities owned by a transport provider other than the price cap LEC 
to transport traffic from that wire center; or
    (2) In wire centers accounting for 30 percent of the petitioner's 
revenues from dedicated transport and special access services other 
than channel terminations between LEC end offices and customer 
premises, determined as specified in Sec. 69.725 of this part, and that 
at least one such collocator in each wire center is using transport 
facilities owned by a transport provider other than the price cap LEC 
to transport traffic from that wire center.
    (c) Phase II Triggers. To obtain Phase II pricing flexibility, as 
specified in Sec. 69.727(b) of this part, for the services described in 
paragraph (a) of this section, a price cap LEC must show that, in the 
relevant area as described in Sec. 69.707 of this part, competitors 
unaffiliated with the price cap LEC have collocated:
    (1) in 50 percent of the petitioner's wire centers, and that at 
least one such collocator in each wire center is using transport 
facilities owned by a transport provider other than the price cap LEC 
to transport traffic from that wire center; or
    (2) in wire centers accounting for 65 percent of the petitioner's 
revenues from dedicated transport and special access services other 
than channel terminations between LEC end offices and customer 
premises, determined as specified in Sec. 69.725 of this part, and that 
at least one such collocator in each wire center is using transport 
facilities owned by a transport provider other than the price cap LEC 
to transport traffic from that wire center.


Sec. 69.711  Channel terminations between LEC end offices and customer 
premises.

    (a) Scope. This paragraph governs requests for pricing flexibility 
with respect to channel terminations between LEC end offices and 
customer premises.
    (b) Phase I Triggers. To obtain Phase I pricing flexibility, as 
specified in Sec. 69.727(a) of this part, for channel terminations 
between LEC end offices and customer premises, a price cap LEC must 
show that, in the relevant area as described in Sec. 69.707 of this 
part, competitors unaffiliated with the price cap LEC have collocated:
    (1) In 50 percent of the petitioner's wire centers, and that at 
least one such collocator in each wire center is using transport 
facilities owned by a transport provider other than the price cap LEC 
to transport traffic from that wire center; or
    (2) In wire centers accounting for 65 percent of the petitioner's 
revenues from channel terminations between LEC end offices and customer 
premises, determined as specified in Sec. 69.725 of this part, and that 
at least one such collocator in each wire center is using transport 
facilities owned by a transport provider other than the price cap LEC 
to transport traffic from that wire center.
    (c) Phase II Triggers. To obtain Phase II pricing flexibility, as 
specified in Sec. 69.727(b) of this part, for channel terminations 
between LEC end offices and customer premises, a price cap LEC must 
show that, in the relevant area as described in Sec. 69.707, 
competitors unaffiliated with the price cap LEC have collocated:
    (1) In 65 percent of the petitioner's wire centers, and that at 
least one such collocator in each wire center is using transport 
facilities owned by a transport provider other than the price cap LEC 
to transport traffic from that wire center; or
    (2) In wire centers accounting for 85 percent of the petitioner's 
revenues from channel terminations between LEC end offices and customer 
premises, determined as specified in Sec. 69.725, and that at least one 
such collocator in each wire center is using transport facilities owned 
by a transport provider other than the price cap LEC to transport 
traffic from that wire center.


Sec. 69.713  Common line, traffic-sensitive, and tandem-switched 
transport services.

    (a) Scope. This paragraph governs requests for pricing flexibility 
with respect to the following services:
    (1) Common line services, as described in Secs. 69.152, 69.153, and 
69.154.
    (2) Services in the traffic-sensitive basket, as described in 
Sec. 61.42(d)(2) of this chapter.
    (3) The traffic-sensitive components of tandem-switched transport 
services, as described in Secs. 69.111(a)(2)(i) and (ii).
    (b) Phase I Triggers. (1) To obtain Phase I pricing flexibility, as 
specified in Sec. 69.727(a), for the services identified in paragraph 
(a) of this section, a price cap LEC must provide convincing evidence 
that, in the relevant area as described in Sec. 69.707, its 
unaffiliated competitors, in aggregate, offer service to at least 15 
percent of the price cap LEC's customer locations.
    (2) For purposes of the showing required by paragraph (b)(1) of 
this section, the price cap LEC may not rely on service the competitors 
provide solely by reselling the price cap LEC's services, or provide 
through unbundled network elements as defined in Sec. 51.5 of this 
chapter, except that the price cap LEC may rely on service the 
competitors provide through the use of the price cap LEC's unbundled 
loops.
    (c) [Reserved.]


