[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 30, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16141-16145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-6318]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[CC Docket No. 01-92; FCC 05-42]


Intercarrier Compensation

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communication Commission 
(Commission) denies a petition for declaratory ruling filed by T-Mobile 
USA, Inc., Western Wireless Corporation, Nextel Communications and 
Nextel Partners, which asked the Commission to find that wireless 
termination tariffs are not a proper mechanism for establishing 
reciprocal compensation arrangements for the transport and termination 
of traffic. Because negotiated agreements between carriers are more 
consistent with the pro-competitive process and policies reflected in 
the 1996 Act than unilaterally imposed tariffs, however, the Commission 
also amends its rules to prohibit the use of tariffs in the future to 
impose compensation obligations with respect to non-access Commercial 
Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) traffic. Additionally, to ensure that 
incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) are able to obtain a 
negotiated agreement, the Commission adds new rules to clarify that an 
incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC) may request interconnection from 
a CMRS provider and invoke the negotiation and arbitration procedures 
set forth in section 252 of the Communications Act and that during the 
period of negotiation and arbitration, the parties will be entitled to 
compensation in accordance with the interim rate provisions set forth 
in Sec.  51.715 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 51.715. These rules 
will ensure that both incumbent and competitive carriers can obtain 
compensation terms consistent with the Act's standards through 
negotiated or arbitrated agreements.

DATES: Effective April 29, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria Goldberg, Pricing Policy 
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 202-418-7353, or Peter 
Trachtenberg, Spectrum and Competition Policy Division, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, 202-418-7369.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Declaratory Ruling and Report and Order in CC Docket 01-92, adopted 
February 17, 2005, and released February 24, 2005. The full text of 
this document may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, 
SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160. It 
is also available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov.

Synopsis of the Declaratory Ruling and Report and Order

    Background: On September 6, 2002, T-Mobile USA, Inc., Western 
Wireless Corporation, Nextel Communications and Nextel Partners jointly 
filed a petition for declaratory ruling asking the Commission to affirm 
that wireless termination tariffs are inconsistent with federal law 
governing reciprocal compensation arrangements for the transport and 
termination of traffic and, therefore, not a proper mechanism for 
establishing such arrangements. In a public notice published in the 
Federal Register, 67 FR 64120-01, October 17, 2002, the Commission 
sought comment on the issues raised in the T-Mobile Petition. Further, 
the Commission determined that the T-Mobile Petition raised issues 
under consideration in an ongoing rulemaking proceeding, CC Docket 01-
92, Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime. In this 
proceeding, the Commission had released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(Intercarrier Compensation NPRM), 66 FR 28410, May 23, 2001, which 
initiated a comprehensive review of interconnection compensation issues 
and raised questions concerning, among other things, the appropriate 
regulatory framework to govern interconnection, including compensation 
arrangements, between LECs and CMRS providers. The Commission therefore 
incorporated the T-Mobile Petition and responsive comments into the 
rulemaking record.
    Discussion: Because the Act and the existing rules do not preclude 
tariffed compensation arrangements, and because wireless termination 
tariffs that apply only in the absence of an interconnection agreement 
are not inconsistent with the compensation standards of sections 251 
and 252 of the Act or of Sec.  20.11 of the Commission's rules, and 
because the tariffs do not prevent a competitive carrier from obtaining 
a compensation agreement through the negotiation and arbitration 
procedures of section 252, we find that incumbent LECs were not 
prohibited under federal law from filing such tariffs. Going forward, 
however, we amend our rules to make clear our preference for 
contractual arrangements by prohibiting LECs from imposing compensation 
obligations for non-access CMRS traffic pursuant to tariff. In 
addition, we amend our rules to clarify that an incumbent LEC may 
request interconnection from a CMRS provider and invoke the negotiation 
and arbitration procedures set forth in section 252 of the Act.
    We find that negotiated agreements between carriers are more 
consistent with the pro-competitive process and policies reflected in 
the 1996 Act. Accordingly, we amend Sec.  20.11 of the Commission's 
rules to prohibit LECs from imposing compensation obligations for non-
access traffic pursuant to tariff. Therefore, any existing wireless 
termination tariffs shall no longer apply upon the effective date of 
these amendments to our rules. After that date, in the absence of a 
request for an interconnection agreement, no compensation will be owed 
for termination of non-access traffic. We take this action pursuant to 
our plenary authority under sections 201 and 332 of the Act.
    In light of our decision to prohibit the use of tariffs to impose 
termination charges on non-access traffic, we find it necessary to 
ensure that LECs have the ability to compel negotiations and 
arbitrations, as CMRS providers may do today. Accordingly, we amend 
Sec.  20.11

[[Page 16142]]

of our rules to clarify that an incumbent LEC may request 
interconnection from a CMRS provider and invoke the negotiation and 
arbitration procedures set forth in section 252 of the Act. A CMRS 
provider receiving such a request must negotiate in good faith and 
must, if requested, submit to arbitration by the state commission. In 
recognition that the establishment of interconnection arrangements may 
take more than 160 days, we also establish interim compensation 
requirements under Sec.  20.11 of the Commission's rules consistent 
with those already provided in Sec.  51.715 of the Commission's rules.

Procedural Matters

Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Pub. L. 104-13. 
In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified 
``information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief 
Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated in the Intercarrier Compensation NPRM in CC Docket No. 01-
92. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in 
the Intercarrier Compensation NPRM, including comment on the issues 
raised in the IRFA. Relevant comments received are discussed below. 
This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to 
the RFA. To the extent that any statement in this FRFA is perceived as 
creating ambiguity with respect to Commission rules or statements made 
in the sections of the order preceding the FRFA, the rules and 
statements set forth in those preceding sections are controlling.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules

    In the Intercarrier Compensation NPRM, the Commission acknowledged 
a number of problems with the current intercarrier compensation regimes 
(access charges and reciprocal compensation) and discussed a number of 
areas where a new approach might be adopted. Among other issues, the 
Commission asked commenters to address the appropriate regulatory 
framework governing interconnection, including compensation 
arrangements, between LECs and CMRS providers. Subsequently, the 
Commission received a petition for declaratory ruling filed by CMRS 
providers (T-Mobile Petition) asking the Commission to find that state 
wireless termination tariffs are not the proper mechanism for 
establishing reciprocal compensation arrangements between incumbent 
LECs and CMRS providers. The T-Mobile Petition was incorporated into 
the Commission's intercarrier compensation rulemaking proceeding, along 
with the comments, replies, and ex partes filed in response to the 
petition.
    In this Declaratory Ruling and Report and Order (Order), the 
Commission denies the T-Mobile Petition because neither the Act nor the 
existing rules preclude an incumbent LEC's use of tariffed compensation 
arrangements in the absence of an interconnection agreement or a 
competitive carrier's request to enter into one. On a prospective 
basis, however, the Commission amends its rules to prohibit the use of 
tariffs to impose compensation obligations with respect to non-access 
CMRS traffic and to clarify that an incumbent LEC may request 
interconnection from a CMRS provider and invoke the negotiation and 
arbitration procedures set forth in section 252 of the Act, and that 
during the period of negotiation and arbitration, the parties will be 
entitled to compensation in accordance with the interim rate provisions 
set forth in Sec.  51.715 of the Commission's rules. By clarifying 
these interconnection and compensation obligations, the Commission will 
resolve a significant carrier dispute pending in the marketplace that 
has provoked a substantial and increasing amount of litigation, and 
will facilitate the exchange of traffic between wireline LECs and CMRS 
providers and encourage the establishment of interconnection and 
compensation terms through the negotiation and arbitration processes 
contemplated by the 1996 Act.

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

    In the IRFA, the Commission noted the numerous problems that had 
developed under the existing rules governing intercarrier compensation, 
and it sought comment on whether proposed new approaches would 
encourage efficient use of, and investment in the telecommunications 
network, and whether the transition would be administratively feasible. 
In response to the Intercarrier Compensation NPRM, the Commission 
received 75 comments, 62 replies, and numerous ex parte submissions. In 
addition, a number of additional comments, replies, and ex partes were 
submitted in this proceeding in connection with the T-Mobile petition. 
Those comments expressly addressed to the IRFA raised concerns 
regarding the more comprehensive reform proposals discussed in the 
Intercarrier Compensation NPRM rather than the more narrow LEC-CMRS 
issues addressed in this Order.
    In connection with the issues we address here, several parties 
commenting on the T-Mobile Petition expressed concern that striking 
down tariffs would impose a burden on rural incumbent LECs. They argued 
that LECs lacked the ability under the law to obtain a compensation 
agreement with CMRS providers without the inducement to negotiate 
provided by tariffs, and further asserted that small carriers would be 
adversely impacted by any obligation to terminate CMRS traffic without 
compensation. Conversely, some carriers expressed a concern that the 
negotiation and arbitration process was an inefficient method of 
establishing a compensation arrangement between two carriers where the 
traffic volume between them was small, and argued that non-negotiated 
arrangements were therefore a better method of imposing compensation 
obligations. We address these issues in section E of the FRFA.

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

    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 rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term 
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one that: (1) Is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA).
    In this section, we further describe and estimate the number of 
small entity licensees and regulatees that may also be indirectly 
affected by rules adopted pursuant to this Order. The most reliable 
source of information regarding the total numbers of certain common 
carrier and related providers

[[Page 16143]]

nationwide, as well as the number of commercial wireless entities, 
appears to be the data that the Commission publishes in its Trends in 
Telephone Service report. The SBA has developed small business size 
standards for wireline and wireless small businesses within the three 
commercial census categories of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, 
Paging, and Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications. Under these 
categories, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Below, using the above size standards and others, we discuss the total 
estimated numbers of small businesses that might be affected by our 
actions.
    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.'' 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. We have therefore included small incumbent LECs 
in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no 
effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA 
contexts.
    Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which 
consists of all such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. 
According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 2,225 firms in 
this category, total, that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 
2,201 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 
24 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this 
size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
    Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable 
to local exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under 
SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
According to Commission data, 1,310 carriers reported that they were 
incumbent local exchange service providers. Of these 1,310 carriers, an 
estimated 1,025 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 285 have more than 
1,500 employees. In addition, according to Commission data, 563 
companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of either 
competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange 
carrier services. Of these 563 companies, an estimated 472 have 1,500 
or fewer employees and 91 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 
37 carriers reported that they were ``Other Local Exchange Carriers.'' 
Of the 37 ``Other Local Exchange Carriers,'' an estimated 36 have 1,500 
or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, 
the Commission estimates that most providers of local exchange service, 
competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, and 
``Other Local Exchange Carriers'' are small entities that may be 
affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
    Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). We have included small 
incumbent local exchange carriers 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 operations.'' The SBA's Office of 
Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent local 
exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because 
any such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. We therefore include 
small incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, although 
we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses 
and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
    Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard 
for small businesses specifically applicable to incumbent local 
exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules 
is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, 
such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According 
to Commission data, 1,337 carriers reported that they were engaged in 
the provision of local exchange services. Of these 1,337 carriers, an 
estimated 1,032 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 305 have more than 
1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most 
providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that 
may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
    Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Competitive Access 
Providers (CAPs), and ``Other Local Exchange Carriers.'' Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small 
businesses specifically applicable to providers of competitive exchange 
services or to competitive access providers or to ``Other Local 
Exchange Carriers,'' all of which are discrete categories under which 
TRS data are collected. The closest applicable size standard under SBA 
rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
According to Commission data, 609 companies reported that they were 
engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services 
or competitive local exchange carrier services. Of these 609 companies, 
an estimated 458 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 151 have more than 
1,500 employees. In addition, 35 carriers reported that they were 
``Other Local Service Providers.'' Of the 35 ``Other Local Service 
Providers,'' an estimated 34 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has 
more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that 
most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive 
access providers, and ``Other Local Exchange Carriers'' are small 
entities that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
    Wireless Service Providers. The SBA has developed a small business 
size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic census 
categories of ``Paging'' and ``Cellular and Other Wireless 
Telecommunications.'' Under both SBA categories, a wireless business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of 
Paging, Census Bureau data for 1997 show that there were 1,320 firms in 
this category, total, that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 
1,303 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 
17 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this 
category and associated small business size standard, the great 
majority of firms can be considered small. For the census category 
Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 
1997 show that there were 977 firms in this category, total, that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 965 firms had employment 
of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 12 firms had employment of 
1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this second category and size 
standard, the great majority of firms can, again, be considered small.
    Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal 
communications services, and

[[Page 16144]]

