$// MO&O; BellSouth - Petition for Waiver of Section 69.4(b); DA 95-446 //$ $/ Section 0.291 Delegated Authority /$ BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) DA 95-446 ) BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. ) ) ) Petition for Waiver of ) Section 69.4(b) of the ) Commission's Rules ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: March 6, 1995; Released: March 27, 1995 By the Acting Chief, Tariff Division, Common Carrier Bureau: 1. On August 26, 1994, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BellSouth) filed a petition for waiver of Part 69 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 69, to establish new rate elements to recover the costs of operator-assistance services that it plans to offer interexchange carriers (IXCs). In particular, BellSouth seeks a waiver of Section 69.4(b) of the rules, 47 C.F.R.  69.4(b), which provides that local exchange carrier (LEC) charges for access services shall include certain specified rate elements. BellSouth proposes to establish four additional rate elements for a group of new operator-assistance services to be known as "Operator Plus." These new services would provide IXCs with live and automated operator assistance for such tasks as dialing instructions, carrier rate information, calling card validation and billing number screening services. BellSouth Petition at 2. BellSouth states that its waiver petition is similar to the petitions filed earlier by Southwestern Bell and Bell Atlantic, and is supported by similar public interest considerations. In this regard, BellSouth reports that six IXCs have expressed an interest in purchasing Operator Plus service as soon as it is available. Id. at 3. Thus, BellSouth asserts, its service offering will provide IXCs with additional call handling capabilities, which will in turn stimulate further competition in the telecommunictions market. Id. 2. On October 12, 1994, four parties responded to the Public Notice seeking comments on BellSouth's petition -- the Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies (Bell Atlantic), Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (Southwestern Bell), Sprint Communications Co., L.P. (Sprint), and MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI). Bell Atlantic and Southwestern Bell support BellSouth's petition. They state that they see no material difference between BellSouth's waiver request and the waiver requests filed earlier by Bell Atlantic and Southwestern Bell. Bell Atlantic Comments at 1-2; Southwestern Bell Comments at 1. Furthermore, Bell Atlantic claims that granting these petitions will serve the public interest by promoting competition among interexchange carriers and increasing consumer alternatives. Bell Atlantic Comments at 2. 3. Sprint and MCI oppose BellSouth's petition. They claim that the requested waiver would not be in the public interest because BellSouth has failed to identify any quantifiable public demand for the service. Sprint Comments at 1; MCI Comments at 2. MCI also contends that BellSouth has not satisfied the "good cause" standard for waiver of a Commission rule by showing that it will suffer undue hardship if its waiver request is denied. MCI Comments at 2-3. Finally, Sprint asserts that BellSouth fails to demonstrate that it will establish rates that recover relevant costs in accordance with the cost support requirements of the Southwestern Bell Operator Transfer Order. Sprint Comments at 1-2. 4. In its reply, filed October 26, 1994, BellSouth responds that it is not necessay to show a need or to quantify the demand for a service to obtain a Part 69 waiver. BellSouth Reply at 3. Furthermore, BellSouth asserts that it has satisfied fully the public interest finding necessary to justify the grant of a waiver by demonstrating that its operator services will increase IXC's service options, thereby promoting greater competition among IXCs in the delivery of operator assistance services to interLATA traffic. Id. at 3. Finally, BellSouth replies that the Commission does not require a cost showing to support a Part 69 waiver request in situations where no tariff transmittal has been filed. Id. at 5. 5. Commission rules may be waived if good cause is shown. The Commission may exercise its discretion to waive a rule where the particular facts make strict compliance inconsistent with the public interest. In addition, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has stated that the Commission may take into account considerations of hardship, equity, or more effective implementation of overall policy on an individual basis. Waiver is thus appropriate if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule and such deviation would better serve the public interest than would strict adherence to the general rule. 6. The Bureau has previously considered almost identical waiver requests from Bell Atlantic and Southwestern Bell. It granted those requests, finding that "the proposed offerings of Bell Atlantic and Southwestern Bell would bring IXCs and their customers a greater choice of interstate operator services" and that "[s]uch increased choices would generally foster competition." In addition, the Bureau concluded that "grant of the requested waivers would enable Bell Atlantic and Southwestern Bell to establish new rate elements that are tailored precisely to fit their respective services rather than attempting to force their services into existing rate elements." Id. at para. 16. Furthermore, the Bureau stated and that "[c]reation of new rate elements would also advance the goals of the Commission's access charge regime by enabling the carriers to better match relevant costs and rate elements, thus allowing Bell Atlantic and Southwestern Bell to better recover the cost of their services from those customers who use them." Id. Finally, the Bureau determined that it would be premature to address cost issues in the waiver request because neither Bell Atlantic nor Southwestern Bell had yet filed a tariff transmittal to implement their proposed rate elements. Id. at para. 18. 7. We conclude that there is no material difference between Bell Atlantic's and Southwestern Bell's operator call completion services and BellSouth operator assistance service. Thus, as good cause existed to permit those carriers to establish separate rate elements for their services, it exists as well to permit BellSouth to establish rate elements for its Operator Plus service. We further conclude that BellSouth -- like Bell Atlantic and Southwestern Bell -- was not required to address cost issues in its waiver request because its has not yet filed its tariff to offer Operator Plus service. Therefore, we grant BellSouth's waiver request. 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) and Sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, and 0291, the petition for waiver filed by BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. IS GRANTED to the extent indicated above and otherwise IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Geraldine A. Matise Acting Chief, Tariff Division Common Carrier Bureau