[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 18, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2542-2554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1036]


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

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:  Final rule.

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

SUMMARY:  This document revises rules applicable to incumbent local 
exchange carriers (LECs) to permit competitive carriers to access 
portions of the incumbent LECs' networks on an unbundled basis. 
Unbundling allows competitors to lease portions of the incumbent LECs' 
network to provide telecommunications services. These rule changes are 
intended to remove uncertainty regarding the incumbent LECs' unbundling 
obligations under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and are expected 
to accelerate the development of local exchange competition.

DATES:  Effective February 17, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Claudia Fox, Attorney Advisor, Common 
Carrier Bureau, Policy and Program Planning Division, 202-418-1580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  This is a summary of the Commission's Third 
Report and Order, (Third) and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (Fourth FNPRM) in CC Docket No. 96-98 (62 FR 45611, August 
28, 1997)) FCC 99-238, adopted September 15, 1999, and released 
November 5, 1999. The final rules associated with the Third R&O are 
effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register except to 
the extent specified in the following regulations: the requirement to 
provide access on an unbundled basis to dark fiber as set forth in 
Sec. 51.319(a)(1); the requirement to provide access on an unbundled 
basis to subloops and inside wire as set forth in Sec. 51.319(a)(2); 
the requirement to provide access on an unbundled basis to packet 
switching in the limited circumstances set forth in Sec. 51.319(c)(5); 
the requirement to provide access on an unbundled basis to dark fiber 
transport as set forth in Sec. 51.319(d)(1)(ii); the requirement to 
provide access on an unbundled basis to the Calling Name Database, 911 
Database, and E911 Database as set forth in Sec. 51.319(e)(2)(i); and 
the requirement to provide access on an unbundled basis to loop 
qualification information as set forth in Sec. 51.319(g). The 
Commission also adopted a Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(Fourth FNPRM) in CC Docket No. 96-98 on September 15, 1999 and 
released it on November 5, 1999. The Fourth FNPRM seeks comment on 
certain issues associated with a requesting carrier's ability to use 
unbundled network elements to provide exchange access service. A 
complete summary of the Fourth FNPRM is published in the Federal 
Register separately from this summary of the Third R&O in CC Docket No. 
96-98. Any final rules that the Commission eventually adopts in 
connection with the Fourth FNPRM will also be published in the Federal 
Register as required. On November 24, 1999, the Commission adopted and 
released a Supplemental Order in CC Docket No. 96-98, FCC 99-370, that 
modifies the Third R&O and Fourth FNPRM with regard to the use of 
unbundled network elements to provide exchange access services. The 
complete text of the Third R&O and Fourth FNPRM, the Erratum and the 
Supplemental Order are 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. It is also available via the internet at the 
Commission's home page, http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/Orders/index6.html.

Synopsis of the Third Report and Order and Supplemental Order

    1. The Commission adopts a Third Report and Order (Third R&O) in CC 
Docket No. 96-98 specifying which portions of their networks incumbent 
LECs must lease to competitive carriers on an unbundled basis. 
Specifically, the Commission defines the standard it will use, as set 
forth in section 251(d)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 
Act), to determine which network elements the incumbent LEC must 
unbundle. It then applies that standard to individual network elements 
to determine if incumbent LECs must provide unbundled access to them. 
The Third R&O and accompanying rules will benefit consumers by 
accelerating the development of competitive choices for local 
telecommunications services.
    2. The rules changes were needed to respond to a U.S. Supreme Court 
decision (AT&T v. Iowa Utils. Bd, 119 S.Ct. 721 (1999)) that affirmed 
the Commission's implementation of the local competition requirements 
of the 1996 Act, but that required the Commission to re-evaluate the 
standard that it uses to determine which network elements the incumbent 
LECs must unbundle. The standard is set out in section 251(d)(2) of the 
1996 Act. It requires the Commission, in determining what network 
elements should be made available for purposes of section 251(c) of the 
1996 Act, to consider whether access to such network elements that are 
proprietary in nature is ``necessary,'' and whether the failure to 
provide access to such network elements would ``impair'' the ability of 
a telecommunications carrier seeking access to an element to provide 
the services that it seeks to offer. The Commission's original rules 
implementing section 251(d)(2) (Order, 61 FR 45476, August, 29, 1996) 
required incumbent LECs to unbundle a network element if (1) access to 
the element was ``necessary'', which it defined as a prerequisite to 
competition, or if (2) a requesting carrier's ability to offer 
competitive service was impaired, which it defined as occurring if the 
quality of service that the carrier could provide without access to the 
element declined, or the cost of providing the service increased. The 
Supreme Court

[[Page 2543]]

directed the Commission to give more substance the ``necessary'' and 
``impair'' standards by considering more than ``any'' increase in cost 
or decrease in quality associated with denying access to an incumbent 
LEC's network element and to consider the availability of elements 
outside the incumbent LEC's network.
    3. As a result, the Third R&O adopts a standard that gives 
substance to the terms ``necessary'' and ``impair'' in section 
251(d)(2), evaluates alternative elements that are available through 
self-provisioning by a requesting carrier or through third party 
suppliers, and that is rationally related to the goals of the 1996 Act. 
The Third R&O confirms that the ``necessary'' standard of section 
251(d)(2)(A) is a higher standard that applies to proprietary network 
elements or to proprietary functions within an element, and that the 
``impair'' standard applies to non-proprietary network elements. The 
Third R&O adopts a limited definition of the phrase ``proprietary in 
nature'' that tracks the intellectual property categories of patent, 
copyright, and trade secrets. If an incumbent LEC can demonstrate that 
it has invested resources (time, material, or personnel) to develop 
proprietary information or network elements that are protected by 
patent, copyright, or trade secret law, the product of such an 
investment is ``proprietary in nature'' within the meaning of section 
251(d)(2)(A). The definition excludes elements that are based on widely 
accepted industry documents or on standards commonly used by a 
standards-setting body (e.g. ITU, ANSI, IEEE) or by vendors.
    4. The Third R&O also finds that there are several circumstances 
which, if they exist with regard to information or functionalities that 
the incumbent LEC claims are proprietary, will permit the Commission to 
order unbundling of the proprietary information or functionality even 
if unbundled access to the element is not strictly ``necessary,'' as 
long as the ``impair'' standard is met. These circumstances are: (1) 
Where an incumbent LEC, for the primary purpose of causing a particular 
network to be evaluated under the stricter ``necessary'' standard in 
order to avoid its unbundling obligation, implements only a minor 
modification to the network element to make the element proprietary; 
(2) where an incumbent LEC cannot demonstrate that the information or 
functionality that it claims is proprietary differentiates its services 
from its competitors' services, or is otherwise competitively 
significant; or (3) where lack of access to the proprietary element 
would jeopardize the goal of the 1996 Act to bring rapid competition to 
the greatest number of consumers.
    5. The Third R&O concludes that a proprietary network element is 
``necessary'' within the meaning of section 251(d)(2)(A) if, taking 
into consideration the availability of alternative elements outside the 
incumbent's network, including self-provisioning by a requesting 
carrier or acquiring an alternative from a third-party supplier, lack 
of access to that element would, as an practical, economic, and 
operational matter, preclude a requesting carrier from providing the 
services it seeks to offer.
    6. The Third R&O concludes that the failure to provide access to a 
network element would ``impair'' the ability of a requesting carrier to 
provide the services it seeks to offer if, taking into consideration 
the availability of alternative elements outside the incumbent's 
network, including self-provisioning by a requesting carrier or 
acquiring an alternative from a third-party supplier, lack of access to 
that element materially diminishes a requesting carrier's ability to 
provide the services it seeks to offer.
    7. In order to determine whether an alternative element is 
available as a practical, economic, and operational matter, the Third 
R&O considers the following factors associated with a requesting 
carrier's ability to actually provide service using the alternative 
element: cost, timeliness, quality, ubiquity, and operational issues. 
In determining which network elements the incumbent LECs should be 
required to unbundle, the Third R&O also considers factors that promote 
the goals of the 1996 Act. Specifically, the Order considers whether 
unbundling a particular element would: (1) Promote rapid introduction 
of competition in all markets; (2) promote facilities-based 
competition, investment, and innovation; (3) reduce regulation; (4) 
create certainty in the market; and (5) allow for administrative 
practicality.
    8. The Third R&O applies the ``necessary'' and ``impair'' standards 
to identify a minimum list of seven network elements that should be 
unbundled on a national basis, subject to discrete geographic and 
product market exceptions: (1) Loops; (2) subloops; (3) network 
interface devices; (4) circuit switching; (5) interoffice transmission 
facilities; (6) signaling and call-related databases; (7) operations 
support systems. Given the rapid changes in technology, competition, 
and the economic conditions of the telecommunications market, the Third 
R&O concludes that the Commission will periodically revisit the issue 
of what elements are subject to the unbundling obligations of the Act. 
It also concludes that the goals of the Act will better be served if 
network elements identified by the Commission are not removed from the 
unbundling obligations of the Act on a state-by-state basis, at this 
time.
    9. Loops: The Third R&O requires incumbent LECs to provide 
unbundled access to the local loop nationwide, including high-capacity 
lines, xDSL-capable loops, dark fiber, and inside wire owned by the 
incumbent LEC. ``xDSL'' refers to broadband services based on digital 
subscriber line technology, and are referred to as ``advanced'' 
services. The Third R&O finds that lack of access to unbundled loops 
impairs a carrier's ability to provide the services it seeks to offer 
because requiring carriers to self-provision loops would materially 
raise entry costs, delay broad-based entry, and limit the scope and 
quality of the competitor's offerings. Neither self-provisioning loops 
nor obtaining loops from third-party sources is an adequate alternative 
for loops that a carrier can obtain from an incumbent LEC under the 
section 251(c) unbundling obligation. The Third R&O also concludes that 
access to the full capabilities of incumbent LECs' loop plant 
nationwide will further the goals of the Act. Specifically, requiring 
access to unbundled loops will promote the rapid development of 
competition and bring the benefits of competition to greater numbers of 
consumers, and will also encourage competition for broadband services.
    10. The Third R&O defines the loop network element to include all 
features, functions, and capabilities of the transmission facilities, 
including dark fiber and attached electronics (except those used for 
the provision of advanced services, such as digital subscriber line 
access multiplexers (DSLAMs)) owned by the incumbent LEC, between an 
incumbent LEC's central office and the loop demarcation point at the 
customer premises. Dark fiber is fiber that has not been activated 
through connection to the electronics that ``light'' it, and thereby 
render it capable of carrying communications services. DSLAMs split 
voice (low band) and data (high band) signals carried over a copper 
twisted pair. The Third R&O modifies the definition of loop contained 
in the Commission's First Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-98 to 
include dark fiber and attached electronics. The Commission's previous 
definition did not specify whether dark fiber fell within the 
definition of the loop.