Secs. 69.714-69.724  [Reserved.]


Sec. 69.725  Attribution of revenues to particular wire centers.

    If a price cap LEC elects to show, in accordance with Sec. 69.709 
or Sec. 69.711, that competitors have collocated in wire centers 
accounting for a certain percentage of revenues from the services at 
issue, the LEC must make the following revenue allocations:
    (a) For entrance facilities and channel terminations between an IXC 
POP and a serving wire center, the petitioner shall attribute all the 
revenue to the serving wire center.
    (b) For channel terminations between a LEC end office and a 
customer premises, the petitioner shall attribute all the revenue to 
the LEC end office.
    (c) For any dedicated service routed through multiple wire centers, 
the petitioner shall attribute 50 percent of the revenue to the wire 
center at each end of the transmission path, unless the petitioner can 
make a convincing case in its petition that some other allocation would 
be more representative of the extent of competitive entry in the MSA or 
the non-MSA parts of the study area at issue.

[[Page 51269]]

Sec. 69.727  Regulatory relief.

    (a) Phase I Relief. Upon satisfaction of the Phase I triggers 
specified in Secs. 69.709(b), 69.711(b), or 69.713(b) for an MSA or the 
non-MSA parts of a study area, a price cap LEC will be granted the 
following regulatory relief in that area for the services specified in 
Secs. 69.709(a), 69.711(a), or 69.713(a), respectively:
    (1) Volume and term discounts;
    (2) Contract tariff authority, provided that
    (i) Contract tariff services are made generally available to all 
similarly situated customers; and
    (ii) The price cap LEC excludes all contract tariff offerings from 
price cap regulation pursuant to Sec. 61.42(f)(1) of this chapter.
    (iii) Before the price cap LEC provides a contract tariffed 
service, under Sec. 69.727(a), to one of its long-distance affiliates, 
as described in section 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, or Sec. 64.1903 of this chapter, the price cap LEC certifies 
to the Commission that it provides service pursuant to that contract 
tariff to an unaffiliated customer.
    (b) Phase II Relief. Upon satisfaction of the Phase II triggers 
specified in Secs. 69.709(c) or 69.711(c) for an MSA or the non-MSA 
parts of a study area, a price cap LEC will be granted the following 
regulatory relief in that area for the services specified in 
Secs. 69.709(a) or 69.711(a), respectively:
    (1) Elimination of the rate structure requirements in subpart B of 
this part;
    (2) Elimination of price cap regulation; and
    (3) Filing of tariff revisions on one day's notice, notwithstanding 
the notice requirements for tariff filings specified in Sec. 61.58 of 
this chapter.


Sec. 69.729  New services.

    (a) Except for new services subject to paragraph (b) of this 
section, a price cap LEC may obtain pricing flexibility for a new 
service that has not been incorporated into a price cap basket by 
demonstrating in its pricing flexibility petition that the new service 
would be properly incorporated into one of the price cap baskets and 
service bands for which the price cap LEC seeks pricing flexibility.
    (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, a price cap LEC 
must demonstrate satisfaction of the triggers in Sec. 69.711(b) to be 
granted pricing flexibility for any new service that falls within the 
definition of a ``channel termination between a LEC end office and a 
customer premises'' as specified in Sec. 69.703(a)(2).


Sec. 69.731  Low-end adjustment mechanism.

    (a) Any price cap LEC obtaining Phase I or Phase II pricing 
flexibility for any service in any MSA in its service region, or for 
the non-MSA portion of any study area in its service region, shall be 
prohibited from making any low-end adjustment pursuant to 
Sec. 61.45(d)(1)(vii) of this chapter in all or part of its service 
region.
    (b) Any affiliate of any price cap LEC obtaining Phase I or Phase 
II pricing flexibility for any service in any MSA in its service region 
shall be prohibited from making any low-end adjustment pursuant to 
Sec. 61.45(d)(1)(vii) of this chapter in all or part of its service 
region.

[FR Doc. 99-24141 Filed 9-21-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U