*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 34799*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  04-  42 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of 
 Review  of  the  Section  251  Unbundling  Obligations  of  Incumbent  Local  Exchange 
 Carriers 
 Implementation  of  the  Local  Competition  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of 
 1996 
 Deployment  of  Wireline  Services  Offering  Advanced  Telecommunications  Capability 


 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 


 CC  Docket  No.  01-  338 
 CC  Docket  No.  96-  98 


 CC  Docket  No.  98-  147 
 ORDER 
 Adopted:  January  9,  2004  Released:  January  9,  2004 
 By  the  Chief,  Wireline  Competition  Bureau 
 1.  In  its  Triennial  Review  Order,  the  Commission  found,  on  a  national  basis,  that  there  were  few  barriers  to  competitive  local  exchange  carrier  (LEC)  deployment  and  use  of 
 competitive  switches  to  serve  customers  in  the  enterprise  market  at  the  DS1  capacity  and  above.  1  The  Commission  permitted  state  commissions  to  rebut  the  Commission’s  national  finding  by 
 undertaking  a  more  granular  analysis  utilizing  the  economic  and  operational  criteria  detailed  by  the  Commission.  2  State  commissions  were  granted  90  days  from  the  effective  date  of  the 
 Triennial  Review  Order  to  petition  the  Commission  to  waive  its  finding  of  no  impairment.  3  After  publication  in  the  Federal  Register,  the  Triennial  Review  Order  became  effective  on 
 October  2,  2003,  and  state  commission  petitions  were  therefore  due  on  December  31,  2003. 
 2.  On  December  29,  2003,  the  Public  Utility  Commission  of  Oregon  (Oregon 


 1  Review  of  the  Section  251  Unbundling  Obligations  of  Incumbent  Local  Exchange  Carriers,  Implementation  of 
 the  Local  Competition  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  Deployment  of  Wireline  Services  Offering  Advanced  Telecommunications  Capability,  CC  Docket  Nos.  01-  338,  96-  98,  98-  147,  Report  and  Order  and  Order  on 


 Remand  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  18  FCC  Rcd  16978,  17257-  59,  para.  451  (2003)  (Triennial  Review  Order),  corrected  by  Errata,  18  FCC  Rcd  19020  (2003)  (Triennial  Review  Order  Errata),  petitions  for 
 review  pending,  United  States  Telecom  Ass’n  v.  FCC,  D.  C.  Cir.  No.  00-  1012  (and  consolidated  cases). 
 2  Id.  at  17260-  62,  para.  455. 


 3  Id.;  47  C.  F.  R.  §  51.319(  d)(  5)(  i). 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  04-  42 
 2 
 Commission)  filed  a  request  for  a  60-  day  extension  of  the  December  31,  2003  deadline  for  filing  a  petition  for  waiver  of  the  Commission’s  national  finding.  4  The  Oregon  Commission  initiated  a 
 proceeding  on  September  23,  2003,  to  investigate  whether  competitive  LECs  were  impaired  without  access  to  unbundled  switching  and  had  planned  to  conclude  the  proceeding  by 
 December  29,  2003.  5  The  Oregon  Commission  asserts,  however,  that  the  schedule  was  delayed  by  the  development  of  a  new  protective  order  to  safeguard  commercially  and  competitively 
 sensitive  data  filed  by  competitive  LECs.  6 
 3.  It  is  the  policy  of  the  Commission  that  extensions  of  time  are  not  routinely  granted.  7  In  this  instance,  the  Bureau  finds  that  the  Oregon  Commission  has  not  shown  good  cause  for  an 


 extension  of  the  deadline  for  filing  a  waiver  petition.  8  We  are  not  persuaded  that  the  delay  caused  by  the  need  for  a  new  protective  order  is,  by  itself,  sufficient  to  extend  the  90-  day 
 deadline.  9 
 4.  ACCORDINGLY,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  sections  4(  i)  and  4(  j),  of  the  Communications  Act,  47  U.  S.  C.  §§  154(  i)  and  154(  j),  and  sections  0.91  and  0.291  of  the 


 Commission’s  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.  §§  0.91,  0.291,  the  request  of  the  Public  Utility  Commission  of  Oregon  for  an  Extension  of  the  Deadline  for  Filing  a  Petition  Pursuant  to  47  C.  F.  R. 
 §  51.319(  d)(  5)(  i)  IS  DENIED. 
 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 William  F.  Maher,  Jr.  Chief,  Wireline  Competition  Bureau 
 4  Review  of  the  Section  251  Unbundling  Obligations  of  Incumbent  Local  Exchange  Carriers,  Implementation  of 
 the  Local  Competition  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  Deployment  of  Wireline  Services  Offering  Advanced  Telecommunications  Capability,  CC  Docket  Nos.  01-  338,  96-  98,  98-  147,  Request  of  the  Public  Utility 


 Commission  of  Oregon  for  an  Extension  of  the  Deadline  for  Filing  a  Petition  Pursuant  to  47  C.  F.  R.  §  51.319(  d)(  5)(  i)  (filed  Dec.  29,  2003). 


 5  Id.  at  2. 
 6  Id.  at  3. 
 7  47  C.  F.  R.  §  1.46(  a). 
 8  Accordingly,  we  expect  that  the  competitive  LECs  will  transition  their  end-  user  customers  served  by  DS1  and 
 above  capacity  loops  and  unbundled  local  circuit  switching  to  an  alternative  arrangement  within  the  90-  day  period  established  by  our  rules,  unless  a  longer  period  is  necessary  to  comply  with  a  “change  of  law”  provision  in  an 


 applicable  interconnection  agreement.  47  C.  F.  R.  §  51.319(  3)(  ii)(  A). 
 9  We  note  that  the  Triennial  Review  Order  allows  states  to  revisit  whether  competitive  LECs  are  impaired 


 without  access  to  unbundled  switching  to  serve  enterprise  customers  due  to  changes  in  the  specified  operational  and  economic  criteria.  Triennial  Review  Order  at  17260-  62,  para.  455.  State  commissions  must  also  petition  for  a 


 waiver  of  the  Commission’s  national  finding  in  any  such  subsequent  review  as  well.  Id.  at  17262  n.  1398,  para.  455. 
2