[[Page 2544]]

    11. In order to secure access to the loop's full functions and 
capabilities, the Third R&O requires incumbent LECs to condition loops, 
and finds that incumbent LECs may charge for such conditioning. Loop 
conditioning is necessary to allow requesting carriers to offer 
advanced services. The terms ``conditioned,'' ``clean copper,'' ``xDSL-
capable'' and ``basic'' loops all describe copper loops from which 
bridge taps, low-pass filters, range extenders, and similar devices 
have been removed. Thus, incumbent LECs cannot resist or refuse a 
competitive carrier's request to condition loops on the grounds that 
they themselves are not planning to offer xDSL to that customer. The 
Third R&O defers to the states to ensure that the costs incumbents 
impose on competitors for line conditioning are in compliance with the 
Commission's pricing rules for nonrecurring costs. The Third R&O also 
finds no basis for placing a restriction on what services a carrier may 
offer using the loop network element.
    12. Nothing in the Third R&O disturbs the Commission's previous 
finding that incumbent LECs must provide cross connect facilities 
between an unbundled loop and a requesting carrier's collocated 
equipment, and that they must provide cross connect facilities 
according to sections 252(d)(1) and 251(c)(3) at any technically 
feasible point that a requesting carrier seeks access to the loop. 
Charges for cross connect facilities must meet the cost-based standard 
provided in section 252(d)(1), and the terms and conditions of 
providing cross connect facilities must be reasonable and 
nondiscriminatory under section 251(c)(3). The Third R&O declines to 
identify loop spectrum as a separate unbundled network element in this 
Order.
    13. Subloops: The Third R&O requires incumbent LECs to provide 
unbundled access to subloops nationwide. It concludes that self-
provisioning subloop elements, like the loop itself, would materially 
raise entry costs, delay broad-based entry, and limit the scope and 
quality of the competitive LEC's service offerings. It finds that lack 
of access to unbundled subloops at technically feasible points 
throughout the incumbent's loop plant will impair a competitor's 
ability to provide the services it seeks to offer. The Third R&O also 
finds that access to unbundled subloop elements allows competitive LECs 
to self-provision part of the loop, and thus, over time, to deploy 
their own loop facilities, and eventually to develop competitive loops. 
If requesting carriers can reduce their reliance on the incumbent by 
interconnecting their own facilities closer to the customer, their 
ability to provide service using their own facilities will be greatly 
enhanced, thereby furthering the goal of the 1996 Act to promote 
facilities-based competition.
    14. The Third R&O defines subloops as portions of the loop that can 
be accessed at terminals in the incumbent's outside plant. An 
accessible terminal is a point on the loop where technicians can access 
the wire or fiber within the cable without removing a splice case. 
Points of access include a technically feasible point near the customer 
premises, such as the pole or pedestal, the network interface device 
(``NID''), or the minimum point of entry to the customer premises 
(MPOE). Another point of access is the feeder distribution interface 
(FDI), which is where the trunk line, or ``feeder,'' leading back to 
the central office, and the ``distribution'' plant, branching out to 
the subscribers, meet, and ``interface.'' A third point of access is 
the main distribution frame in the incumbent's central office.
    15. The Third R&O establishes a rebuttable presumption that 
subloops can be unbundled at any accessible terminal in the outside 
loop plant. If parties are unable to reach an agreement pursuant to 
voluntary negotiations about the availability of space or the technical 
feasibility of unbundling the subloop at one of the points identified 
above, the incumbent will have the burden of demonstrating to the 
state, in the context of a section 252 arbitration proceeding, that 
there is no space available or that it is not technically feasible to 
unbundle the subloop at these points. To the extent there is not 
currently a single point of interconnection that can be feasibly 
accessed by a requesting carrier, the Third R&O encourages parties to 
cooperate in any reconfiguration of the network necessary to create 
one. If parties are unable to negotiate a reconfigured single point of 
interconnection at multi-unit premises, the Commission requires the 
incumbent to construct a single point of interconnection that will be 
fully accessible and suitable for use by multiple carriers. Any 
disputes regarding the implementation of this requirement, including 
the provision of compensation to the incumbent LEC under forward-
looking pricing principles, shall be subject to the usual dispute 
resolution process under section 252.
    16. The Third R&O also establishes a further rebuttable presumption 
that, once one state has determined that it is technically feasible to 
unbundle subloops at a designated point, it will be presumed that it is 
technically feasible for any incumbent LEC in any other state to 
unbundle the loop at the same point everywhere. If the conditions 
surrounding a request for unbundling at a similar point differ to such 
an extent that it is not technically feasible for the incumbent to 
provide unbundled access to that subloop element, the incumbent will 
have the burden of demonstrating in a section 252 arbitration 
proceeding that such an arrangement is indeed not technically feasible 
under those different conditions.
    17. Network Interface Device (NID): The Third R&O requires 
incumbent LECs to provide access to the NID nationwide. It concludes 
that lack of unbundled access to the incumbent's NID impairs the 
ability of requesting carriers to provide the services that they seek 
to offer. Requiring a requesting carrier to self-provision NIDs for all 
customers it seeks to serve would materially raise the cost of entry, 
delay broad facilities-based market entry, and materially limit the 
scope and quality of the competitor's service offerings. Unbundling the 
NID will accelerate the development of alternative networks, because it 
will allow requesting carriers efficiently to connect their facilities 
with the incumbent's loop plant. Thus, the Commission's decision to 
unbundle NIDs is consistent with the 1996 Act's goals of rapid 
introduction of competition and the promotion of facilities-based 
entry.
    18. The Third R&O defines the NID to include all features, 
functions, and capabilities of the facilities used to connect the loop 
distribution plant to the customer premises wiring, regardless of the 
particular design of the NID mechanism. Specifically, it defines the 
NID to include any means of interconnection of customer premises wiring 
to the incumbent LEC's distribution plant, such as a cross-connect 
device used for that purpose.
    19. Local Circuit Switching: The Third R&O requires incumbent LECs 
to provide local switching as an unbundled network element nationwide, 
except for local circuit switching used to serve end users with four or 
more lines in access density zone 1 in the top 50 Metropolitan 
Statistical Areas (MSAs), provided that the incumbent LEC provides 
nondiscriminatory, cost-based access to combinations of loop and 
transport unbundled network elements, known as the enhanced extended 
link (EEL) throughout density zone 1. The Third R&O finds that 
requesting carriers are not impaired without access to unbundled 
switching for end users with

