# Before the

# Federal Communications Commission

# Washington, D.C. 20554

)

In the Matter of ) CC Docket No. 00-36

)

GTE Telephone Operating Companies ) Transmittal No. 1234

Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No. 1 )

)

GTE System Telephone Companies ) Transmittal No. 304

Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No. 1 )

# ORDER TERMINATING TARIFF INVESTIGATION

**Adopted: May 15, 2000 Released: May 16, 2000**

By the Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau:

1.  In this Order, we terminate our investigation into the tariff
    revisions described in the GTE Telephone Operating Companies (GTOC)
    and GTE System Telephone Companies (GSTC) Transmittal Nos. 1234 and
    304.[^1] As discussed below, the issues designated for investigation
    have been resolved and our investigation is therefore moot.

2.  GTE filed revisions to its tariffs on December 6, 1999, with an
    effective date of December 21, 1999.[^2] These transmittals sought
    to establish rates, terms, and conditions for Expanded
    Interconnection Service (EIS). On December 13, 1999, Sprint
    Corporation (Sprint) filed a petition to reject, or, in the
    alternative, to suspend and investigate GTE's tariff filings.[^3] On
    December 16, 1999, GTE filed a Reply.[^4]

3.  On December 20, 1999, the Competitive Pricing Division of the Common
    Carrier Bureau released an order suspending GTE's EIS tariff
    revisions for one day and instituted an investigation into the
    lawfulness of these transmittals.[^5] In the *Suspension Order*, the
    Competitive Pricing Division stated that Sprint's petition raised
    substantial questions of lawfulness that warranted
    investigation.[^6] On February 28, 2000, the Common Carrier Bureau
    released an order designating issues for investigation.[^7] In its
    tariff transmittals, GTE introduced non-recurring charges for site
    preparation to accommodate EIS.[^8] GTE proposed that entities
    desiring to collocate in its central offices be required to pay the
    cost of upgrading, or replacing entirely, its heating, ventilation,
    and air conditioning (HVAC) or power systems in those central
    offices as part of its site preparation charges.[^9] In the
    *Designation Order*, the Bureau required GTE to file information
    related to the following issues: (1) whether GTE's methodology for
    calculating its site preparation charge was reasonable; (2) whether
    GTE adequately justified the cost and necessity of the major HVAC
    and power system additions used in developing its site preparation
    charge; and (3) whether GTE should be required to use an alternative
    methodology to develop a site preparation charge based on the
    current per-square-foot average cost for such facilities.[^10]

4.  On March 22, 2000, GTE filed a motion requesting that the Commission
    terminate the tariff investigation.[^11] In its motion, GTE states
    that it has taken a number of steps that moot the issues identified
    in the *Designation Order.*[^12] Specifically, GTE eliminated the
    major HVAC and power system upgrade charges from its EIS tariffs,
    and credited \$18,888.00 to those customers who were billed for
    these site preparation services at the previously-tariffed
    rates.[^13] On March 23, 2000, Sprint notified the Commission that
    it does not oppose GTE's motion to terminate this
    investigation.[^14]

5.  GTE's elimination of the major HVAC and power upgrade charges from
    its EIS tariff and subsequent credits to the customers who had
    incurred those charges reasonably resolve the issues raised by
    Sprint and the *Designation Order*. We therefore terminate our
    investigation of GTOC and GSTC Transmittal Nos. 1234 and 304 because
    the issues related to the HVAC and power system upgrade charges
    included in the EIS tariffs have been resolved.

6.  We note that, in a subsequent tariff transmittal filing, GTE
    proposed new EIS tariff revisions with an effective date of April
    29, 2000.[^15] GTE's new EIS filing addresses the issues raised in
    the Bureau's *Designation Order*. For example, GTE initially had
    proposed a non-recurring site preparation charge designed to recover
    the costs of upgrading or completely replacing its HVAC and power
    system upgrades. In the *Designation Order*, the Bureau required GTE
    to justify charging the "entire cost of major HVAC and power
    additions . . . given that these facilities provide . . . power not
    only to GTE collocator-customers, but to facilities used to support
    GTE's other customers as well."[^16] Additionally, the Bureau
    designated for investigation whether GTE should be required to
    develop a site preparation charge based on the current
    per-square-foot average cost for such facilities, which the Bureau
    stated appears to be a reasonable basis for approximating a
    collocator's HVAC and power system usage.[^17] In response to this
    inquiry, GTE's new tariff revision imposes recurring site
    preparation charges that are assessed in proportion to a
    collocator's estimated use of total conditioned space.[^18] No party
    has opposed GTE's tariff revisions.

