WPCZ 2 BP Courier 10cpi3|w le)CG Times Bold (Scalable)PCG Times (Scalable)T1tional)HPLAIIAD.PRSx  @HQ#0^X@2<< ZLHX3|j HP LaserJet IIISi LPT1tional)HPLAIIAD.PRSC\  P6QHQ#0^Pxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\4  pG;6jC:,<̃Xj9 xOG;XddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxHhdLdddddd8@d<@d<DDppdD"Sh5^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoYi{xxxl888SS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS>A.SSxSSJJSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxSxSxSrSrSrS{SiSiSiSiSxSxSxSxSxS{S{SS.SSSSz]SSuSiSiSk2g/a{S{SxSxSxoSoSZ?YSYSiSiSiS{S{S{S{SxxSkI8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8JDDSSSSSS;SSSS;88VVS++SSffSSxSc]]8VS;"xxSxWxxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfi]f]oJiAlJ{SxJ8.uJo]]{JoSxJxf`SfSSiJxJofx]fffxi{8SxxxfJffff88SSSSx{SSSxxxf8`SJ82I?5I)}:"Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYddddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdddddddd~d~d~d~ddddddddd8ddddoddd~d~d<|8tddddddlLkdkd~d~d~ddddddXCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"Ȑdhd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUvŐdȐYYCCCCŐz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC"Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲdxN`xoȐCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddddddddCddddddddo8dddddϐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddxoddddddodddddddddood8doddrddoddN8ooddddoNododdddooooȐdYCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"Ȑdsd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ`ȐȐȮzȐUvŐdȐddCCCCŐzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC2M{?+D0H"Sh5^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȰdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYddddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdddddxdxdxdxddddddddd8ddddddddododp8p8xddddxdxddLddddodododddddodpLCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddzzdddkddCddF"Ȑddd尰dCCȐzȰxCdzdodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUvŐdȐYYCCCCzzzozoYzNoYdYC8YooYdYzzdzddoYoYzzozzzzzCdoozYzzzzCCddddzdddooozCsdYC"Sh5^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx:J2J2H2H2YHC2C26&6262?2?2?2J2J2J2J2^HH2@,!22!!!WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHHH222!,))22X222YY2#2222Y#!!442Ydd22==Ld2d2H2;SS88Y!42^x#"ddddHHddd2Hdd4HHYYddd2YYddd Y2!!dddddH=dYHHHHHHHHHHx!d2H282YdHdC2!2H,29HNAddHHHHHHHHHHddddd.dHHHHdddddddddddddddddddHHddddddSC=NdHddd+;HHHHddddddHHH2HHdHHdddHHH,HHHH,HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!HHH!HHH!HHH!HHHHHHHHHHHHHH=?8=8C,?'A,J2H,!F,C8[8J,C2H,H=92=22?,H,C=H8N===H?J!2HHH=,====!!2222HJ222HHH=!92,!d2yZMmR\W`"Sh5^18PSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Sddoxd`xx8Jo]oxdxdS]xdd]]888SS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSS??.SJoJJ?JSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.dSdSdSdSdSooJdJdJdJdJ8.8.8.8.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JdSxSxSxS]JxSdSdSdSdSoSoSoSxSdSdSdSdSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSS/SSSSSSSoS]S]S]/]/doSoSxSxSodSdSS?SSSS]S]S]SxSxSxSxSo]S]?8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8SMMSSSSSS;SSSS;88SSS..SSffSSxSYSS8SS;"xxSxSxxS哓S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SfS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxfff]f]oJfA]JxSxJ8.oJo]]oJoSxJxffSfSS]J]Joff]fffffx8Sx]]fJffff88SSSSfxSSS]]]f8`SJ8"Sh5^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88SxoxxodAPoxdx]oxxxxo888SS8S]J]J;S].8].]S]]JA8]SxSSJSSSSSSSSS8SSSSSSSS].xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSd]xSxSxSxSxSxSx]oSoSoSoSSSSSS]]S.S]SS_SS]oSoSoAo.x]x]SS{xSxS]A]S]SoSoSoSx]x]x]x]xxSoJ8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8SGGSSSSSS;SSSS;88``S++SSffSSxSi]]8`S;"xxSx`xxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xrxxxxxxxxxxPxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxSxxxxSxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfo]f]oJoAoJJxJA.Jo]]xJoSJxffSfSSoJxJofx]fffxoASxxfJffff88SSSSxSSSxxxf8fSJ8x/c81,c P7P8wC;,[AXw P7XP7zC;,ZXz_ p^7X&6uC;,-/Xu&_ x$&7XXV"G($,hG P7hPH<!, ,< P7,P&z-b81,-b&_ x$&7Xy.f81,f_ p^72Z X2 X   ) Y2 Q #XP\  P6Q[AXP#Federal Communications Commission`*(#DA 972243 ă  yxdddy )  ( X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:4 xincumbents, U S WEST was not under a state commission order to provide access to OSS.@#>  yO'ԍ U S WEST petition at 3.