[[Page 2545]]

four or more lines within density zone 1 in the top 50 MSAs. It 
concludes that, as a general matter, unbundled local circuit switching 
meets the ``impair'' standard set forth in section 251(d)(2), and that 
lack of access to unbundled local switching materially raises entry 
costs, delays broad-based entry, and limits the scope and quality of 
the new entrant's service offerings. The Third R&O also finds that 
unbundling local circuit switching is consistent with the 1996 Act's 
goals of rapid introduction of competition and the promotion of 
facilities-based entry. Requiring incumbent LECs to provide access to 
unbundled switching, and to use unbundled switching in combination with 
other network elements, will allow requesting carriers to serve the 
broadest number of customers without incurring collocation and switch 
provisioning delays.
    20. The Third R&O defines local circuit switching as including the 
basic function of connecting lines and trunks. In addition to line-side 
and trunk-side facilities, the definition of the local circuit 
switching element encompasses all the features, function and 
capabilities of the switch. The Third R&O rejects the argument of an 
incumbent LEC that switch routing tables are ``proprietary,'' within 
the meaning of section 251(d)(2)(A), and requires them to be unbundled 
as part of the local circuit switching element.
    21. To the extent the market shows that requesting carriers are not 
serving a market segment with self-provisioned switches, the Third R&O 
finds that this fact is probative evidence that requesting carriers are 
impaired without access to unbundled local circuit switching for a 
discrete market segment. Conversely, to the extent that the market 
shows that requesting carriers are generally providing service in 
particular situations with their own switches, the Third R&O finds this 
fact to be probative evidence that requesting carriers are not impaired 
without access to unbundled local circuit switching. It thus concludes 
that it is appropriate to create an exception to the switching 
unbundling obligation in certain circumstances in the top 50 MSAs, as 
defined by the Office of Management and Budget, because most of the 
switches competitors have deployed are within the confines of the top 
50 MSAs. The Third R&O also finds that requesting carriers have 
deployed greater numbers of switches in areas of high customer density 
within the top 50 MSAs. It therefore concludes that it is appropriate 
to create an exception to the local circuit switching unbundling 
obligation only in density zone 1, as these density zones were defined 
on January 1, 1999, within the top 50 MSAs. Incumbent LECs assign their 
central offices to density zones based on traffic volume.
    22. The conclusion that competitors are not impaired in certain 
circumstances without access to unbundled switching in density zone 1 
in the top 50 MSAs also is predicated upon the availability of the EEL 
throughout density zone 1. The EEL allows requesting carriers to serve 
their customers by extending a customer's loop from the central office 
that serves the customer to a different end office in which the 
competitive LEC is already collocated. The EEL therefore allows 
requesting carriers to aggregate loops at fewer collocations and 
increase their efficiencies by transporting aggregated loops over 
efficient high-capacity facilities to their central switching location. 
The Third R&O also concludes that a rule that provides requesting 
carriers with access to unbundled local switching for requesting 
carriers when they serve customers with three lines or less captures a 
significant portion of the mass market.
    23. Packet Switching: The Third R&O does not require incumbent LECs 
to unbundle packet switching functionality except in limited 
circumstances. It defines packet switching as the function of routing 
individual data units (``packets'') based on address or other routing 
information contained in the packets. The definition of packet 
switching includes the necessary electronics (e.g. routers and DSLAMs). 
The record demonstrates that competitors are actively deploying 
facilities to serve medium and large business segments of the market, 
and hence they cannot be said to be impaired in their ability to offer 
service at least to these segments without access to the incumbent's 
facilities. In the residential and small business segments of the 
market, competitors may be impaired in their ability to offer service 
without access to incumbent LEC facilities due to the cost and 
timeliness of obtaining collocation in every central office where the 
requesting carrier provides service with unbundled loops. Given the 
nascent nature of the advanced services marketplace, however, the Third 
R&O does not order unbundling of packet switching functionality as a 
general matter. The Third R&O further declines to unbundle specific 
packet switching technologies incumbent LECs may have deployed in their 
networks.
    24. The Third R&O requires incumbent LECs to provide unbundled 
access to packet switching in one limited circumstance. Specifically, 
where a requesting carrier is unable to install its DSLAM at the remote 
terminal or obtain spare copper loops necessary to offer the same level 
of quality for advanced services as the incumbent LEC, incumbent LECs 
must provide requesting carriers with access to unbundled packet 
switching where the incumbent has placed its own DSLAM in a remote 
terminal. The incumbent LEC will be relieved of this unbundling 
obligation only if it permits a requesting carrier to collocate its 
DSLAM in the incumbent's remote terminal on the same terms and 
conditions that apply to its own DSLAM. Incumbents may not unreasonably 
limit the deployment of alternative technologies when requesting 
carriers seek to collocate their own DSLAMs in the remote terminal.
    25. Interoffice Transmission Facilities: The Third R&O requires 
incumbent LECs to provide unbundled access to dedicated and shared 
interoffice transmission facilities. Incumbent LECs must offer 
unbundled access to dedicated interoffice transmission facilities, or 
transport, including dark fiber. The Third R&O concludes that that 
state commissions are free to establish reasonable limits governing 
access to dark fiber if incumbent LECs can show that they need to 
maintain fiber reserves. Dedicated interoffice transmission facilities 
are defined as incumbent LEC transmission facilities dedicated to a 
particular customer or carrier that provide telecommunications between 
wire centers owned by the incumbent LECs or requesting 
telecommunications carriers, or between switches owned by incumbent 
LECs or requesting telecommunications carriers. Dedicated transport 
transmission facilities include all technically feasible capacity-
related services such as DS1-DS3 and OC3-OC96 dedicated transport 
services, and those provided by electronics that are necessary 
components of the functionality of capacity-related services and are 
used to originate and terminate telecommunications services.
    26. The Third R&O finds that unbundling high-capacity dedicated 
transport offerings will encourage competition and facilitate the 
deployment of advanced services. Accordingly, it requires that 
incumbent LECs unbundle DS1 through OC192 dedicated transport offerings 
and such higher capacities as evolve over time. The intention is to 
ensure that the definition of interoffice transmission facilities will 
apply to new, as well as current technologies, and to ensure that 
competitors will continue to be able to

[[Page 2546]]

