[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 6, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9058-9061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-2916]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 51

[CC Docket No. 98-147; CC Docket No. 96-98; FCC 01-26]


Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced 
Telecommunications Capability and Implementation of the Local 
Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document clarifies the Commission's rules with regard to 
an incumbent local exchange carrier's (LEC) obligation to provide line 
sharing in those instances in which the loop is serviced by a remote 
terminal, and seeks

[[Page 9059]]

comment in a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the technical and 
economic issues associated with implementing this requirement.

DATES: Comments are due February 27, 2001 and reply comments are due 
March 13, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Rosenworcel, Attorney Advisor, 
Policy and Program Planning Division, Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 418-
1580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Third 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 98-147, and the 
Commission's Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket 
No. 96-98, released January 19, 2001 and adopted January 19, 2001. The 
complete text of this document is available for inspection and copying 
during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, 
Courtyard Level, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC, and also may be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Services (ITS, Inc.), CY--B400, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC. It is also available on the Commission's website at 
http://www.fcc.gov.

Synopsis of Reconsideration Order

    1. The Commission adopts a Third Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking in the Advanced Services proceeding, CC Docket No. 98-147, 
and a Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Local 
Competition proceeding, CC Docket No. 96-98. The Commission requests 
comment on issues that have been raised with respect to line sharing 
where an incumbent LEC has deployed fiber in the loop. The Commission 
clarifies that the requirement to provide line sharing applies to the 
entire loop, even where the incumbent LEC has deployed fiber in the 
loop, e.g., where the loop is served by a remote terminal.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    4. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),\1\ the 
Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small 
entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Third Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 98-147 and Sixth Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 96-98 (Third Further Notice). 
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 Third Further Notice, as described in paragraph 67. 
The Commission will send a copy of the Third Further Notice, including 
this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.\2\ In addition, the Third Further Notice and IRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 5 U.S.C. 603.
    \2\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
    \3\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. This Third Further Notice continues our efforts to promote 
innovation, investment, and competition in the market for advanced 
services. We invite comment on whether we should amend our line sharing 
or unbundled network element rules to ensure that competitive local 
exchange carriers (LECs) are able to gain access to the high frequency 
portion of the loop for the provision of advanced services where an 
incumbent LEC has deployed fiber in the loop on which it is providing 
voice service. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the 
technical and economic feasibility of different types of line sharing 
arrangements where an incumbent LEC has deployed fiber in the loop.
    6. The Third Further Notice is adopted pursuant to sections 1-4, 
201, 202, 251-254, 256, 271, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201, 202, 251-254, 256, 271, and 
303(r).

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities Affected 
by This Third Further Notice

    7. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposals in this Third Further NPRM, if adopted.\4\ In 
the IRFA to the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we adopted the 
analysis and definitions set forth in determining the small entities 
affected by this Third Further Notice for purposes of this IRFA. The 
RFA generally defines ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as 
the term ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' \5\ In addition, the term ``small 
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' 
under the Small Business Act, unless the Commission has developed one 
or more definitions that are appropriate to its activities.\6\ 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).\7\ We describe and estimate below 
the number of small telephone companies that may be affected by the 
proposals in the Third Further Notice, if adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
    \5\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
    \6\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition 
of ``small business concern'' in 5 U.S.C. 632).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 632; see, e.g., Brown Transport Truckload, Inc. v. 
Southern Wipers, Inc., 176 B.R. 82 (N.D. Ga. 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. The most reliable source of information regarding the total 
numbers of common carrier and related providers nationwide, as well as 
the numbers of commercial wireless entities, appears to be data the 
Commission publishes annually in its Carrier Locator report, derived 
from filings made in connection with the Telecommunications Relay 
Service (TRS).\8\ According to data in the most recent report, there 
are 4,144 interstate carriers.\9\ These carriers include, inter alia, 
LECs, wireline carriers and service providers, interexchange carriers, 
competitive access providers, operator services providers, pay 
telephone operators, providers of telephone toll service, providers of 
telephone exchange service, and resellers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ FCC, Carrier Locator: Interstate Service Providers, Figure 1 
(Jan. 2000) (Carrier Locator).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. The SBA has defined establishments engaged in providing 
``Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone'' to be small 
businesses when they have no more than 1,500 employees.\10\ We discuss 
below the total estimated number of telephone companies and small 
businesses in this category and then attempt to refine further those 
estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 13 CFR 121.201, SIC Codes 4812 and 4813. See Executive 
Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Standard 
Industrial Classification Manual (1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA 
analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the RFA is one 
that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard 
(e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer 
employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' \11\ 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.\12\ We have therefore 
included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we

[[Page 9060]]

emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on FCC analyses and 
determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3)
    \12\ Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, 
SBA, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (filed May 27, 1999) (SBA 
May 27, 1999 Letter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Total number of telephone companies affected. 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.\13\ These firms include a variety of different categories of 
carriers, including LECs, interexchange carriers, competitive access 
providers, cellular carriers, mobile service carriers, operator service 
providers, pay telephone operators, PCS providers, covered SMR 
providers, and resellers. It seems certain that some of those 4,144 
telephone service firms may not qualify as small entities or small 
incumbent LECs because they are not ``independently owned and 
operated.'' \14\ For example, a PCS provider that is affiliated with an 
interexchange carrier having more the 1,500 employees would not meet 
the definition of a small business. It seems reasonable to conclude, 
therefore, that fewer than 4,144 telephone service firms are small 
entity telephone service firms or small incumbent LECs that may be 
affected by the decisions and rules proposed in this Third Further 
Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 
1992 Census of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities: 
Establishment and Firm Size 1-123 (1995) (1992 Census).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Wireline carriers and service providers. SBA has developed a 
definition of small entities for telephone communications companies 
other than radiotelephone companies. The Census Bureau reports that, 
there were 2,321 such telephone companies in operation for at least one 
year at the end of 1992.\15\ According to SBA's definition, a small 
business telephone company other than a radiotelephone company is one 
employing no more than 1,500 persons.\16\ All but 26 of the 2,231 non-
radiotelephone 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 2,205 
non-radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small entities or 
small incumbent LECs. Although it seems certain that some of these 
carriers are not independently owned and operated, we are 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 SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there 
are fewer than 2,205 small entity telephone communications companies 
other than radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the 
decisions and rules proposed in the Third Further Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 1992 Census at Firm Size 1-123.
    \16\ 13 CFR 121.201, SIC Code 4813
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Local exchange carriers. The Commission has not developed a 
special size definition of small LECs or competitive LECs. The closest 
applicable definition for these types of carriers under SBA rules is, 
again, that used for telephone communications companies other than 
radiotelephone (wireless) companies.\17\ The most reliable source of 
information regarding the number of these carriers nationwide of which 
we are aware appears to be the data that we collect annually in 
connection with the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS).\18\ 
According to our most recent data, there are 1,348 incumbent LECs, 212 
competitive LECs,\19\ and 442 resellers.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id. at SIC Code 4813.
    \18\ See 47 CFR 64.601 et seq.; Carrier Locator at Fig. 1.
    \19\ The total for competitive LECs includes both competitive 
LECs and competitive access providers.
    \20\ Carrier Locator at Fig. 1. The total for resellers includes 
both toll resellers and local resellers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not 
independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, we 
are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number 
of these carriers that would qualify as small business concerns under 
SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are no more than 
1,348 small entity incumbent LECs, 212 competitive LECs, and 442 
resellers that may be affected by the proposals in this Third Further 
Notice.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ This TRS category also includes competitive access 
providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Projected Reporting, Record Keeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    15. In the Third Further Notice in CC Docket No. 98-147 and Sixth 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 96-98, we invite 
comment on whether we should amend our line sharing or unbundled 
network element rules to ensure that competitive LECs are able to gain 
access to the high frequency portion of the loop for the provision of 
advanced services where an incumbent LEC has deployed fiber in the loop 
on which it is providing voice service. Specifically, we seek comment 
on the ways in which competitive LECs can access the high frequency 
portion of the loop for line sharing where an incumbent LEC has 
deployed fiber in the loop. We also seek comment on the technical 
feasibility and practical considerations associated with different 
methods of providing such access. At a minimum, these methods include 
collocation of a competitor's digital subscriber line access 
multiplexer (DSLAM) at the remote terminal, or alternatively, the use 
of ``plug in'' line cards in remote terminal equipment that perform a 
function similar to that of a traditional DSLAM. With regard to the 
feeder segment of the loop, there are alternatives for transmitting a 
competitor's data traffic between the remote terminal and the central 
office, such as the use of dark fiber or other feeder subloop 
offerings. Therefore, we also seek comment on all possible alternatives 
and technical feasibility issues associated with transmission of a 
competitive LEC's bit stream between the remote terminal and the 
central office.
    16. If the Commission does not amend its rules, no additional 
compliance requirements are anticipated from further consideration of 
these issues. However, the Commission may amend or clarify its line 
sharing or unbundled network element rules to impose further 
obligations upon incumbent LECs to ensure competitive LEC access to the 
high frequency portion of the loop for the provision of advanced 
services. Depending upon the specific nature of any new obligations, 
small entities, including small incumbent LECs, may be subject to 
additional reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements. 
If further requirements are imposed, compliance with further requests 
for unbundled network elements 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

    17. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, 
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) 
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; 
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an 
exemption from

[[Page 9061]]

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. In the Third Further Notice, we seek to develop a record 
sufficient to adequately address issues related to developing long-term 
policies for ensuring that competitive carriers have access to 
unbundled network elements as changes are made to traditional telephone 
networks. In addressing these issues, we seek to ensure that competing 
providers, including small entity carriers, obtain access to inputs 
necessary to the provision voice and advanced telecommunications 
services. We believe that the issues on which we invite comment could 
impose minimal burdens on small entities, including both 
telecommunications carriers that request unbundled network elements and 
the incumbent LECs that, under section 251 of the Communications Act, 
must provide unbundled network elements to requesting carriers. As 
indicated above, both groups of carriers include entities that, for 
purposes of this IRFA, are classified as small entities. In framing the 
issues in this Third Further Notice, we have sought to develop a record 
on the potential impact our proposed rules could have upon small 
entities. We thus ask that commenters propose measures to avoid 
significant economic impact on small business entities.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 51

    Communications common carriers, Telecommunications, 
Interconnection.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-2916 Filed 2-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U