@ In  X'4 xthe first place, U S WEST presents no evidence, other than reference to one ex parte letter filed  x"by NYNEX in CC Docket No. 9698, that all other, or even most other incumbent LECs, were  xunder a state commission mandate to provide access to OSS functions prior to the release of the  X4 x Local Competition Order.Q$ {O1 'ԍ See U S WEST petition at 34, n.6.Q While it is clear that at least two incumbent LECs were under state  X4 x"commission orders to provide access to some OSS functions,%$.  {O"' x ԍ See generally Local Competition Order at 1576415765, para. 519 (describing requirements of New York and  x Georgia state commission orders). We note, however, that even carriers that may have been required by state  x commissions to provide access to certain OSS functions were not under orders identical to the requirements of the  {O%'1996 Act. Id. U S WEST fails to explain why  xits circumstances are different from other incumbent LECs that were not under a state"%,-(-(ZZ("  X4commission mandate to develop electronic interfaces for OSS functions.&Z yOy' x ԍ ICG comments at 45. ICG further argues that the ability of other similarly situated incumbents to provide  xo access to OSS functions should be construed by the Commission as evidence of U S WEST's ability to provide such  {O 'access. Id. (citing Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15606, para. 204; 47 C.F.R.  51.305(c)(d)).  X4 " 12. We are also not persuaded by U S WEST that it could not comply with the  xCommission's rules implementing the 1996 Act because its own view of its OSS requirements  X4 xlwas not as broad as that adopted by the Commission. As clarified by the Second Order on  X4 xReconsideration, U S WEST was required to provide information concerning access to OSS  xfunctions to requesting carriers by January 1, 1997. U S WEST has failed to demonstrate that  xits views regarding the scope of the underlying OSS functions prevented it from making the required disclosure of information by January 1, 1997.  X 4 " 13. Nor are we persuaded by U S WEST's argument that it needs a waiver of the  x/deadline because it was obligated to use its personnel to comply with simultaneous Commission  xrequirements, such as access to OSS functions, long term number portability and the provision  X 4 x"of unbundled network elements.'  {Ot' x ԍ See TRA comments at 7 ("given that [U S WEST's] personnel and resources dwarf the capabilities of even its largest competitors" TRA is not "altogether sympathetic" to this argument). All incumbent LECs are under such legal requirements, and  xthere are many incumbent LECs with fewer internal resources than U S WEST that are working  xto meet these requirements. In addition, U S WEST has presented no evidence to show that it  X4 xVcould not augment its work force through additional hiring, or by contracting with third parties.E(ZD {O' x ԍ See TRA comments at 3; ICG comments at 3 (contending that U S WEST has not shown that it could not have  x complied with the Commission's order if it dedicated sufficient resources toward fulfilling its obligations pursuant to section 251). E  x+Further, U S WEST presents little evidence as to why it could not obtain existing thirdparty  xsoftware or systems, as U S WEST acknowledges other incumbent LECs have done, to provide  XO4requesting carriers with access to OSS functions.)"Of  yOf' x ԍ U S WEST itself states that commercially available products are being developed for use by other Bell  {O.' xM operating companies (BOCs). U S WEST petition, Att. at para. 24. See also ICG comments at n.4 (U S WEST  x^ provides no evidence of its efforts to find thirdparty solutions or why thirdparty solutions used by other BOCs could not be used).  X!4 " 14. We are also not persuaded by U S WEST's assertion that its obligation to negotiate  xVwith new entrants impedes its efforts to provide access to OSS functions. U S WEST presents  xno evidence that the necessity of dealing with multiple requesting carriers prevented it from  x'providing interface design specifications to these carriers, or from engaging in good faith  xnegotiations with these carriers to reach reasonable implementation schedules for  xcnondiscriminatory access to OSS functions. We similarly reject U S WEST's argument that the  xlack of product definitions for unbundled network elements made it impossible to provide OSS  xEsupport for those items, because U S WEST fails to explain why a lack of product definition"P ),-(-(ZZ"  X4 xtwould prevent it from complying with the requirements of the Second Order on Reconsideration.  