specialized mobile radio telephony carriers. The SBA has developed a 
small business size standard for ``Cellular and Other Wireless 
Telecommunications'' services. Under that SBA small business size 
standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
According to the most recent Trends in Telephone Service data, 447 
carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless 
telephony. We have estimated that 245 of these are small under the SBA 
small business size standard.
    Cellular Licensees. The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for wireless firms within the broad economic census category 
``Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications.'' Under this SBA 
category, a wireless business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. For the census category Cellular and Other Wireless 
Telecommunications firms, Census Bureau data for 1997 show that there 
were 977 firms in this category, total, that operated for the entire 
year. Of this total, 965 firms had employment of 999 or fewer 
employees, and an additional 12 firms had employment of 1,000 employees 
or more. Thus, under this category and size standard, the great 
majority of firms can be considered small. According to the most recent 
Trends in Telephone Service data, 447 carriers reported that they were 
engaged in the provision of cellular service, personal communications 
service, or specialized mobile radio telephony services, which are 
placed together in the data. We have estimated that 245 of these are 
small, under the SBA small business size standard.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Record Keeping and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    In this Order, the Commission adopts new rules that prohibit 
incumbent LECs from imposing non-access compensation obligations 
pursuant to tariff, and permit LECs to compel interconnection and 
arbitration with CMRS providers. Under the new rules, CMRS providers 
and LECs, including small entities, must engage in interconnection 
agreement negotiations and, if requested, arbitrations in order to 
impose compensation obligations for non-access traffic. The record 
suggests that many incumbent LECs and CMRS providers, including many 
small and rural carriers, already participate in interconnection 
negotiations and the state arbitration process under the current rules. 
For these carriers, our new rules will not result in any additional 
compliance requirements. For LECs that have imposed compensation 
obligations for non-access traffic pursuant to state tariffs, however, 
the amended rules require that these LECs, including small entities, 
participate in interconnection negotiations and, if requested, the 
state arbitration process in order to impose compensation obligations. 
Conversely, the new rules obligate CMRS providers, including small 
entities, to participate in a negotiation and arbitration process upon 
a request by incumbent LECs.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives 
that it has considered in developing its 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 
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.''
    The Commission denies a petition for declaratory ruling filed by 
CMRS providers asking the Commission to find that state wireless 
termination tariffs are not the proper mechanism for establishing 
reciprocal compensation arrangements between LECs and CMRS providers. 
The Commission considered and rejected a finding that state wireless 
termination tariffs are not the proper mechanism for establishing 
reciprocal compensation arrangements between LECs and CMRS providers 
because the current rules do not explicitly preclude such arrangements 
and these tariffs ensure compensation where the rights of incumbent 
LECs to compel negotiations with CMRS providers are unclear. On a 
prospective basis, however, the Commission amends its rule to prohibit 
the use of tariffs to impose compensation obligations with respect to 
non-access CMRS traffic and to clarify that an incumbent LEC may 
request interconnection from a CMRS provider and invoke the negotiation 
and arbitration procedures set forth in section 252 of the Act.
    As a general matter, our actions in this Order should benefit all 
interconnected LECs and CMRS providers, including small entities, by 
facilitating the exchange of traffic and providing greater regulatory 
certainty and reduced litigation costs. Further, we directly address 
the concern of small incumbent LECs that they would be unable to obtain 
a compensation arrangement without tariffs by providing them with a new 
right to initiate a section 252 process through which they can obtain a 
reciprocal compensation arrangement with any CMRS provider.
    The Commission considered and rejected the possibility of 
permitting wireless termination tariffs on a prospective basis. 
Although establishing contractual arrangements may impose burdens on 
CMRS providers and LECs, including some small entities, that do not 
have these arrangements in place, we find that our approach in the 
Order best balances the needs of incumbent LECs to obtain terminating 
compensation for wireless traffic and the pro-competitive process and 
policies reflected in the 1996 Act. We also note that, during this 
proceeding, both CMRS providers and rural incumbent LECs have 
repeatedly emphasized their willingness to engage in a negotiation and 
arbitration process to establish compensation terms. In the Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted by the Commission on February 10, 
2005, we seek further comment on ways to reduce the burdens of such a 
process.

F. Report to Congress

    The Commission will send a copy of the Declaratory Ruling and 
Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to 
Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the 
Commission will send a copy of the Declaratory Ruling and Report and 
Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration. In addition, the Declaratory Ruling and 
Report and Order, including this FRFA--or summaries thereof--will be 
published in the Federal Register.

Ordering Clauses

    Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-5, 7, 10, 201-05, 
207-09, 214, 218-20, 225-27, 251-54, 256, 271, 303, 332, 403, 405, 502 
and 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-
55, 157, 160, 201-05, 207-09, 214, 218-20, 225-27, 251-54, 256, 271, 
303, 332, 403, 405, 502, and 503, and Sec. Sec.  1.1, 1.421 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.421, this Declaratory Ruling and 
Report and Order in CC Docket No. 01-92 is adopted, and that part 20 of 
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Part 20, is amended as set forth below.
    The rule revisions adopted in this Declaratory Ruling and Report 
and Order shall become effective April 29, 2005.

[[Page 16145]]

    The Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed by T-Mobile USA, Inc., 
Western Wireless Corporation, Nextel Communications and Nextel Partners 
is denied as set forth herein.
    The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Declaratory 
Ruling and Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20

    Communications common carriers, Commercial mobile radio services, 
Interconnection, Intercarrier compensation.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rule

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications 
Commission amends 47 CFR part 20 as follows:

PART 20--COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 20 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 160, 201, 251-254, 303, and 332 unless 
otherwise noted.



0
2. Section 20.11 is amended by adding new paragraphs (d) and (e) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  20.11  Interconnection to facilities of local exchange carriers.

* * * * *
    (d) Local exchange carriers may not impose compensation obligations 
for traffic not subject to access charges upon commercial mobile radio 
service providers pursuant to tariffs.
    (e) An incumbent local exchange carrier may request interconnection 
from a commercial mobile radio service provider and invoke the 
negotiation and arbitration procedures contained in section 252 of the 
Act. A commercial mobile radio service provider receiving a request for 
interconnection must negotiate in good faith and must, if requested, 
submit to arbitration by the state commission. Once a request for 
interconnection is made, the interim transport and termination pricing 
described in Sec.  51.715 of this chapter shall apply.

[FR Doc. 05-6318 Filed 3-29-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P