access these facilities as unbundled network elements as long as that 
access is required pursuant to section 251(d)(2). Although the Third 
R&O concludes that an incumbent LEC's unbundling obligation extends 
throughout its ubiquitous transport network, including ring transport 
architectures, it does not require incumbent LECs to construct new 
transport facilities to meet specific competitive LEC point-to-point 
demand requirements for facilities that the incumbent LEC has not 
deployed for its own use.
    27. Incumbent LECs must also offer unbundled access to shared 
transport where unbundled local circuit switching is provided. Shared 
transport is defined as transmission facilities shared by more than one 
carrier, including the incumbent LEC, between end office switches, 
between end office switches and tandem switches, and between tandem 
switches in the incumbent LEC's network.
    28. The Third R&O finds that requesting carriers are impaired 
without access to the incumbent LECs' unbundled dedicated and shared 
transport network. In particular, self-provisioning ubiquitous 
interoffice transmission facilities, or acquiring these facilities from 
non-incumbent LEC sources, materially increases a requesting carrier's 
costs of entering a market or of expanding the scope of its service, 
delays broad-based entry, and materially limits the scope and quality 
of a requesting carrier's service offerings. The Third R&O finds that 
requiring incumbent LECs to unbundle interoffice transmission 
facilities is consistent with the goal of the 1996 Act to facilitate 
rapid entry into the local exchange market. The Third R&O notes that 
the Commission will closely monitor the developments in the transport 
market to determine whether the transport market, or a particular 
segment of this market, is supplying requesting carriers with effective 
alternatives to the incumbent LEC's unbundled network elements when the 
Commission reexamines its unbundling rules in three years.
    29. Signaling and Call-Related Databases: The Third R&O requires 
incumbent LECs to offer unbundled access to signaling links and 
signaling transfer points (STPs) in conjunction with unbundled 
switching, and on a stand-alone basis. The signaling network element 
includes, but is not limited to, signaling links and STPs. The Third 
R&O concludes that without unbundled access to the incumbent LECs' 
signaling networks, a requesting carrier's ability to provide the 
services it seeks to offer is materially diminished. Requiring a 
requesting carrier to obtain signaling from alternative sources would 
materially diminish its ability to provide the services it seeks to 
offer, due to the quality differences between the signaling networks 
available from the incumbent LEC and those available from alternative 
providers of signaling. It also concludes that unbundling the incumbent 
LECs' signaling networks will promote the development of facilities-
based competition and thereby encourage investment and innovation in 
new technologies and telecommunications services. Unbundling the 
incumbent LECs' signaling networks will give competitive LECs incentive 
to deploy their own switches, because they can be connected to the 
ubiquitous incumbent LECs' signaling networks.
    30. The Third R&O requires incumbent LECs to offer unbundled access 
to call-related databases, including, but not limited to, the Line 
Information database (LIDB), Toll Free Calling database, Number 
Portability database, Calling Name (CNAM) database, Advanced 
Intelligent Network (AIN) databases, and the AIN platform and 
architecture. The Third R&O clarifies that the definition of call-
related databases includes, but is not limited to, the CNAM database, 
as well as the 911 and E911 databases. It identifies specifically the 
CNAM, 911 and E911 databases as being illustrative of call-related 
databases, and not as a comprehensive list of all call-related 
databases.
    31. Because certain services created in the AIN platform and 
architecture are proprietary, the Third R&O finds that if competitive 
LECs receive unbundled access to incumbent LECs' AIN platforms, access 
to AIN service software should not be unbundled because such access is 
not ``necessary'' within the meaning of section 251(d)(2)(A) of the 
1996 Act. With the exception of AIN service software, the Third R&O 
analyzes call-related databases under the ``impair'' standard. It finds 
that lack of access to call-related databases on an unbundled basis 
would materially impair the ability of a requesting carrier to provide 
the services it seeks to offer in the local telecommunications market. 
It finds that there are no alternatives of comparable quality and 
ubiquity available to requesting carriers, as an economic, operational, 
and practical matter, for the incumbent LECs' call-related databases. 
The Third R&O notes that the analysis of call-related databases is 
intertwined with the analysis of signaling, because signaling is 
necessary to obtain access to certain call-related databases. Thus, the 
decision to unbundle the signaling network leads to a decision to 
unbundle call-related databases as well. Requiring incumbent LECs to 
provide access to call-related databases, including access to the AIN 
databases, will also foster investment and innovation in the local 
telecommunications marketplace.
    32. Operations Support Systems: The Third R&O requires incumbent 
LECs to offer unbundled access to their operations support systems 
(OSS). It defines OSS as consisting of pre-ordering, ordering, 
provisioning, maintenance and repair, and billing functions supported 
by an incumbent LEC's databases and information. The Third R&O also 
clarifies that an incumbent LEC must provide the requesting carrier 
with nondiscriminatory access to the same detailed information about 
the loop that is available to the incumbent. In addition, the Third R&O 
concludes that an incumbent LEC should not be permitted to deny a 
requesting carrier access to loop qualification information for 
particular customers simply because the incumbent is not providing xDSL 
or other services from a particular end office. An incumbent LEC must 
provide access to the underlying loop information and may not filter or 
digest such information to provide only that information that is useful 
in the provision of a particular type of xDSL service that the 
incumbent chooses to offer. Instead, the incumbent LEC must provide 
access to the underlying loop qualification information contained in 
its engineering records, plant records, and other back office systems. 
If an incumbent LEC has not compiled such information for itself, the 
Third R&O does not require the incumbent to conduct a plant inventory 
and construct a database on behalf of requesting carriers.
    33. The Third R&O concludes that lack of access to the incumbent 
LEC's OSS impairs the ability of requesting carriers to provide the 
services they seek to offer. The incumbents' OSS provides access to key 
information that is unavailable outside the incumbents' networks and is 
critical to the ability of other carriers to provide local exchange and 
exchange access service.
    34. Operator Services and Directory Assistance: The Third R&O finds 
that incumbent LECs are not required to offer unbundled access to their 
operator services and directory assistance (OS/DA), except in the 
limited circumstance where an incumbent LEC does not provide customized 
routing, including compatible signaling protocol, to a

[[Page 2547]]

requesting carrier to allow it to route traffic to alternative OS/DA 
providers. Operator services are any automatic or live assistance to a 
consumer to arrange for billing or completion of a telephone call. 
Directory assistance is a service that allows subscribers to retrieve 
telephone numbers of other subscribers.
    35. The Third R&O finds that where incumbent LECs provide 
customized routing, including compatible signaling protocol, lack of 
access to the incumbents' OS/DA service on an unbundled basis does not 
materially diminish a requesting carrier's ability to offer 
telecommunications service. The record provides significant evidence of 
a wholesale market in the provision of OS/DA services and opportunities 
for self-provisioning OS/DA services. Moreover, the evidence regarding 
the differences in cost, timeliness, quality, interoperability and 
ubiquity between the incumbent LEC's OS/DA service and alternative OS/
DA services, provided either through self-provisioning or third-party 
alternatives, does not demonstrate that lack of unbundled access to the 
incumbent's OS/DA service would materially diminish a requesting 
carrier's ability to offer the services it seeks to provide. The non-
discrimination requirements of section 251(b)(3) of the 1996 Act, 
coupled with evidence of multiple providers of OS/DA service in the 
marketplace, provide strong evidence that competitors are not impaired 
without access to the incumbent LEC's OS/DA service as an unbundled 
network element. The Third R&O also finds that declining to require 
incumbent LECs to unbundle OS/DA service is consistent with the goals 
of the Act, because it will reduce competitors' reliance on the 
incumbent LEC's network and create new opportunities for competitors of 
OS/DA service to differentiate their services through increased quality 
and lower prices.
    36. In instances where the requesting carrier obtains the unbundled 
switching element from the incumbent, the lack of customized routing, 
including compatible signaling protocol, effectively precludes 
requesting carriers from using alternative OS/DA providers and, 
consequently, would materially diminish the requesting carrier's 
ability to provide the services it seeks to offer. Thus, the Third R&O 
requires incumbent LECs, to the extent they have not accommodated 
technologies used for customized routing, to offer OS/DA as an 
unbundled network element.
    37. Other Issues: The Third R&O concludes that the prices, terms, 
and conditions set forth under sections 251 and 252 of the 1996 Act do 
not presumptively apply to the network elements on the competitive 
checklist of section 271. In circumstances where a checklist network 
element is no longer unbundled, the Commission has determined that a 
competitor is not impaired in its ability to offer services without 
access to that element. Such a finding in the case of switching for 
large volume customers is predicated in large part upon the fact that 
competitors can acquire switching in the marketplace at a price set by 
the marketplace. Under these circumstances, it would be 
counterproductive to mandate that the incumbent offers the element at 
forward-looking prices. Rather, the market price should prevail, as 
opposed to a regulated rate which, at best, is designed to reflect the 
pricing of a competitive market.
    38. A number of parties, including competitive LECs and state 
commissions, argue that the Commission should either identify a new 
network element comprised of the unbundled loop, multiplexing/
concentrating equipment, and dedicated transport, (the enhanced 
extended link or ``EEL''), or, alternatively, reinstate Secs. 51.315(c) 
through (f) of the Commission's Rules (47 CFR 51.315(c) through (f)), 
which require incumbent LECs to provide unbundled loop and transport 
elements on a combined basis. The Third R&O declines to define the EEL 
as a separate network element in this Order. The Eighth Circuit Court 
of Appeals is currently reviewing whether Secs. 51.315(c) through (f) 
should be reinstated, and the Commission states in the Third R&O that 
it therefore sees no reason to decide whether the EEL should be a 
separate network element in light of the Eighth Circuit's review of 
those rules. The Third R&O also declines to reinstate Secs. 51.315(c) 
through (f), based on the pending Eighth Circuit litigation.
    39. The Third R&O also clarifies that under existing law (47 CFR 
51.309(a), 51.315(b)), a requesting carrier is entitled to obtain 
existing combinations of loop and transport between the end user and 
the incumbent LEC's serving center on a restricted basis at unbundled 
network element prices. In particular, any requesting carrier that is 
collected in a serving wire center is free to order loops and transport 
to that serving wire center as unbundled network elements because those 
elements meet the unbundling standard. Moreover, to the extent those 
unbundled network elements are already combined as a special access 
circuit, the incumbent may not separate them under rule 51.315(b), 
which was reinstated by the Supreme Court. In such circumstances, it 
would be impermissible for an incumbent LEC to require that a 
requesting carrier provide a certain amount of local service over such 
facilities.
    40. Moreover, where the requesting carrier is collocated and has 
self-provisioned transport or obtained transport from an alternative 
provider, but is purchasing unbundled loops, that carrier may provide 
only exchange access over those facilities. Thus, for instance, a 
requesting carrier is entitled to purchase unbundled loops in order to 
provide advanced services (e.g., interstate special access xDSL 
service).
    41. The Third R&O also clarifies that interexchange carriers are 
entitled to use unbundled dedicated transport from their point of 
presence to a serving wire center in order to provide local telephone 
exchange service. Such carriers are entitled to obtain such dedicated 
transport links pursuant to the unbundling standard.
    42. The Third R&O concludes that the record is insufficient to 
allow the Commission to determine whether or how its rules should apply 
in the discrete situation involving the use of dedicated transport 
links between the incumbent LEC's serving wire center and an 
inertexchange carrier's switch or point of presence (referred to as 
``entrance facilities''). The Commission believes that it should 
explore fully the policy ramifications of applying its rules in a way 
that potentially could cause a significant reduction of the incumbent 
LEC's special access revenues prior to full implementation of access 
charge and universal service reform. Therefore, it sets certain 
discrete issues for further comment as described below in the Fourth 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this docket.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    43. The actions contained in this Third R&O have been analyzed with 
respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and found to impose no 
burden on the public.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    44. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice 
in CC Docket 96-98 (64 FR 20238, April 26, 1999). The Commission sought 
written public comments on the proposals in the Notice, including 
comments on the IRFA. The Commission's Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA) in the Third R&O conforms to the RFA.

[[Page 2548]]

Need for, and Objectives of the Third Report and Order

    45. This R&O responds to the Supreme Court's January, 1999 decision 
that directs the Commission to revise the standards used to determine 
which network elements incumbent LECs must unbundle pursuant to section 
251 of the Act. More specifically, this Third R&O gives substance to 
the ``necessary'' and ``impair'' standards set in section 251(d)(2) of 
the Act. Applying these standards, and considering the availability of 
the elements outside of the incumbent's network, this Third R&O adopts 
a list of network elements that must be unbundled on a national basis, 
subject to certain discrete geographic and product market exceptions. 
It also announces that the Commission will reexamine the national list 
of unbundled elements in three years. It reaffirms a state commission's 
authority to require incumbent LECs to unbundle additional elements, as 
long as the unbundling obligations: (1) are consistent with the 
requirements of section 251; (2) do not substantially prevent 
implementation of the requirements of that section and the purposes of 
the Act; and (3) are consistent with the national policy framework 
established in the Third R&O. Finally the Third R&O reaffirms that 
incumbent LECs are obligated to offer combinations of loop, 
multiplexing/concentrating equipment, and dedicated transport if they 
are currently combined.

Summary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in 
Response to the IRFA

    46. No comments were submitted in direct response to the IRFA. The 
Commission did, however, receive some general small-business-related 
comments which are discussed throughout the Third R&O and are 
summarized in subsection 5 of the FRFA, infra.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
Rules Will Apply

    47. In the FRFA to the Commission's Local Competition First Report 
and Order, the Commission adopted the analysis and definitions set 
forth in determining the small entities affected by the Third R&O for 
purposes of this FRFA. The RFA directs agencies to provide a 
description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small 
entities that will be affected by rules (5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3)). The RFA 
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning 
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' (5 U.S.C. 601(6). The RFA defines a 
``small business'' to be the same as a ``small business concern'' under 
the Small Business Act, unless the Commission has developed one or more 
definitions that are appropriate to its activities. (5 U.S.C. 601(3). 
Under the Small Business Act, a ``small business concern'' is one that: 
(1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its 
field of operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria established 
by the Small Business Administration (SBA (15 U.S.C. 632)). Below, the 
Commission describes and estimates the number of small entities that 
may be affected by the rules adopted in the Third R&O.
    48. The Commission has included small incumbent LECs in this RFA 
analysis. As noted, 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.'' (5 U.S.C. 601(3)). 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 the Commission's 
analyses and determinations in other non-RFA contexts.
    49. The United States Bureau of the Census (the Census Bureau) 
reports that at the end of 1992, there were 3,497 firms engaged in 
providing telephone services, as defined therein, for at least one 
year. (United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 
Census of Transportation, Communications and Utilities: Establishment 
and Firm Size, at Firm Size 1-123 (1995) (1992 Census)). These firms 
include a variety of different categories of carriers, including LECs, 
interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, wireless 
providers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, 
wireless providers, and resellers. At least some of these 3,497 
telephone service firms may not qualify as small entities because they 
are not ``independently owned and operated.'' (15 U.S.C. 632(a)(1)). 
For example, a wireless provider that is affiliated with a LEC having 
more than 1,500 employees would not meet the definition of a small 
business. It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that fewer than 
3,497 of these telephone service firms are small entities that may be 
affected by the Third R&O. Since 1992, however, many new carriers have 
entered the telephone services marketplace. At least some of these new 
entrants may be small entities that are affected by the Third R&O.
    50. The SBA has developed a definition of small entities for 
telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) 
companies. The Census Bureau reports that there were 2,321 such 
telephone companies that had been operating for at least one year at 
the end of 1992. (1992 Census at Firm Size 1-123). According to the 
SBA's definition, a wireline telephone company is a small business if 
it employs no more than 1,500 persons. (13 CFR 121.201, Standard 
Industrial Classification Code 4812). All but 26 of the 2,321 wireline 
companies listed by the Census Bureau were reported to have fewer than 
1,000 employees. Thus, even if all 26 of those companies had more than 
1,500 employees, there would still be 2,295 wireline companies that 
might qualify as small entities. Although it seems certain that some of 
these carriers are not independently owned and operated, the Commission 
is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of 
wireline carriers and service providers that would qualify as small 
business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, it 
estimates that fewer than 2,295 of these wireline companies are small 
entities that the Third R&O may affect. Since 1992, however, many 
wireline carriers have entered the telephone services marketplace. Many 
of these new entrants may be small entities that are affected by the 
Third R&O.
    51. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor 
the SBA has developed a definition specifically directed toward small 
incumbent LECs. 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 LECs nationwide of which the Commission is aware appears 
to be the data that the Commission collects annually in connection with 
the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS). According to the 
Commission's most recent data, 1,410 companies reported that they were 
engaged in the provision of local exchange services. (Federal 
Communications Commission, Carrier Locator: Interstate Service 
Providers, Fig. 1 (January 1999) (Carrier Locator Report)). Although it 
seems certain that some of these carriers are

[[Page 2549]]

not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, 
the Commission is unable at this time to estimate with greater 
precision the number of small incumbent LECs that would qualify as 
small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that there are fewer than 1,410 small incumbent 
LECs that may be affected by the decisions and rules adopted in the 
Third R&O.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    52. Pursuant to sections 251(c) and (d) of the 1996 Act, incumbent 
LECs, including those that qualify as small entities, are required to 
provide nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements. The 
only exception to this rule is those carriers that qualify and have 
gone through the process of obtaining an exemption, suspension or 
modification pursuant to section 251(f) of the Act. The Third R&O 
interprets the ``necessary'' and ``impair'' standards of section 
251(d)(2) in such a way that it fulfills the Supreme Court's 
requirement that the Commission apply some limiting standard to an 
incumbent LEC's 251(c) obligations. In the Third R&O, the Commission 
identifies a minimum set of network elements that incumbent LECs are 
obligated to offer to requesting carriers on an unbundled basis 
nationwide: (1) local loops, including dark fiber and high-capacity 
loops; (2) subloops; (3) network interface devices; (4) local 
switching, except under certain conditions; (5) interoffice transport; 
(6) signaling and call-related databases; (7) operations support 
systems; and (8) in very limited situations, packet switching. State 
commissions may require incumbent LECs to provide additional network 
elements on an unbundled basis. The Third R&O also clarifies that 
incumbent LECs are obligated to provide access to combinations of loop, 
multiplexing/concentrating equipment and dedicated transport if they 
are currently combined. Compliance with the rules and decisions adopted 
in this Third R&O may require the use of engineering, technical, 
operational, accounting, billing, and legal skills.

Steps Taken to Minimize the Economic Impact of This Order on Small 
Entities, and Alternatives Considered

    53. As the Commission concluded in the original FRFA, and as 
discussed more thoroughly, the Commission believes that its actions 
establishing a minimum national list of unbundled network elements in 
this Third R&O facilitates the development of competition in the local 
exchange and exchange access markets. This decision decreases entry 
barriers and provides reasonable opportunities for all carriers, 
including small entities, to provide local exchange and exchange access 
services.
    54. National requirements for unbundling allows requesting 
carriers, including small entities, to take advantage of economies of 
scale in the network. Requesting carriers, which may include small 
entities, should have access to the same technologies and economies of 
scale and scope available to incumbent LECs. Having such access will 
facilitate competition and help lower prices for all consumers, 
including individuals and small entities. A minimum national list of 
unbundled network elements also should facilitate the development of 
consistent standards and help resolve issues without imposing 
additional litigation costs on parties, including small entities.
    55. Establishing a minimum national list of unbundled network 
elements facilitates negotiations and reduces regulatory burdens for 
all parties, including small entities. Adopting a national list lowers 
requesting carrier's cost by enabling them to implement regional and/or 
national business plans. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission 
considered one proposal to adopt national standards that would be 
applied by state commissions on a market-by-market basis. The 
Commission concluded that this approach would lead to greater 
uncertainty in the market and would hinder the development of 
competition. It also found that it would complicate the negotiation of 
interconnection agreements and lead to increased litigation. 
Furthermore, this approach would increase the administrative burden on 
state commissions and parties arbitrating interconnection agreements 
before these state commissions. All of these factors would slow the 
development of competition. Therefore, the Commission adopted a 
national list.

Report to Congress

    56. The Commission will send a copy of the Third R&O, including 
this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. (5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A)). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the 
Third R&O, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration. The Third R&O and FRFA, or summaries 
thereof, are also published in the Federal Register. (5 U.S.C. 604(b)).

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

    57. As required by the RFA, the Commission has prepared an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in 
this Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 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 provided above in 
section VII. The Commission will send a copy of the Fourth Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including this IRFA, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. (5 U.S.C. 
603(a)). In addition, the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
and IRFA, or summaries thereof, are now also published in the Federal 
Register.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    58. In this proceeding 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. The Commission 
recognizes that special access has historically been provided by 
incumbent LECs at prices that are higher than the unbundled network 
element pricing scheme of section 252(d)(1). Accordingly, in this 
Fourth Further Notice, the Commission seeks comment on the legal and 
policy bases for precluding requesting carriers from substituting 
dedicated transport for special access entrance facilities. The 
Commission asks whether there is any basis in the statute or our rules 
under which incumbent LECs could decline to provide entrance facilities 
at unbundled network element prices.
    59. The Commission 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.

Legal Basis

    60. Sections 1 through 4, 10, 201, 202, 251 through 254, 271, and 
303(r) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47

[[Page 2550]]

U.S.C. 151 through 54, 160, 201, 202, 251 through 54, 271, and 303(r).

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    61. In the FRFA in the Third R&O, the Commission has described the 
entities possibly affected by that decision. The Commission anticipates 
that the same entities, as well as those described below, could be 
affected by any action taken in response to the Fourth Further Notice. 
The Commission therefore incorporates the description and estimates 
used in the FRFA in the Third R&O and adds the following descriptions.
    62. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor 
SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically directed 
toward providers of competitive local exchange services. The most 
reliable source of information regarding the number of competitive LECs 
nationwide of which the Commission is aware appears to be the data it 
collected in the August, 1999 Local Competition Report. According to 
the Commission's most recent data, 158 companies reported that they 
were local service competitors holding numbering codes. (Federal 
Communications Commission, Local Competition Report, August 1999, at 
45, table 4.1)). Although it seems certain that some of these carriers 
are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 
employees, the Commission is unable at this time to estimate with 
greater precision the number of competitive LECs that would qualify as 
small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that there are fewer than 158 small entity 
competitive LECs that may be affected by the decisions and rules 
adopted in response to the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking.
    63. Competitive Access Providers. Neither the Commission nor SBA 
has developed a definition of small entities specifically directed 
toward providers of competitive access services (CAPs). 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 CAPs nationwide 
of which the Commission is aware appears to be the data that we collect 
annually in connection with the TRS Worksheet. According to the 
Commission's most recent data, 129 companies reported that they were 
engaged in the provision of competitive access services. (Carrier 
Locator Report at Fig.1)). Although it seems certain that some of these 
carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 
1,500 employees, the Commission is unable at this time to estimate with 
greater precision the number of competitive LECs that would qualify as 
small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that there are fewer than 129 small entity 
competitive LECs that may be affected by the decisions and rules 
adopted in response to the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    64. 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, 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.

Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    65. If requesting carriers can substitute unbundled network 
elements, such as transport, for entrance facilities, incumbent LECs, 
including small entities, may be significantly economically impacted. 
On the other hand, substituting unbundled network elements for entrance 
facilities 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.

Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    66. Ordering Clauses
    Effective February 17, 2000, except as specified in the 
regulations.
    67. The Commission will send a copy of this Third Report and Order, 
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
    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.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 51

    Communications, Common Carriers, Telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.

Rule Changes

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 51 as follows:

PART 51--INTERCONNECTION

    1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read:


    Authority:  Sections 1-5, 7, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 225-27, 251-
54, 271, 332, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 151 through 
55, 157, 201 through 205, 207 through 209, 218, 225 through 227, 251 
through 254, 271, and 332, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 51.5 is amended by revising the following definition to 
read as follows:


Sec. 51.5  Terms and definitions.

* * * * *
    Pre-ordering and ordering. Pre-ordering and ordering includes the 
exchange of information between telecommunications carriers about: 
current or proposed customer products and services; or unbundled 
network elements, or some combination thereof. This information 
includes loop qualification information, such as the composition of the 
loop material, including but not limited to: fiber optics or copper; 
the existence, location and type of any electronic or other equipment 
on the loop, including but not limited to, digital loop carrier or 
other remote concentration devices, feeder/distribution interfaces, 
bridge

[[Page 2551]]

taps, load coils, pair-gain devices, disturbers in the same or adjacent 
binder groups; the loop length, including the length and location of 
each type of transmission media; the wire gauge(s) of the loop; and the 
electrical parameters of the loop, which may determine the suitability 
of the loop for various technologies.
* * * * *
    3. Section 51.317 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 51.317  Standards for requiring the unbundling of network 
elements.

    (a) Proprietary network elements. A network element shall be 
considered to be proprietary if an incumbent LEC can demonstrate that 
it has invested resources to develop proprietary information or 
functionalities that are protected by patent, copyright or trade secret 
law. The Commission shall undertake the following analysis to determine 
whether a proprietary network element should be made available for 
purposes of section 251(c)(3) of the Act:
    (1) Determine whether access to the proprietary network element is 
``necessary.'' A network element is ``necessary'' if, taking into 
consideration the availability of alternative elements outside the 
incumbent LEC's network, including self-provisioning by a requesting 
carrier or acquiring an alternative from a third-party supplier, lack 
of access to the network element precludes a requesting 
telecommunications carrier from providing the services that it seeks to 
offer. If access is ``necessary,'' then, subject to any consideration 
of the factors set forth under paragraph (c) of this section, the 
Commission may require the unbundling of such proprietary network 
element.
    (2) In the event that such access is not ``necessary,'' the 
Commission may require unbundling subject to any consideration of the 
factors set forth under paragraph (c) of this section if it is 
determined that:
    (i) The incumbent LEC has implemented only a minor modification to 
the network element in order to qualify for proprietary treatment;
    (ii) The information or functionality that is proprietary in nature 
does not differentiate the incumbent LEC's services from the requesting 
carrier's services; or
    (iii) Lack of access to such element would jeopardize the goals of 
the 1996 Act.
    (b) Non-proprietary network elements. The Commission shall 
undertake the following analysis to determine whether a non-proprietary 
network element should be made available for purposes of section 
251(c)(3) of the Act:
    (1) Determine whether lack of access to a non-proprietary network 
element ``impairs'' a carrier's ability to provide the service it seeks 
to offer. A requesting carrier's ability to provide service is 
``impaired'' if, taking into consideration the availability of 
alternative elements outside the incumbent LEC's network, including 
self-provisioning by a requesting carrier or acquiring an alternative 
from a third-party supplier, lack of access to that element materially 
diminishes a requesting carrier's ability to provide the services it 
seeks to offer. The Commission will consider the totality of the 
circumstances to determine whether an alternative to the incumbent 
LEC's network element is available in such a manner that a requesting 
carrier can provide service using the alternative. If the Commission 
determines that lack of access to an element ``impairs'' a requesting 
carrier's ability to provide service, it may require the unbundling of 
that element, subject to any consideration of the factors set forth 
under section 51.317(c).
    (2) In considering whether lack of access to a network element 
materially diminishes a requesting carrier's ability to provide 
service, the Commission shall consider the extent to which alternatives 
in the market are available as a practical, economic, and operational 
matter. The Commission will rely upon the following factors to 
determine whether alternative network elements are available as a 
practical, economic, and operational matter:
    (i) Cost, including all costs that requesting carriers may incur 
when using the alternative element to provide the services it seeks to 
offer;
    (ii) Timeliness, including the time associated with entering a 
market as well as the time to expand service to more customers;
    (iii) Quality;
    (iv) Ubiquity, including whether the alternatives are available 
ubiquitously;
    (v) Impact on network operations.
    (3) In determining whether to require the unbundling of any network 
element under this rule, the Commission may also consider the following 
additional factors:
    (i) Whether unbundling of a network element promotes the rapid 
introduction of competition;
    (ii) Whether unbundling of a network element promotes facilities-
based competition, investment, and innovation;
    (iii) Whether unbundling of a network element promotes reduced 
regulation;
    (iv) Whether unbundling of a network element provides certainty to 
requesting carriers regarding the availability of the element;
    (v) Whether unbundling of a network element is administratively 
practical to apply.
    (4) If an incumbent LEC is required to provide nondiscriminatory 
access to a network element in accordance with Sec. 51.311 and section 
251(c)(3) of the Act under Sec. 51.319 of this section or any 
applicable Commission Order, no state commission shall have authority 
to determine that such access is not required. A state commission must 
comply with the standards set forth in this Sec. 51.317 when 
considering whether to require the unbundling of additional network 
elements. With respect to any network element which a state commission 
has required to be unbundled under this Sec. 51.317, the state 
commission retains the authority to subsequently determine, in 
accordance with the requirements of this rule, that such network 
element need no longer be unbundled.
    4. Section 51.319 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 51.319  Specific unbundling requirements.