7.  Parties are reminded that, in the *Advanced Services First Report
    and Order*, the Commission held that incumbent local exchange
    carriers (LECs) must pro-rate the charges for site conditioning and
    preparation that they undertake to construct shared collocation
    cages, or to condition the space for collocation use.[^19] Incumbent
    LECs must do this by determining the total charge for site
    preparation, and then allocating that charge to a collocating
    carrier based on the percentage of the total space utilized by the
    collocator.[^20] The Commission also held that incumbent LECs must
    allocate space preparation, security measures, and other collocation
    charges on a pro-rated basis, so that the first collocator in a
    particular incumbent premises will not be responsible for the entire
    cost of site preparation.[^21] The Commission specified that, if an
    incumbent LEC's cageless collocation arrangements in a particular
    central office necessitate air conditioning and power system
    upgrades, the incumbent may not require the first collocating party
    to pay the entire cost of site preparation.[^22] We instruct
    incumbent LECs to pay heed to these requirements as we intend to
    review future filings to ensure compliance with those requirements.

8.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 204(a) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 204(a), the
    investigation of the tariff revisions described in GTE Telephone
    Operating Companies Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Transmittal
    No. 1234 (filed Dec. 6, 1999), and GTE System Telephone Companies
    Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Transmittal No. 304 (filed Dec.
    6, 1999) IS TERMINATED. Additionally, the Motion to Termination the
    Investigation filed by GTE Telephone Operating Companies and GTE
    System Telephone Companies (filed Mar. 22, 2000) IS GRANTED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Yog R. Varma

Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau

[^1]: GSTC and GTOC will be referred to as "GTE," collectively, and
    Transmittal Nos. 1234 and 304 will be referred to as "GTE
    transmittals" or "GTE tariffs," collectively.

[^2]: GTE Telephone Operating Companies Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No.
    1, Transmittal No. 1234 (filed Dec. 6, 1999), and GTE System
    Telephone Companies Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Transmittal
    No. 304 (filed Dec. 6, 1999).

[^3]: Sprint Petition to Reject or in the Alternative, Suspend and
    Investigate (filed Dec. 13, 1999).

[^4]: GTE Reply to Sprint Petition (filed Dec. 16, 1999).

[^5]: GTE Telephone Operating Companies Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No.1,
    Transmittal No. 1234, and GTE System Telephone Companies Revisions
    to Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Transmittal No. 304, Order, DA 99-2966 (rel.
    Dec. 20, 1999) (*Suspension* *Order*).

[^6]: *Suspension Order* at 1-2.

[^7]: In re GTE Telephone Operating Companies Revisions to Tariff F.C.C.
    No.1, Transmittal No. 1234, and GTE System Telephone Companies
    Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Transmittal No. 304, Order
    Designating Issues for Investigation, DA 00-431 (rel. Feb. 28, 2000)
    *(Designation* *Order*).

[^8]: GTE Transmittals No. 1234 and 304 at § 17.9.1(B)(15).

[^9]: *Designation Order* at 4.

[^10]: *Designation Order* at 4.

[^11]: In re GTE Telephone Operating Companies Revisions to Tariff
    F.C.C. No.1, Transmittal No. 1234, and GTE System Telephone
    Companies Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Transmittal No. 304,
    Motion to Terminate the Investigation (filed Mar. 22, 2000) *(GTE
    Termination Request).*

[^12]: *GTE Termination Request* at 2*.*

[^13]: *GTE* *Termination Request* at 2.

[^14]: Letter from Norina Moy, Director, Federal Regulatory Policy and
    Coordination, Sprint, to Jane Jackson, Chief, Competitive Pricing
    Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission
    (filed Mar. 23, 2000).

[^15]: GTE Telephone Operating Companies Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No.
    1, Transmittal No. 1253 (filed Apr. 14, 2000), and GTE System
    Telephone Companies Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Transmittal
    No. 316 (filed Apr. 14, 2000). This Order does not specifically
    address the legality of the rates, terms, and conditions contained
    in Transmittals 1253 and 316.

[^16]: *Designation Order* at 5.

[^17]: *Designation Order* at 8.

[^18]: GTE Telephone Operating Companies Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No.
    1, Transmittal No. 1253, Description and Justification at 1-3; GTE
    System Telephone Companies Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No. 1,
    Transmittal No. 316, Description and Justification at 1-3.

[^19]: In re Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced
    Telecommunications Capability, First Report and Order and Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 98-147, 14 FCC Rcd
    4761, 4784 (para. 41) (1999) (*Advanced Services First Report and
    Order*), *aff'd in relevant part sub nom*., GTE Service Corp. v.
    FCC, 205 F.3d 416, 427 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

[^20]: *Advanced Services First Report and Order,* 14 FCC Rcd at 4784
    (para. 41).

[^21]: *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4789
    (para. 51).

[^22]: *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4789
    (para. 51).