**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matters of )

)

Deployment of Wireline Services Offering ) CC Docket No. 98-147

Advanced Telecommunications Capability )

)

and )

)

Implementation of the Local Competition ) CC Docket No. 96-98

Provisions of the )

Telecommunications Act of 1996 )

**ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION AND SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED
RULEMAKING IN CC DOCKET NO. 98-147**

**AND FIFTH FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED**

**RULEMAKING IN CC DOCKET NO. 96-98**

**Adopted: August 9, 2000 Released: August 10, 2000**

**Comment Date: September 18, 2000**

Reply Comment Date: October 10, 2000

By the Commission:

# TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 

# Paragraph

# 

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II\. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY [5](#executive-summary)

III\. BACKGROUND 8

IV\. ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION IN CC DOCKET NO. 98-147 14

A. Provisioning Intervals 14

1\. Background 14

2\. Discussion [11](#discussion)

B. Adjacent Collocation 40

C. Reserving Space for Future Use 48

1\. Background 48

2\. Discussion 50

D. Other Issues 54

1\. Safety Standards 54

2\. Access to Collocation Space 58

3\. Floor Plans 61

4\. Nonstandard Equipment 63

5\. Space Availability Reports 64

6\. Spectrum Management Disputes 65

7\. Takings 67

V. SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING IN CC DOCKET NO. 98-147
70

A. Overview 70

B. Meaning of "Necessary" under Section 251(c)(6) 71

1\. Equipment 71

2\. Cross Connections between Collocators 84

C. Meaning of "Physical Collocation" under Section 251(c)(6) 93

1\. Background 93

2\. Discussion 95

D. Minimum Space Requirements 99

E. Collocation at Remote Incumbent LEC Premises 103

F. Line Sharing 113

G. Provisioning Intervals 114

H. Space Reservation Policies 116

VI\. FIFTH FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING IN CC DOCKET NO. 96-98
118

A. Background 118

B. Access to Loops, Subloops and Interoffice Transport 119

1\. Loops and Interoffice Transport 119

2\. Subloops 123

3\. Spare Copper 129

4\. Cross Connection 132

VII\. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 134

A. Order on Reconsideration 134

1\. Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 134

2\. Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 135

B. Notices of Proposed Rulemaking 136

1\. Ex Parte Presentations 136

2\. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 137

3\. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 138

4\. Comment Filing Procedures 139

VIII\. ORDERING CLAUSES 145

APPENDIX A \-- LIST OF PARTIES

APPENDIX B \-- FINAL RULES

APPENDIX C \-- REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT

# introduction

1.  In the *Advanced Services First Report and Order*,[^1] we adopted
    measures to facilitate the development of competition in the
    advanced services market. These measures include strengthened
    collocation rules adopted pursuant to section 251(c)(6) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act),
    which imposes a statutory duty on incumbent local exchange carriers
    (incumbent LECs) to provide collocation to requesting
    telecommunication carriers.[^2] This item contains an *Order on
    Reconsideration* and the *Second Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking* in our advanced services proceeding, CC Docket No.
    98-147. In the *Order on Reconsideration*, we further strengthen our
    collocation rules in response to Sprint Corporation's (Sprint's)
    June 1999 petition for partial reconsideration or clarification of
    the *Advanced Services First Report and* *Order*. In the *Second
    Further Notice*, we invite comment on additional changes to our
    collocation rules. Many of these proposed changes are in response to
    the recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the
    District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit), which affirmed some of
    our collocation rules, but vacated and remanded others.[^3]

2.  We adopted the *Advanced Services First Report and Order* last year
    to address charges that many incumbent LECs were improperly
    delaying, making more expensive, or precluding entirely the
    competitive local exchange carriers' (competitive LECs') physical
    collocation efforts. Rules adopted in that *Order* required
    incumbent LECs to expand their collocation offerings to include
    cageless and adjacent collocation, among other physical collocation
    arrangements.[^4] We precluded incumbent LECs from imposing
    unreasonable minimum space requirements on collocators. We also
    required incumbent LECs to allocate the costs of preparing a
    premises for collocation among potential collocators, rather than
    making the first collocator in a premises responsible for all site
    preparation charges. On March 17, 2000, the D.C. Circuit affirmed
    these aspects of our collocation rules.[^5] These judicial actions
    advance considerably our efforts to ensure that incumbent LECs meet
    their statutory duty to provide collocation necessary for
    interconnection or access to unbundled network elements on just,
    reasonable, and nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions.[^6]
    Nonetheless, the record developed in response to Sprint's petition
    makes clear that some incumbent LECs' collocation practices continue
    to impede competition.[^7] In this *Order on Reconsideration*, we
    take appropriate immediate steps to ensure that incumbent LECs meet
    their statutory collocation obligations.

3.  While many aspects of the collocation rules were affirmed on
    appellate review, the D.C. Circuit did vacate and remand for further
    consideration certain aspects of our *Advanced Services First Report
    and Order*.[^8] The vacated rules required that an incumbent LEC
    permit the physical collocation of equipment that provides
    functionalities in addition to interconnection and access to
    unbundled network elements. The court also vacated rules requiring
    incumbent LECs to permit collocating carriers to interconnect their
    equipment with other collocating carriers through cross connections.
    In addition, the court vacated rules that allowed the requesting
    carrier to select its physical collocation space and precluded the
    incumbent from requiring collocators to use separate or isolated
    rooms or floors. The court determined that the Commission had not
    explained how the vacated rules were consistent with section
    251(c)(6).[^9] The court made clear, however, that the Commission
    would have the opportunity to refine its physical collocation
    requirements on remand, as long as the Commission stayed "within the
    limits of 'the ordinary and fair meaning'" of section 251(c)(6) and
    adequately explained how its rules are consistent with the statutory
    standards.[^10] In this *Second Further Notice*, we invite comment
    on what action we should take regarding the rules the D.C. Circuit
    vacated and remanded, and on other collocation-related issues. Our
    goals are to ensure that our collocation rules adhere to statutory
    standards and further Congress' purpose in enacting section
    251(c)(6).