    (a) Local loop and subloop. An incumbent LEC shall provide 
nondiscriminatory access, in accordance with Sec. 51.311 and section 
251(c)(3) of the Act, to the local loop and subloop, including inside 
wiring owned by the incumbent LEC, on an unbundled basis to any 
requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision of a 
telecommunications service.
    (1) Local loop. The local loop network element is defined as a 
transmission facility between a distribution frame (or its equivalent) 
in an incumbent LEC central office and the loop demarcation point at an 
end-user customer premises, including inside wire owned by the 
incumbent LEC. The local loop network element includes all features, 
functions, and capabilities of such transmission facility. Those 
features, functions, and capabilities include, but are not limited to, 
dark fiber, attached electronics (except those electronics used for the 
provision of advanced services, such as Digital Subscriber Line Access 
Multiplexers), and line conditioning. The local loop includes, but is 
not limited to, DS1, DS3, fiber, and other high capacity loops. The 
requirements in this section relating to dark fiber are not effective 
until May 17, 2000.
    (2) Subloop. The subloop network element is defined as any portion 
of the loop that is technically feasible to access at terminals in the 
incumbent LEC's outside plant, including inside wire. An

[[Page 2552]]

accessible terminal is any point on the loop where technicians can 
access the wire or fiber within the cable without removing a splice 
case to reach the wire or fiber within. Such points may include, but 
are not limited to, the pole or pedestal, the network interface device, 
the minimum point of entry, the single point of interconnection, the 
main distribution frame, the remote terminal, and the feeder/
distribution interface. The requirements in this section relating to 
subloops and inside wire are not effective until May 17, 2000.
    (i) Inside wire. Inside wire is defined as all loop plant owned by 
the incumbent LEC on end-user customer premises as far as the point of 
demarcation as defined in Sec. 68.3 of this chapter, including the loop 
plant near the end-user customer premises. Carriers may access the 
inside wire subloop at any technically feasible point including, but 
not limited to, the network interface device, the minimum point of 
entry, the single point of interconnection, the pedestal, or the pole.
    (ii) Technical feasibility. If parties are unable to reach 
agreement, pursuant to voluntary negotiations, as to whether it is 
technically feasible, or whether sufficient space is available, to 
unbundle the subloop at the point where a carrier requests, the 
incumbent LEC shall have the burden of demonstrating to the state, 
pursuant to state arbitration proceedings under section 252 of the Act, 
that there is not sufficient space available, or that it is not 
technically feasible, to unbundle the subloop at the point requested.
    (iii) Best practices. Once one state has determined that it is 
technically feasible to unbundle subloops at a designated point, an 
incumbent LEC in any state shall have the burden of demonstrating, 
pursuant to state arbitration proceedings under section 252 of the Act, 
that it is not technically feasible, or that sufficient space is not 
available, to unbundle its own loops at such a point.
    (iv) Rules for collocation. Access to the subloop is subject to the 
Commission's collocation rules at Secs. 51.321 through 51.323.
    (v) Single point of interconnection. The incumbent LEC shall 
provide a single point of interconnection at multi-unit premises that 
is suitable for use by multiple carriers. This obligation is in 
addition to the incumbent LEC's obligation to provide nondiscriminatory 
access to subloops at any technically feasible point. If parties are 
unable to negotiate terms and conditions regarding a single point of 
interconnection, issues in dispute, including compensation of the 
incumbent LEC under forward-looking pricing principles, shall be 
resolved under the dispute resolution processes in section 252 of the 
Act.
    (3) Line conditioning. The incumbent LEC shall condition lines 
required to be unbundled under this section wherever a competitor 
requests, whether or not the incumbent LEC offers advanced services to 
the end-user customer on that loop.
    (i) Line conditioning is defined as the removal from the loop of 
any devices that may diminish the capability of the loop to deliver 
high-speed switched wireline telecommunications capability, including 
xDSL service. Such devices include, but are not limited to, bridge 
taps, low pass filters, and range extenders.
    (ii) Incumbent LECs shall recover the cost of line conditioning 
from the requesting telecommunications carrier in accordance with the 
Commission's forward-looking pricing principles promulgated pursuant to 
section 252(d)(1) of the Act.
    (iii) Incumbent LECs shall recover the cost of line conditioning 
from the requesting telecommunications carrier in compliance with rules 
governing nonrecurring costs in Sec. 51.507 (e).
    (iv) In so far as it is technically feasible, the incumbent LEC 
shall test and report trouble for all the features, functions, and 
capabilities of conditioned lines, and may not restrict testing to 
voice-transmission only.
    (b) Network interface device. An incumbent LEC shall provide 
nondiscriminatory access, in accordance with Sec. 51.311 and section 
251(c)(3) of the Act, to the network interface device on an unbundled 
basis to any requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision of 
a telecommunications service. The network interface device network 
element is defined as any means of interconnection of end-user customer 
premises wiring to the incumbent LEC's distribution plant, such as a 
cross connect device used for that purpose. An incumbent LEC shall 
permit a requesting telecommunications carrier to connect its own loop 
facilities to on-premises wiring through the incumbent LEC's network 
interface device, or at any other technically feasible point.
    (c) Switching capability. An incumbent LEC shall provide 
nondiscriminatory access, in accordance with Sec. 51.311 and section 
251(c)(3) of the Act, to local circuit switching capability and local 
tandem switching capability on an unbundled basis, except as set forth 
in Sec. 51.319(c)(2), to any requesting telecommunications carrier for 
the provision of a telecommunications service. An incumbent LEC shall 
be required to provide nondiscriminatory access in accordance with 
Sec. 51.311 and section 251(c)(3) of the Act to packet switching 
capability on an unbundled basis to any requesting telecommunications 
carrier for the provision of a telecommunications service only in the 
limited circumstance described in Sec. 51.319(c)(4).
    (1) Local circuit switching capability, including tandem switching 
capability. The local circuit switching capability network element is 
defined as:
    (i) Line-side facilities, which include, but are not limited to, 
the connection between a loop termination at a main distribution frame 
and a switch line card;
    (ii) Trunk-side facilities, which include, but are not limited to, 
the connection between trunk termination at a trunk-side cross-connect 
panel and a switch trunk card; and
    (iii) All features, functions and capabilities of the switch, which 
include, but are not limited to:
    (A) The basic switching function of connecting lines to lines, 
lines to trunks, trunks to lines, and trunks to trunks, as well as the 
same basic capabilities made available to the incumbent LEC's 
customers, such as a telephone number, white page listing and dial 
tone, and
    (B) All other features that the switch is capable of providing, 
including but not limited to, customer calling, customer local area 
signaling service features, and Centrex, as well as any technically 
feasible customized routing functions provided by the switch.
    (2) Notwithstanding the incumbent LEC's general duty to unbundle 
local circuit switching, an incumbent LEC shall not be required to 
unbundle local circuit switching for requesting telecommunications 
carriers when the requesting telecommunications carrier serves end-
users with four or more voice grade (DS0) equivalents or lines, 
provided that the incumbent LEC provides nondiscriminatory access to 
combinations of unbundled loops and transport (also known as the 
``Enhanced Extended Link'') throughout Density Zone 1, and the 
incumbent LEC's local circuit switches are located in:
    (i) The top 50 Metropolitan Statistical Areas as set forth in 
Appendix B of the Third Report and Order and Fourth Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 96-98, and
    (ii) In Density Zone 1, as defined in Sec. 69.123 of this chapter 
on January 1, 1999.

[[Page 2553]]

    (3) Local tandem switching capability. The tandem switching 
capability network element is defined as:
    (i) Trunk-connect facilities, which include, but are not limited 
to, the connection between trunk termination at a cross connect panel 
and switch trunk card;
    (ii) The basic switch trunk function of connecting trunks to 
trunks; and
    (iii) The functions that are centralized in tandem switches (as 
distinguished from separate end office switches), including but not 
limited, to call recording, the routing of calls to operator services, 
and signaling conversion features.
    (4) Packet switching capability. (i) The packet switching 
capability network element is defined as the basic packet switching 
function of routing or forwarding packets, frames, cells or other data 
units based on address or other routing information contained in the 
packets, frames, cells or other data units, and the functions that are 
performed by Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexers, including but 
not limited to:
    (ii) The ability to terminate copper customer loops (which includes 
both a low band voice channel and a high-band data channel, or solely a 
data channel);
    (iii) The ability to forward the voice channels, if present, to a 
circuit switch or multiple circuit switches;
    (iv) The ability to extract data units from the data channels on 
the loops, and
    (v) The ability to combine data units from multiple loops onto one 
or more trunks connecting to a packet switch or packet switches.
    (5) An incumbent LEC shall be required to provide nondiscriminatory 
access to unbundled packet switching capability only where each of the 
following conditions are satisfied. The requirements in this section 
relating to packet switching are not effective until May 17, 2000.
    (i) The incumbent LEC has deployed digital loop carrier systems, 
including but not limited to, integrated digital loop carrier or 
universal digital loop carrier systems; or has deployed any other 
system in which fiber optic facilities replace copper facilities in the 
distribution section (e.g., end office to remote terminal, pedestal or 
environmentally controlled vault);
    (ii) There are no spare copper loops capable of supporting xDSL 
services the requesting carrier seeks to offer;
    (iii) The incumbent LEC has not permitted a requesting carrier to 
deploy a Digital Subscriber Line Access mulltiplexer in the remote 
terminal, pedestal or environmentally controlled vault or other 
interconnection point, nor has the requesting carrier obtained a 
virtual collocation arrangement at these subloop interconnection points 
as defined by paragraph (b) of this section; and
    (iv) The incumbent LEC has deployed packet switching capability for 
its own use.
    (d) Interoffice transmission facilities. An incumbent LEC shall 
provide nondiscriminatory access, in accordance with Sec. 51.311 and 
section 251(c)(3) of the Act, to interoffice transmission facilities on 
an unbundled basis to any requesting telecommunications carrier for the 
provision of a telecommunications service. The requirements in this 
section relating to dark fiber transport are not effective until May 
17, 2000.
    (1) Interoffice transmission facility network elements include:
    (i) Dedicated transport, defined as incumbent LEC transmission 
facilities, including all technically feasible capacity-related 
services including, but not limited to, DS1, DS3 and OCn levels, 
dedicated to a particular customer or carrier, that provide 
telecommunications between wire centers owned by incumbent LECs or 
requesting telecommunications carriers, or between switches owned by 
incumbent LECs or requesting telecommunications carriers;
    (ii) Dark fiber transport, defined as incumbent LEC optical 
transmission facilities without attached multiplexing, aggregation or 
other electronics;
    (iii) Shared transport, defined as transmission facilities shared 
by more than one carrier, including the incumbent LEC, between end 
office switches, between end office switches and tandem switches, and 
between tandem switches, in the incumbent LEC network.
    (2) The incumbent LEC shall:
    (i) Provide a requesting telecommunications carrier exclusive use 
of interoffice transmission facilities dedicated to a particular 
customer or carrier, or use the features, functions, and capabilities 
of interoffice transmission facilities shared by more than one customer 
or carrier.
    (ii) Provide all technically feasible transmission facilities, 
features, functions, and capabilities that the requesting 
telecommunications carrier could use to provide telecommunications 
services;
    (iii) Permit, to the extent technically feasible, a requesting 
telecommunications carrier to connect such interoffice facilities to 
equipment designated by the requesting telecommunications carrier, 
including but not limited to, the requesting telecommunications 
carrier's collocated facilities; and
    (iv) Permit, to the extent technically feasible, a requesting 
telecommunications carrier to obtain the functionality provided by the 
incumbent LEC's digital cross-connect systems in the same manner that 
the incumbent LEC provides such functionality to interexchange 
carriers.
    (e) Signaling networks and call-related databases. An incumbent LEC 
shall provide nondiscriminatory access, in accordance with Sec. 51.311 
and section 251(c)(3) of the Act, to signaling networks, call-related 
databases, and service management systems on an unbundled basis to any 
requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision of a 
telecommunications service.
    (1) Signaling networks. Signaling networks include, but are not 
limited to, signaling links and signaling transfer points.
    (i) When a requesting telecommunications carrier purchases 
unbundled switching capability from an incumbent LEC, the incumbent LEC 
shall provide access from that switch in the same manner in which it 
obtains such access itself.
    (ii) An incumbent LEC shall provide a requesting telecommunications 
carrier with its own switching facilities access to the incumbent LEC's 
signaling network for each of the requesting telecommunications 
carrier's switches. This connection shall be made in the same manner as 
an incumbent LEC connects one of its own switches to a signaling 
transfer point.
    (2) Call-related databases. Call-related databases are defined as 
databases, other than operations support systems, that are used in 
signaling networks for billing and collection, or the transmission, 
routing, or other provision of a telecommunications service.
    (i) For purposes of switch query and database response through a 
signaling network, an incumbent LEC shall provide access to its call-
related databases, including but not limited to, the Calling Name 
Database, 911 Database, E911 Database, Line Information Database, Toll 
Free Calling Database, Advanced Intelligent Network Databases, and 
downstream number portability databases by means of physical access at 
the signaling transfer point linked to the unbundled databases. The 
requirements in this section relating to the Calling Name Database, 911 
Database, and E911 Database are not effective until May 17, 2000.

[[Page 2554]]

    (ii) Notwithstanding the incumbent LEC's general duty to unbundle 
call-related databases, an incumbent LEC shall not be required to 
unbundle the services created in the AIN platform and architecture that 
qualify for proprietary treatment.
    (iii) An incumbent LEC shall allow a requesting telecommunications 
carrier that has purchased an incumbent LEC's local switching 
capability to use the incumbent LEC's service control point element in 
the same manner, and via the same signaling links, as the incumbent LEC 
itself.
    (iv) An incumbent LEC shall allow a requesting telecommunications 
carrier that has deployed its own switch, and has linked that switch to 
an incumbent LEC's signaling system, to gain access to the incumbent 
LEC's service control point in a manner that allows the requesting 
carrier to provide any call-related database-supported services to 
customers served by the requesting telecommunications carrier's switch.
    (v) An incumbent LEC shall provide a requesting telecommunications 
carrier with access to call-related databases in a manner that complies 
with section 222 of the Act.
    (3) Service management systems:
    (i) A service management system is defined as a computer database 
or system not part of the public switched network that, among other 
things:
    (A) Interconnects to the service control point and sends to that 
service control point the information and call processing instructions 
needed for a network switch to process and complete a telephone call; 
and
    (B) Provides telecommunications carriers with the capability of 
entering and storing data regarding the processing and completing of a 
telephone call.
    (ii) An incumbent LEC shall provide a requesting telecommunications 
carrier with the information necessary to enter correctly, or format 
for entry, the information relevant for input into the incumbent LEC's 
service management system.
    (iii) An incumbent LEC shall provide a requesting 
telecommunications carrier the same access to design, create, test, and 
deploy Advanced Intelligent Network-based services at the service 
management system, through a service creation environment, that the 
incumbent LEC provides to itself.
    (iv) An incumbent LEC shall provide a requesting telecommunications 
carrier access to service management systems in a manner that complies 
with section 222 of the Act.
    (f) Operator services and directory assistance. An incumbent LEC 
shall provide nondiscriminatory access in accordance with Sec. 51.311 
and section 251(c)(3) of the Act to operator services and directory 
assistance on an unbundled basis to any requesting telecommunications 
carrier for the provision of a telecommunications service only where 
the incumbent LEC does not provide the requesting telecommunications 
carrier with customized routing or a compatible signaling protocol. 
Operator services are any automatic or live assistance to a consumer to 
arrange for billing or completion, or both, of a telephone call. 
Directory assistance is a service that allows subscribers to retrieve 
telephone numbers of other subscribers.
    (g) Operations support systems. An incumbent LEC shall provide 
nondiscriminatory access in accordance with Sec. 51.311 and section 
251(c)(3) of the Act to operations support systems on an unbundled 
basis to any requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision of 
a telecommunications service. Operations support system functions 
consist of pre-ordering, ordering, provisioning, maintenance and 
repair, and billing functions supported by an incumbent LEC's databases 
and information. An incumbent LEC, as part of its duty to provide 
access to the pre-ordering function, must provide the requesting 
carrier with nondiscriminatory access to the same detailed information 
about the loop that is available to the incumbent LEC. The requirements 
in this section relating to loop qualification information are not 
effective until May 17, 2000.
[FR Doc. 00-1036 Filed 1-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P