xVTo the extent that U S WEST needs to make modifications to its OSS to accommodate specific  xrequests from telecommunications carriers, U S WEST must respond to such requests through  X4good faith negotiation and must provide access pursuant to an implementation schedule.r* {O6'ԍ See Second Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd at 19744, para. 11.r  X4 "15. The Commission held, in the Local Competition Order and in the Second Order on  Xz4 x<Reconsideration, that, in order for requesting carriers to obtain the competitive opportunities in  xthe local market that Congress envisioned, it is critical for them to obtain access to the OSS  x&functions of incumbent LECs. Incumbent LECs seeking a waiver must demonstrate that reducing  xtheir obligation to provide access to OSS functions, or allowing them to delay provision of such  x@access best serves the public interest. None of the arguments presented by U S WEST convinces  xcus that enforcing the OSS requirements would impose an undue hardship on U S WEST, or that granting a waiver would better serve the public interest than the application of our general rule.  X 4 "16. U S WEST also asks the Commission to declare that its implementation schedule is  X 4 xreasonable and that it is acting in good faith.W+ Z yO'ԍ U S WEST petition at 8; U S WEST reply at 35.W AT&T and MCI respond that U S WEST is  xIengaging in unreasonable delay; they ask the Commission to require U S WEST to comply with  x its own proposed implementation schedule and to file reports on its progress towards  ximplementing interfaces for access to OSS functions. We find that issues regarding the  xreasonableness of U S WEST's proposed implementation schedule and whether U S WEST is  X:4 xlcomplying with that schedule are beyond the scope of this proceeding.#,: yO' x ԍ We note that implementation schedules are specific to individual interconnection agreements, and are arrived  {O'at through negotiation between carriers or arbitration by a state commission. See 47 U.S.C. 252(c)(3).# With respect to the  x<request of some parties that U S WEST should be required to file periodic progress reports, we  xdo not find special circumstances that would lead us to treat U S WEST differently from other  xincumbent LECs. The issue of whether to require all incumbent LECs to file periodic reports  x<on their provisioning of access to OSS functions is before the Commission in its reconsideration  X4of the Local Competition Order.E-$D {O' xQ ԍ See WorldCom petition for reconsideration of the Local Competition Order in CC Docket No. 9698 at 810;  {O' xg Teleport petition for reconsideration of the Local Competition Order in CC Docket No. 9698 at 36. See also  x Comments Requested on Petition for Expedited Rulemaking to Establish Reporting Requirements and Performance  yO!'and Technical Standards for Operations Support Systems, Public Notice, DA 971211 (rel. June 10, 1997).E  X4 "17. Finally, we note that, in its reply, GTE challenges the Commission's decision to  xidentify OSS functions as network elements that must be unbundled under the 1996 Act. The  xEighth Circuit rejected an identical challenge by GTE and other petitioners and upheld the  xCommission's finding that OSS functions qualified as a network element, and found that the  xRCommission's "determination that the term 'network element' includes all of the facilities and"?0 -,-(-(ZZ+"  X4 x3equipment that are used in the overall commercial offering of telecommunications is a reasonable  X4conclusion and entitled to deference.". {Od'ԍ Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC., No. 963221, 1997 WL 403401 at *19 (8th Cir. July 18, 1997) (emphasis added).  X4 ! IV. ORDERING CLAUSE S ă  X4 "W18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 251252 of the  xCommunications Act, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), and 251252, and Section 1.3 of the Commission's  xyrules, 47 C.F.R.  1.3, the petition for waiver filed by U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS IS DENIED. ` `  hhCCOMMON CARRIER BUREAU ` `  hhCA. Richard Metzger, Jr. ` `  hhCActing Bureau ChiefX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: