[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2367-2369]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-460]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 51
[CC Docket No. 96-98; FCC 99-238]
Revision of the Commission's Rules Specifying the Portions of the
Nation's Local Telephone Networks that Incumbent Local Telephone
Companies Must Make Available to Competitors
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document seeks comment from interested parties on issues
surrounding the ability of competitive carriers to use combinations of
unbundled network elements as a
[[Page 2368]]
substitute for the incumbent LECs' special access services. It also
seeks comment on the policy implications, if any, of a significant
reduction in special access revenues for the Commission's universal
service program. It also requests additional comment on the Third
Reconsideration Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
regarding the use of shared transport to originate or terminate
interstate toll traffic to customers to whom the requesting carrier
does not provide local exchange service.
DATES: Comments are due on January 19, 2000 and reply comments are due
on February 18, 2000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jodie Donovan, Attorney, Policy and
Program Planning Division, Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 418-1580 or via
the Internet at JD[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in Docket No. 96-98, (62
FR 45611, August 28, 1997), and FCC 99-238, adopted on September 15,
1999, and released on November 5, 1999. Specifically, it seeks comment
on the argument that the ``just and reasonable'' terms of section
251(c) or section 251(g) of the 1996 Act permit the Commission to
establish a usage restriction on combinations of unbundled loops and
transport network elements and entrance facilities. It also seeks
comment on whether there is any other statutory basis for limiting an
incumbent LEC's obligation to provide combinations of loops and
transport facilities or entrance facilities as unbundled network
elements. The Commission acknowledges in the Fourth FNPRM that
resolution of this issue potentially could have a large financial
impact on incumbent local exchange carriers, and seeks comment on the
extent to which any such impact should be considered in reaching a
decision on this issue. The complete text of this FNRPM is available
for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Information Center, Courtyard Level, 445 12th Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C., and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy
contractor, International Transcription Services (ITS, Inc.), CY-B400,
445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
1. Synopsis of the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
2. The Commission's First Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-98
(61 FR 45476, August 29, 1996) found that for all unbundled network
elements, including combinations of network elements, incumbent LECs
may not impose any usage restriction on the use of such elements, or
combinations thereof. In the Third Reconsideration Order and Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking the Commission required incumbent LECs to
provide access to shared transport as an unbundled network element in
conjunction with local and tandem switching. The Commission limited the
obligation of incumbent LECs to provision shared transport to end users
to whom the requesting carrier was providing local exchange service.
The Commission sought comment on whether requesting carriers may use
unbundled dedicated or shared transport facilities, in conjunction with
unbundled switching, to originate or terminate interstate toll traffic
to customers to whom the requesting carrier does not provide local
exchange service.
3. The Fourth FNPRM, as modified in the Supplemental Order, seeks
comment on the argument that the ``just and reasonable'' terms of
section 251(c) or section 251(g) of the 1996 Act permit the Commission
to establish a usage restriction on combinations of unbundled loops and
transport network element and entrance facilities. It also seeks
comment on whether there is any other statutory basis for limiting an
incumbent LEC's obligation to provide combinations of loops and
transport facilities or entrance facilities as unbundled network
elements. The Commission acknowledges in the Fourth FNPRM that
resolution of this issue potentially could have a large financial
impact on incumbent local exchange carriers. It seeks comment on this
issue, and on the extent to which any such impact should be considered
in reaching a decision on this issue. It also seeks comment on the
policy implications, if any, of a significant reduction in special
access revenues for the Commission's universal service program, and
urges parties to address what long term solutions may be necessary to
avoid adverse effects on special access revenues that support universal
service in light of the fact that it is not clear that the 1996 Act
permits any restrictions to be placed on the use of unbundled network
elements.
4. Because the record developed in the Third Reconsideration Order
and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is two years old, the
Commission, in the Fourth FNPRM also invites parties to refresh the
record on whether requesting carriers may use unbundled dedicated or
shared transport facilities in conjunction with unbundled switching to
originate or terminate interstate toll traffic to customers to whom the
requesting carrier does not provide local exchange service.
Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis; Supplemental
Order Regarding Use of Unbundled Network Elements; To Provide
Exchange Access Services; Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA)
5. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission
has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in the Supplemental Order. This IRFA
supplements the IRFA in the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, Third Report and
Order and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 99-238,
paras. 510 through 519 (rel. Nov. 5, 1999) (Local Competition Third R&O
and Fourth FNPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments on the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking. The Commission will send a copy of the Supplemental Order,
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). In addition, the
Supplemental Order and IRFA, or summaries thereof, will be published in
the Federal Register. Id.
(1) Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
6. In the Third R&O, commenters have argued that allowing
requesting carriers to obtain combinations of loop and transport
unbundled network elements based on forward-looking cost would provide
opportunities for arbitrage of special access services. We recognize
that special access has historically been provided by incumbent local
exchange carriers at prices that are higher than the unbundled network
element pricing scheme of section 252(d)(1) in the Telecommunications
Act of 1996. Accordingly, in the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, as modified by the Supplemental Order, the Commission seeks
comment on the legal and policy bases for precluding requesting
carriers from substituting combinations of unbundled network elements
for special access services. We ask whether there is any basis in the
statute or our rules under which incumbent LECs could decline to
provide combinations of loops and
[[Page 2369]]
transport network elements at unbundled network element prices.
(2) Legal Basis
7. Sections 1 through 4, 10, 201, 202, 251 through 254, 271, and
303(r) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 through
154, 160, 201, 202, 251 through 254, 271, and 303(r).
(3) Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
8. In the FRFA in the Third R&O and in the IRFA in the Fourth
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we described in detail the
entities possibly affected by those items. These entities consist of
incumbent local exchange carriers and small incumbent local exchange
carriers, competitive local exchange carriers and competitive access
providers. We anticipate that the same entities, as well as those
described below, could be affected by any action taken in response to
the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, as modified by the
Supplemental Order. We therefore incorporate the description and
estimates used in the FRFA and IRFA in the Third R&O and Fourth FNPRM,
and add the following descriptions.
9. Interexchange carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor SBA
has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to
providers of interexchange services. The closest applicable definition
under SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than
radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The most reliable source of
information regarding the number of IXCs nationwide of which we are
aware appears to be the data that we collect annually in connection
with the TRS Worksheet. According to our most recent data, 130
companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of
interexchange services. See Federal Communications Commission, Carrier
Locator: Interstate Service Providers, Fig. 1 (Jan. 1999). Although it
seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned
and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, we are unable at this
time to estimate with greater precision the number of IXCs that would
qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition.
Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 130 small entity
IXCs that may be affected by the decisions and rules adopted in
response to the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
(4) Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
10. If the Commission does not establish any restrictions on the
use of unbundled network elements or combinations of network elements,
no additional compliance requirements are anticipated from further
consideration of this issue. If, however, restrictions on access to
network elements are imposed, and depending on how the restrictions are
imposed, interexchange carriers, competitive LECs, CAPs and other
purchasers of unbundled network elements, including small entities, may
be subject to additional reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance
requirements. Incumbent LECs, including small incumbent LECs, would
also be impacted because they would have to keep track of competitive
LEC filings and whether the use of the unbundled network element
changed in such a way that a restriction would attach. If restrictions
are placed on the use of unbundled network elements or combinations of
such elements, compliance with these requests may require the use of
engineering, technical, operational, accounting, billing, and legal
skills.
(5) Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
11. If requesting carriers can substitute combinations of unbundled
network elements for special access service, incumbent LECs, including
small entities, may be significantly economically impacted. On the
other hand, substituting combinations of unbundled network elements for
special access services could benefit competitive LECs, CAPs, and other
purchasers of unbundled network elements. The Commission will evaluate
in this proceeding whether there are legal grounds for restricting such
access. If no such grounds exist, and instead if the statute requires
unrestricted access to these unbundled network elements or
combinations, then the Commission will have no alternative other than
implementation of the statutory requirements for unrestricted access.
(6) Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
12. None.
Ordering Clauses
13. The Commission will send a copy of this Fourth Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
14. It is ordered that the Commission's Consumer Information
Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the
Supplemental Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility
Certification and the Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-460 Filed 1-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P