4.  Finally, this item contains the *Fifth Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking* in our local competition docket, CC Docket No. 96-98. In
    this *Fifth Further Notice*, we invite comment on whether to modify
    our local competition rules, particularly our rules requiring
    unbundled access to transport, loops, and subloops, in view of the
    deployment of new network architectures by incumbents.

# executive summary

5.  In the *Order on Reconsideration* in CC Docket No. 98-147, we take
    several collocation-related actions, including:

-   Because of the critical importance of the timely provisioning of
    physical collocation to telecommunications carriers' ability to
    compete effectively, we require that, except to the extent a state
    sets its own standard or a requesting carrier and an incumbent LEC
    have agreed to an alternative standard, an incumbent LEC must
    provide physical collocation, including cageless collocation, no
    later than 90 calendar days after receiving a collocation
    application.

-   Consistent with the D.C. Circuit's opinion in *GTE v. FCC*, we make
    clear that an incumbent LEC must allow a competitive LEC to
    construct a controlled environmental vault or similar structure on
    land adjacent to an incumbent LEC structure that lacks physical
    collocation space.

-   We decline to adopt specific limitations on incumbent LECs' and
    competitive LECs' ability to reserve potential collocation space for
    future use at this time. We urge those state commissions that have
    not yet acted in this area to adopt space reservation policies that
    promote competition.

-   The collocation rules set forth in this *Order* serve as minimum
    standards, and permit states to adopt additional requirements,
    including shorter provisioning intervals, consistent with the
    Communications Act and our implementing rules.

6.  In the *Second Further Notice* in CC Docket No. 98-147, we invite
    comment on a number of collocation-related issues, including:

-   In response to the D.C. Circuit's opinion in *GTE v.* *FCC*, we
    invite comment on the meaning of "necessary" and "physical
    collocation," as section 251(c)(6) uses those terms. We seek to
    develop a complete record on issues relating to what equipment an
    incumbent must allow a competitive LEC to physically collocate and
    on how physical collocation space should be assigned. We ask whether
    an incumbent LEC must permit collocators to cross-connect with other
    collocators.

-   We invite comment on whether we should require incumbent LECs to
    make physical collocation space available in increments smaller than
    the space necessary to accommodate a single rack or bay of
    equipment.

-   We request comment on issues relating to collocation at remote
    incumbent LEC premises, and on whether we should change our
    collocation rules to facilitate line sharing and subloop unbundling.

-   We ask whether we should specify an overall maximum collocation
    provisioning interval shorter than 90 calendar days or shorter
    intervals for particular types of collocation arrangements, such as
    cageless collocation, modifications to existing collocation
    arrangements, or collocation within remote incumbent LEC structures.
    Like the 90 day interval specified in the *Order*, any shorter
    intervals would apply except to the extent a state sets its own
    standard, or the requesting carrier and the incumbent LEC have
    agreed to an alternative standard.

-   We also ask whether we should adopt national standards governing the
    period for which incumbent LECs and collocating carriers can reserve
    space for future use in incumbent LEC premises. These standards
    would apply except to the extent a state sets its own standard.

7.  In the *Fifth Further Notice* in CC Docket No. 96-98, we invite
    comment on several issues concerning the deployment of new network
    architectures, including:

-   We ask whether we should modify or clarify our definition of the
    loop and transport elements to include access for requesting
    carriers at the wavelength level.

-   We request comment on the features, functions, and capabilities of
    the subloop created by the deployment of new network architectures.

-   We invite comment on incumbent LECs' obligations to provide
    unbundled access to the subloop, particularly the fiber feeder
    portion, in situations where there is inadequate existing capacity.

-   We invite comment on whether, as part of their deployment of
    additional fiber facility, incumbent LECs plan to retire and remove
    existing copper plant and how that would affect their obligations
    under our local competition rules.

-   We seek comment on whether we should change the technically feasible
    points at which competing carriers may access subloops at remote
    terminal locations.

# background

8.  In the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act),[^11] Congress
    established a \"pro‑competitive, deregulatory national policy
    framework\" for telecommunications, designed to open all
    telecommunications markets to competition so as to make advanced
    telecommunications and information technologies and services
    available to all Americans.[^12] One of the 1996 Act\'s core
    market‑opening provisions is section 251(c)(6) of the Communications
    Act, which requires incumbent LECs:

    \[T\]o provide, on rates, terms, and conditions that are just,
    reasonable, and nondiscriminatory, for physical collocation of
    equipment necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled
    network elements at the premises of the local exchange carrier,
    except that the carrier may provide for virtual collocation if the
    local exchange carrier demonstrates to the State commission that
    physical collocation is not practical for technical reasons or
    because of space limitations.[^13]

9.  In a physical collocation arrangement, a competitor leases space at
    an incumbent LEC\'s premises for its equipment. The competing
    provider has physical access to this space to install, maintain, and
    repair its equipment. In a virtual collocation arrangement, the
    competitor designates the equipment to be placed at the incumbent
    LEC\'s premises. The competing provider, however, does not have
    physical access to the incumbent\'s premises. Instead, the equipment
    is under the physical control of the incumbent LEC, and the
    incumbent is responsible for installing, maintaining, and repairing
    equipment designated by the competing provider.[^14]

10. The ability of competitive LECs to collocate equipment is
    particularly important to facilities-based competition for advanced
    telecommunications services. An xDSL carrier providing service over
    unbundled local loops, for instance, would require a digital
    subscriber line access multiplexer (DSLAM) placed within a
    reasonable distance of the customer's premises, usually less than
    18,000 feet. A competitive LEC must have the ability to collocate
    DSLAMs at the incumbent LEC's premises (i.e., in or adjacent to the
    central office or remote terminal) where the customer's unbundled
    loop or subloop terminates. Without viable collocation arrangements,
    the customer will not have a choice of LECs from which to purchase
    advanced services.

11. In 1996, in the *Local Competition First Report and Order*, the
    Commission adopted rules to implement section 251(c)(6).[^15] These
    rules addressed, among other matters, where competitive LECs could
    physically collocate equipment, the types of equipment that could be
    collocated, and how incumbent LECs should allocate space in the
    event insufficient physical collocation space is available. While
    the Commission adopted specific and detailed national collocation
    rules, the Commission concluded that state commissions should have
    the flexibility to adopt additional collocation requirements that
    are consistent with the Communications Act and the Commission\'s
    implementing rules.[^16]

12. Three years later, in the *Advanced Services First Report and
    Order*, we recognized that we needed to modify the collocation rules
    to remove barriers to competition in the nascent advanced services
    market.[^17] We therefore adopted strengthened collocation rules
    designed to foster timely, cost-effective deployment of advanced
    services by competitive LECs. These rules, which apply to all
    collocation arrangements under section 251(c)(6), require incumbent
    LECs to make available to requesting competitive LECs additional
    forms of collocation known as shared and cageless collocation
    arrangements.[^18] Further, when collocation is exhausted at a
    particular incumbent LEC location, the incumbent LEC must permit
    collocation in adjacent controlled environmental vaults or similar
    structures to the extent technically feasible. We specified, among
    other requirements, that a collocation method used by one incumbent
    LEC or mandated by a state commission is presumptively technically
    feasible for any other incumbent LEC. We also specified that these
    strengthened collocation rules should serve as minimum requirements,
    and we continued to encourage the state commissions to adopt
    additional collocation requirements.[^19]

13. As indicated previously,[^20] the D.C. Circuit recently affirmed
    much of the *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, but did
    vacate and remand for further consideration certain aspects of that
    *Order*. Specifically, the court vacated and remanded the
    requirement that an incumbent LEC permit collocation of any
    equipment that is used or useful for either interconnection or
    access to unbundled network elements, regardless of the other
    functionalities inherent in such equipment.[^21] The court also
    vacated and remanded the *Advanced Services First Report and Order*
    to the extent it gave requesting carriers the option of selecting
    physical collocation space from among the unused space within the
    incumbent LEC's premises, prohibited the incumbent from placing
    collocators in a room or isolated space separate from the
    incumbent's own equipment, or precluded the incumbent from requiring
    competitors to use separate entrances to access their own
    equipment.[^22]

# Order on reconsideration IN CC DOCKET NO. 98-147

## Provisioning Intervals

### Background

14. In the *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, we concluded that
    an incumbent LEC may not impose unreasonable restrictions on the
    time period within which it will consider applications for
    collocation space from requesting telecommunications carriers. We
    required incumbent LECs to make new collocation arrangements,
    including cageless and shared collocation, available to requesting
    telecommunications carriers.[^23] We stated that the practices of
    several carriers suggest that provisioning intervals can be short
    and that we viewed ten days as a reasonable period within which to
    inform a new entrant whether its collocation application has been
    accepted or denied.[^24] We recognized the significant competitive
    harm new entrants suffer when they must wait as long as six to eight
    months after their initial collocation requests before collocation
    space becomes available.[^25] We declined, however, to adopt
    provisioning intervals within which incumbent LECs would have to
    provide collocation because we did not yet have sufficient
    experience with cageless, shared, and adjacent collocation, to
    suggest time frames for their provisioning.[^26] We emphasized that
    we retained authority to adopt specific time frames in the future as
    we deem necessary.[^27] We also encouraged state commissions to
    ensure that incumbent LECs are given specific time intervals within
    which to respond to collocation requests.[^28]

15. In its petition, Sprint requests that we reconsider our decision not
    to provide state commissions with time frames for the provisioning
    of collocation space.[^29] Sprint contends that we should establish
    maximum provisioning intervals of 90 calendar days when space
    previously conditioned for collocation is available and 180 calendar
    days when only unconditioned space is available.[^30] Sprint
    proposes that these intervals run from the date that a competitive
    LEC first applies for collocation space at an incumbent LEC premises
    to the date the incumbent LEC makes space at that premises available
    for collocation.[^31] Other competitive LECs suggest that 90-day and
    180-day provisioning intervals are too protracted and request that
    we establish significantly shorter national collocation provisioning
    intervals.[^32] Rhythms points out that collocation providers that
    are not incumbent LECs commonly turn over cageless collocation space
    to a competitive LEC within fourteen days after receiving a
    competitive LEC's application.[^33]

16. Incumbent LECs contend that the record does not support the
    provisioning intervals Sprint proposes and that those intervals are
    far too limiting to be incorporated into a rule.[^34] These parties
    argue that a variety of factors affect the time required to provide
    collocation at each individual incumbent LEC premises.[^35] They
    assert that adoption of Sprint's proposal would prevent carriers and
    states from establishing collocation intervals reflecting varying
    local conditions and that the Commission should continue to defer to
    state commissions in this area.[^36] Bell Atlantic contends that
    collocators must provide the incumbent LEC with a projection of
    their specific needs sufficiently in advance so that Bell Atlantic
    can plan the office configuration that will best meet those
    needs.[^37]

### Discussion

#### Need for National Standards

17. Section 251(c)(6) requires incumbent LECs to provide for collocation
    of equipment necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled
    network elements "on . . . terms and conditions that are just,
    reasonable, and nondiscriminatory . . . ."[^38] We conclude that
    national collocation standards are necessary to ensure that
    incumbent LECs comply with this statutory obligation. In both the
    *Local Competition First Report and Order* and the *Advanced
    Services First Report and Order*, we concluded that national rules
    implementing the collocation requirements of the 1996 Act would
    reduce barriers to entry and speed the development of
    competition.[^39] The record in this proceeding makes clear that we
    must modify these rules to include provisioning interval
    requirements for physical collocation. The record shows that the
    timely provisioning of collocation space is essential to
    telecommunications carriers' ability to compete effectively in the
    markets for advanced services and other telecommunications
    services.[^40] We released the *Advanced Services First Report and
    Order* on March 31, 1999. Since that date, collocation intervals in
    a few states have become significantly shorter than the intervals
    prevalent prior to that date, generally as a result of state
    commission intervention.[^41] The Public Utility Commission of Texas
    (Texas Commission), for example, has specified that a requesting
    telecommunications carrier is entitled to obtain caged physical
    collocation within 90 days and cageless physical collocation within
    70 days after accepting SBC's price quotation for Texas central
    offices having active collocation space available. The requesting
    carrier may shorten its waiting period for cageless collocation in
    these premises to 55 days by agreeing to install its own bays or
    racks. In offices within Texas having only inactive space available
    for collocation, SBC must provide collocation within 140 days.[^42]

18. Similarly, under the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission's
    (Pennsylvania Commission's) interim standards, Bell Atlantic must
    inform a requesting telecommunications carrier whether collocation
    space is available within ten days after receiving a request for
    physical collocation. If space is available, Bell Atlantic must
    complete its planning and quote preparation processes within 35 days
    after receiving a collocation request. Bell Atlantic, in addition,
    must complete all its work on the collocation arrangement within 90
    days after its receipt of the requesting carrier's collocation
    deposit.[^43] U S WEST has agreed throughout virtually all its
    region to provide cageless collocation space within 45 days after
    receiving a requesting telecommunications carrier's deposit when
    space and power are available, and within 90 days after receiving
    that deposit when space and power are not available.[^44] We view
    these commitments as very positive developments.

19. Other state commissions also have specified collocation intervals.
    The New York Public Service Commission, for example, requires Bell
    Atlantic in New York to provide caged and cageless collocation
    within 76 business days (roughly, 105 calendar days) and virtual
    collocation within 105 business days (roughly, 147 calendar days) of
    receiving a collocation request.[^45] The Florida Commission has
    required BellSouth to provide physical collocation within three
    months of receiving certain competitive LECs' deposits, unless
    BellSouth demonstrates to the Florida Commission why it is not
    technically feasible to do so.[^46]

20. We agree with the competitive LECs that these developments
    demonstrate that incumbent LECs can provision collocation
    arrangements in significantly less than six to eight months after
    receiving initial collocation requests.[^47] Most state commissions,
    however, have not set time limits for provisioning collocation
    space.[^48] As a consequence, physical collocation has not been
    provisioned as quickly as we anticipated when we adopted the
    *Advanced Services First Report and Order*.[^49] This lack of
    progress has impeded competitive LECs' ability to provide
    facilities-based service throughout the country.[^50]

21. Based on the foregoing, we find a need for national application
    processing and provisioning interval standards for physical
    collocation that will apply in the absence of state standards. Such
    national standards are necessary to ensure that incumbent LECs
    comply with their statutory obligation to provide collocation on
    terms and conditions that are just, reasonable, and
    nondiscriminatory. Incumbent LECs first became obligated to provide
    either physical or virtual collocation to competing carriers during
    1992.[^51] On February 6, 1996, Congress made clear, through the
    enactment of section 251(c)(6), that incumbent LECs must provide
    physical collocation to requesting telecommunications carriers.
    Incumbent LECs also have known since March 31, 1999, the date we
    released the *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, that
    physical collocation offerings must include cageless as well as
    caged collocation. Despite this ample notice and some incumbent
    LEC's efforts to provide collocation on a timely basis, many
    competitive LECs continue to encounter substantial delays in
    obtaining physical collocation.[^52] This is unacceptable.

22. Timely provisioning of physical collocation space is critically
    important to telecommunications carriers' ability to compete
    effectively in the markets for advanced services and other
    telecommunications services.[^53] Absent national standards,
    applicable in the absence of state standards or alternative
    standards agreed to by requesting carriers and incumbent LECs,
    incumbent LECs in many states will continue to delay unreasonably
    competitive LECs\' build‑out of their facilities.[^54] We therefore
    conclude that we should adopt national standards for physical
    collocation provisioning that will apply when the state does not set
    its own standards or if the requesting carrier and incumbent LEC
    have not mutually agreed to alternative standards.[^55] A state
    could set its own standards by statute, through an existing or
    future rulemaking order, by enforcing a state tariff, or by applying
    the precedent of a state arbitration decision. An incumbent LEC, of
    course, may petition a state to extend the application processing
    and provisioning interval deadlines in specific circumstances (e.g.,
    conditioning space in a premises is particularly difficult). For
    purposes of our rules, a state decision granting an extension
    constitutes a state standard for the arrangement in question.

23. We reject the suggestion that we should defer all collocation
    interval issues to the states.[^56] In *AT&T v. Iowa Utilities
    Board*, the Supreme Court specifically held that we have rulemaking
    authority to carry out the provisions of section 251.[^57] Although
    we defer to those states that set application processing or
    provisioning intervals standards, for the reasons just stated we
    must act to fill the void where other states have not acted.
    Therefore, in the exercise of our authority, we find that maximum
    application processing and provisioning intervals for physical
    collocation that apply, except to the extent a state sets its own
    standard or the parties have mutually agreed to an alternative
    standard, are necessary to ensure that incumbent LECs provide
    physical collocation under reasonable terms and conditions and that
    competitive LECs are able to compete effectively in the provision of
    advanced services and other telecommunications services. We conclude
    that national standards for collocation provisioning that apply, in
    the absence of a state standard or the parties' mutual agreement to
    an alternative standard, will help avoid having telecommunications
    services delayed indefinitely pending the completion of state
    proceedings.

#### Selection of National Standards

24. An incumbent LEC must perform essentially three groups of tasks in
    order to provision collocation space in response to a competitive
    LEC's request. The incumbent LEC must determine whether the
    competitive LEC's application for collocation space meets any
    requirements the incumbent has established for such applications. In
    the *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, we stated that ten
    days constitutes a reasonable period within which an incumbent LEC
    should inform a new entrant whether its collocation application has
    been accepted or denied.[^58] Based on the record before us, we
    believe that an incumbent LEC has had ample time since the enactment
    of section 251(c)(6) to develop internal procedures sufficient to
    meet this deadline, absent the receipt of an extraordinary number of
    complex collocation applications within a limited time frame. We
    therefore require that, where neither the state nor the parties to
    an interconnection agreement set a different deadline, an incumbent
    LEC must tell the requesting telecommunications carrier whether a
    collocation application has been accepted or denied within ten
    calendar days after receiving the application.[^59] If the incumbent
    LEC deems that application unacceptable, it must advise the
    competitive LEC of any deficiencies within this ten calendar day
    period. The incumbent LEC must provide sufficient detail so that the
    requesting carrier has a reasonable opportunity to cure each
    deficiency. To retain its place in the incumbent LEC's collocation
    queue, the competitive LEC must cure any deficiencies in its
    collocation application and resubmit the application within ten
    calendar days after being advised of them.[^60]

25. In some instances, an incumbent LEC also must perform specific
    design or planning work to accommodate the competitive LEC's
    specific collocation request.[^61] The incumbent LEC also may have
    to determine the price it will charge for the proposed collocation
    arrangement.[^62] We conclude that an incumbent LEC should normally
    be able quickly to complete any necessary design, planning, and
    price quotation processes.[^63] We decline, however, to specify any
    deadlines for completion of these processes. We conclude that the
    better course is to specify deadlines within which an incumbent LEC
    must complete the provisioning of all physical collocation
    arrangements, absent specific state action or an interconnection
    agreement setting different deadlines. An incumbent LEC then will
    have every incentive to complete its design, planning, and price
    quotation processes expeditiously so as to allow more time for
    actually provisioning collocation arrangements. We note that an
    incumbent LEC can streamline its design, planning, and price
    quotation processes by developing standardized rates, terms, and
    conditions for different collocation arrangements.[^64]

26. Finally, the incumbent LEC must promptly provision the collocation
    arrangement in those instances where the competitive LEC wishes to
    proceed with collocation. We believe that the requesting carrier
    should be able to inform an incumbent LEC that physical collocation
    should proceed within seven calendar days after receiving the
    incumbent LEC's price quotation. If the requesting carrier meets
    this deadline, the incumbent LEC must comply with the 90 calendar
    day provisioning interval set forth in paragraph 27, below, or any
    alternative interval set by a state commission or agreed to by the
    requesting carrier and the incumbent LEC. If the requesting carrier
    fails to meet this deadline, the provisioning interval will begin on
    the date the requesting carrier informs the incumbent LEC that
    physical collocation should proceed (i.e., makes clear its intent to
    obtain a particular collocation arrangement from the incumbent) or
    any alternative date set by a state commission or agreed to by the
    parties. Restarting the collocation interval when the requesting
    carrier fails to respond to a price quotation within seven calendar
    days will facilitate the incumbent LEC's collocation provisioning
    operations and will prevent the requesting carrier from imposing
    unnecessary burdens on those operations to the potential detriment
    of other requesting carriers.

27. We also conclude that an incumbent LEC should be able to complete
    any technically feasible physical collocation arrangement, whether
    caged or cageless, no later than 90 calendar days after receiving an
    acceptable collocation application, where space, whether conditioned
    or unconditioned, is available in the incumbent LEC premises and the
    state commission does not set a different interval or the incumbent
    and requesting carrier have not agreed to a different interval.[^65]
    We select this provisioning interval based on a balancing of
    competing considerations. First, we agree with the competitive LECs
    that an interval of relatively short duration is necessary to help
    ensure timely deployment of advanced services and other
    telecommunications services.[^66] A 90 calendar day interval, which
    is somewhat tighter than those that certain state commissions have
    set for caged physical collocation, but exceeds the interval U S
    WEST has committed itself to achieve for cageless physical
    collocation,[^67] should enable competitive LECs to bring
    competitive services to customers throughout the nation much more
    quickly than they have in the past.[^68] While a shorter interval,
    such as the 45 calendar day interval Covad urges,[^69] obviously
    would provide even quicker deployment of advanced services, we are
    not persuaded on this record that an interval significantly shorter
    than 90 days would be reasonable for many collocation
    arrangements.[^70] We note that in part V.D, *infra*, we invite
    comment on whether should specify a collocation interval shorter
    than 90 calendar days.

28. Based on the record before us, we believe, in addition, that a
    maximum 90 calendar day interval will give an incumbent LEC ample
    time to provision most, if not all, physical collocation
    arrangements.[^71] We recognize, of course, that many incumbent LECs
    will have to improve their collocation provisioning performance
    significantly in order to meet this interval. Significant
    improvement is needed, however, only where incumbent LECs have taken
    insufficient steps to ensure the adequacy of their collocation
    provisioning processes.[^72] We believe that in order to discharge
    its statutory obligation to provide physical collocation under
    reasonable terms and conditions, an incumbent LEC must implement
    internal controls, methods, and procedures for ensuring the timely
    provisioning of physical collocation.[^73] We also believe that
    these controls, methods, and procedures should improve over time.
    Incumbents already have extensive experience with handling large
    numbers of collocation applications on an ongoing basis. This
    experience should enable them to upgrade their internal controls,
    methods, and procedures to the extent necessary to provision all, or
    virtually all, physical collocation arrangements in no more than 90
    calendar days.[^74]

29. We also continue to believe, based on the record before us, that
    intervals significantly longer than 90 days, such as the 180
    calendar day interval Sprint suggests for previously unconditioned
    space,[^75] would not generally result in competitive LECs'
    receiving access to space within incumbent LEC premises within
    reasonable time frames. Instead, we believe, based on this record,
    that intervals significantly longer than 90 days generally will
    impede competitive LECs' ability to compete effectively,[^76]
    although we recognize that in specific circumstances a significantly
    longer provisioning interval may be warranted based on detailed
    information presented to and evaluated by a state commission. We
    therefore require that, except to the extent a state sets its own
    collocation provisioning standard or an incumbent LEC and requesting
    carrier have an interconnection agreement that sets an alternative
    standard, an incumbent LEC must complete physical collocation
    provisioning within 90 calendar days after receiving an acceptable
    collocation application. We recognize, however, that a state may
    establish different provisioning intervals, either shorter or longer
    than the national default standard, based on the facts before that
    state, which may differ from our record here.

30. To complete provisioning of a collocation arrangement, an incumbent
    LEC must finish construction in accordance with the requesting
    carrier's application and turn functional space over to the
    requesting carrier.[^77]

31. Failure to meet either the deadline for determining whether a
    collocation application is acceptable or the specified provisioning
    deadline, where the state does not set a different deadline or the
    parties have not mutually consented to alternative standards, could
    expose an incumbent LEC to possible action at both the federal and
    state level. For instance, we will consider a Bell Operating
    Company's (BOC's) collocation provisioning performance as part of
    our review of any application to provide in-region, interLATA
    service pursuant to section 271 of the Communications Act.[^78]
    Failure to meet collocation deadlines after obtaining section 271
    approval would expose a BOC to possible enforcement action under
    section 271(d)(6)(A) of the Act, which authorizes the Commission to
    impose monetary penalties, or to suspend or revoke interLATA
    approval after notice and an opportunity for hearing.[^79]
    Similarly, the Texas Commission has specified collocation
    provisioning performance measurements for Southwestern Bell
    Telephone Company (SWBT). Failure to meet these measurements would
    expose SWBT to liquidated damages payable to the affected
    competitive LECs and assessments payable to the State Treasury.[^80]

32. We decline at this time to set provisioning intervals for virtual
    collocation. Although certain competitive LECs request that we take
    that step,[^81] we are not convinced on this record that a national
    standard for provisioning virtual collocation arrangements is
    necessary to enable competitive LECs to compete effectively in the
    market for advanced services and other telecommunications services.
    We invite competitive LECs to provide additional information for the
    record in this proceeding if they believe incumbent LECs are not
    complying with our virtual collocation rules.

#### Application of National Standards

33. As indicated previously, in *AT&T v. Iowa Utilities Board*, the
    Supreme Court confirmed our rulemaking authority to carry out the
    provisions of section 251.[^82] To implement the application
    processing and collocation interval requirements we adopt here
    pursuant to that authority, an incumbent LEC must offer to provide
    all forms of physical collocation (i.e., caged, cageless, shared,
    and adjacent) in accordance with those requirements, except to the
    extent a state sets its own application processing and collocation
    interval deadlines.[^83] To make an offer to provide physical
    collocation, an incumbent LEC must propose in response to a request
    from a competitive LEC an interconnection agreement or an amendment
    to an interconnection agreement including all necessary rates,
    terms, and conditions. This offer to provide physical collocation
    may be subject to the incumbent LEC's ability to seek from the
    state, based on specific circumstances, application processing and
    provisioning intervals different from the federal standards or to
    "demonstrate\[\] to the State commission that physical collocation
    is not practical for technical reasons or because of space
    limitations."[^84] Subject to the same exceptions, the incumbent LEC
    must make this offering available to all carriers that seek to
    physically collocate equipment necessary for interconnection or
    access to unbundled network elements at any of the incumbent's
    premises. The incumbent LEC must make this offer in response to any
    requests made after this *Order's* effective date. We do not adopt
    Covad's suggestion that the national standards adopted here apply
    even in the absence of an interconnection agreement.[^85] We find
    that the approach we take here, allowing parties to complete the
    negotiation process as contemplated by section 252, but imposing a
    requirement that should avoid unreasonable delays thereafter,
    reasonably balances the parties' interests.

34. The interconnection agreement between the incumbent LEC and the
    requesting carrier may contain a clause that provides for reopening
    negotiations in the event we change our rules.[^86] The incumbent
    and its competitor must comply with any such clause in negotiating
    specific provisions to implement changes in our collocation rules,
    including the application processing deadline and 90 calendar day
    physical collocation interval we adopt above.[^87] We note that the
    failure of an incumbent LEC to offer an amendment upon request may
    subject the incumbent LEC to enforcement action for failure to
    negotiate in good faith under section 251(c)(1) of the Act and our
    implementing rules. The incumbent LEC and competitive LEC also must
    negotiate in good faith regarding any rates, terms, and conditions
    necessary to implement our rule changes. The incumbent LEC and the
    requesting carrier, of course, have the duty to negotiate in good
    faith if they have not already entered into an interconnection
    agreement.[^88] We expect the negotiating process will not
    unreasonably delay implementation of the application processing and
    provisioning deadlines adopted in this *Order*.

35. The parties must negotiate and arbitrate any open issues in good
    faith and in accordance with the specific timetable set forth in
    section 252 of the Act. We encourage the state commissions to
    monitor this area closely to ensure that incumbent LECs do not use
    the negotiating or arbitration process to delay unnecessarily
    requesting carriers' collocation efforts. We note that an incumbent
    LEC's use of the arbitration process as a means to delay
    unnecessarily collocation efforts could be viewed as a failure to
    negotiate in "good faith," as required by section 251(c)(1).[^89]

36. In some instances, a state tariff sets forth the rates, terms, and
    conditions under which an incumbent LEC provides physical
    collocation to requesting carriers. An incumbent LEC also may have
    filed with the state commission a statement of generally available
    terms and conditions (SGAT) under which it offers to provide
    physical collocation to requesting carriers.[^90] Because of the
    critical importance of timely collocation provisioning, we conclude
    that, within 30 days after the effective date of this *Order*, the
    incumbent LEC must file with the state commission any amendments
    necessary to bring a tariff or SGAT into compliance with the
    national standards. At the time it files these amendments, the
    incumbent also must file its request, if any, that the state set
    intervals longer than the national standards as well as all
    supporting information. For a SGAT, the national standards shall
    take effect within 60 days after the amendment's filing except to
    the extent the state commission specifies other application
    processing or provisioning intervals for a particular type of
    collocation arrangement, such as cageless collocation.[^91] Where a
    tariff must be amended to reflect the national standards, those
    standards shall take effect at the earliest time permissible under
    applicable state requirements.

37. Absent the incumbent LEC's and requesting carrier's mutual consent,
    the ten calendar day deadline for responding to a collocation
    application and the 90 calendar day provisioning deadline will serve
    as maximum intervals, to the extent a state does not set its own
    deadlines.[^92] An incumbent LEC that seeks additional time to
    advise a requesting carrier of defects in a collocation application
    could show the state commission, for example, that its receipt of an
    extraordinary number of collocation applications within a short time
    frame warrants a limited extension of the ten calendar day deadline
    set forth in paragraph 24.[^93] An extension of this deadline by a
    state commission will not automatically result in an extension of
    the 90 calendar day provisioning deadline. Instead, an incumbent LEC
    must complete all technically feasible collocation arrangements
    within 90 calendar days, unless a state sets or the parties have
    agreed to a different deadline. Where an incumbent LEC seeks a
    departure from either deadline, the incumbent also must provide any
    additional information the state commission requires to resolve
    whether a departure is warranted. States will continue to have
    flexibility to adopt different intervals and additional collocation
    requirements, consistent with the Act. For instance, a state would
    be free to set shorter provisioning intervals for cageless
    collocation arrangements, augments to existing collocation
    arrangements, and collocation within remote terminals.[^94] Indeed,
    we encourage states to adopt shorter provisioning intervals in
    circumstances where the nature of the collocation arrangements may
    render shorter provisioning intervals particularly appropriate.

38. To the extent the state commission permits, the incumbent LEC may
    require a competitive LEC to pay reasonable application fees or
    portions of the total collocation charges prior to processing a
    collocation application or provisioning a collocation arrangement. A
    competitive LEC's exercise of any right it has to dispute those fees
    or charges, or any of the rates, terms, or conditions under which an
    incumbent LEC seeks to provide collocation, shall not relieve the
    incumbent LEC of its obligation to comply with each of the time
    limits set forth in this section. We note that a competitive LEC\'s
    ability to meet the seven-day interval specified in paragraph 26,
    above, may depend on whether the incumbent LEC has provided adequate
    cost support to justify its price quote. An incumbent LEC that fails
    to provide adequate cost support upon the request by the competitive
    LEC could be subject to enforcement action under our \"good faith\"
    rules, which bar incumbent LECs from \"refus\[ing\] to provide
    information necessary to reach agreement."[^95] This information
    includes "cost data . . . necessary for the requesting carrier to
    determine whether the rates offered by the incumbent LEC are
    reasonable."[^96]

39. An incumbent LEC also may require a competitive LEC to forecast its
    physical collocation demands.[^97] Absent state action requiring
    forecasts, a requesting carrier's failure to submit a timely
    forecast will not relieve the incumbent LEC of its obligation to
    comply with the time limits set forth in this section. Similarly, an
    incumbent LEC may penalize an inaccurate collocation forecast by
    lengthening a collocation interval only if the state commission
    affirmatively authorizes such action.

## Adjacent Collocation

40. In the *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, we required an
    incumbent LEC, when space is legitimately exhausted in a particular
    incumbent LEC structure, "to permit collocation in adjacent
    controlled environmental vaults or similar structures to the extent
    technically feasible."[^98] These vaults or similar structures are
    located on the incumbent LEC's property. We recognized that an
    adjacent structure would have to be consistent with zoning and other
    state and local requirements, and that the incumbent LEC might
    exercise some control over an adjacent structure's design or
    construction parameters.[^99] We required, however, that "\[t\]he
    incumbent LEC must permit the new entrant to construct or otherwise
    procure such an adjacent structure, subject only to reasonable
    safety and maintenance requirements."[^100] In *GTE v. FCC*, the
    D.C. Circuit affirmed these requirements.[^101] The court determined
    that section 251(c)(6) authorizes us to require incumbent LECs to
    make collocation space available on their premises beyond particular
    structures, such as central offices, where space within the
    structures is legitimately exhausted.[^102] The court also stated
    that our adjacent collocation "rule clearly furthers the purpose
    underlying section 251(c)(6)" and is "eminently reasonable."[^103]

41. In its petition, Sprint contends that certain incumbent LECs are not
    allowing competitive LECs to construct adjacent vaults when space is
    exhausted within an office and asks that we clarify that such
    construction is required.[^104] Ameritech states that allowing
    competitive LECs to construct controlled environmental vaults on
    land surrounding an incumbent LEC structure would be inconsistent
    with the language of section 251(c)(6) of the Communication Act, the
    public interest, and the definition of "premises" in section 51.5 of
    our rules.[^105]

42. Ameritech's argument regarding the language of section 251(c)(6) is
    similar to the argument the D.C. Circuit rejected in *GTE v. FCC*,
    where the court made clear that our adjacent collocation
    requirements are permissible under section 251(c)(6).[^106]
    Consistent with the court's opinion, we conclude that the language
    of section 251(c)(6) does not restrict mandatory physical
    collocation to places within incumbent LEC structures. Instead,
    section 251(c)(6) requires physical collocation "*at* the premises
    of the local exchange carrier."[^107] We find that this term
    encompasses land owned, leased, or controlled by an incumbent LEC as
    well as any incumbent LEC network structure on such land.[^108]

43. We also conclude that requiring an incumbent LEC to permit
    collocation in adjacent controlled environmental vaults or similar
    structures, when physical collocation space is otherwise exhausted,
    is consistent with the procompetitive purposes of section
    251(c)(6).[^109] As we indicated in the *Advanced Services First
    Report & Order*, such a requirement is an effective means of
    ensuring that competitive LECs can compete with the incumbent LEC
    even when no physical collocation space is available within an
    incumbent LEC structure.[^110]

44. We recognize, however, that Ameritech has claimed that collocation
    in controlled environmental vaults that a competitive LEC constructs
    or procures on land adjacent to an incumbent LEC structure is
    inconsistent with the definition of "premises" in section 51.5 of
    our rules.[^111] The Commission adopted that definition in the
    *Local Competition Order*, after recognizing that neither the 1996
    Act nor its legislative history defines "premises" and that in other
    contexts "premises" is defined in varying ways.[^112] The Commission
    determined that it should define "premises" broadly in order to
    permit competitive LECs to collocate at a broad range of points
    under incumbent LEC control.[^113] The Commission adopted the
    definition in section 51.5, under which "\[p\]remises refers to an
    incumbent LEC's central offices and serving wire centers, as well as
    all buildings or similar structures owned or leased by an incumbent
    LEC that house incumbent LEC facilities on public rights-of-way,
    including but not limited to vaults containing loop concentrators or
    similar structures."[^114] To avoid any possible confusion regarding
    this matter, we amend that definition to make clear that "premises"
    includes all buildings and similar structures owned, leased, or
    otherwise controlled by the incumbent LEC that house its network
    facilities, all structures that house incumbent LEC facilities on
    public rights-of-way, and all land owned, leased, or otherwise
    controlled by an incumbent LEC that is adjacent to these
    structures.[^115] This definition, of course, excludes land and
    buildings in which the incumbent LEC has no interest. In that
    circumstance, the incumbent LEC and its competitors have an equal
    opportunity to obtain space within which to locate their equipment.

45. We also clarify that under section 51.323(k)(3) of our rules, an
    incumbent LEC must make available collocation in adjacent controlled
    environmental vaults or similar structures, to the extent
    technically feasible, at premises where physical collocation space
    is legitimately exhausted, even if virtual collocation space is not
    exhausted.[^116] This approach is consistent with the language of
    section 251(c)(6), which permits an incumbent LEC to substitute
    virtual collocation for physical collocation only when "physical
    collocation is not practical for technical reasons or because of
    space limitations."[^117] It also furthers the purposes behind
    section 251(c)(6), because it will increase the collocation options
    available to requesting telecommunications carriers in situations
    where no space within an incumbent LEC structure is available for
    physical collocation. We do not now require, however, that an
    incumbent LEC must permit collocation in adjacent controlled
    environmental vaults or similar structures when physical collocation
    space within an incumbent LEC structure is not exhausted.[^118]

46. If collocation space becomes available in a previously exhausted
    incumbent LEC structure, the incumbent LEC must obtain the state
    commission's express approval before requiring a competitive LEC to
    move, or prohibiting a competitive LEC from moving, a collocation
    arrangement into that structure, unless the incumbent LEC and the
    collocator have an interconnection agreement that expressly provides
    for a different outcome. Instead, absent such state approval, the
    incumbent LEC must continue to allow collocation in any adjacent
    controlled environmental vault or similar structure that a
    competitive LEC has constructed or otherwise procured.[^119] We
    conclude that these limitations are necessary to ensure that
    incumbent LECs do not unreasonably or discriminatorily infringe a
    collocator's physical collocation rights. For instance, an incumbent
    could potentially delay making collocation space available within a
    structure until after a competitive LEC had completed construction
    of an adjacent arrangement. Similarly, a collocator might wish to
    replace an adjacent collocation arrangement with collocation within
    a central office or remote terminal in order to significantly
    improve the quality of its telecommunications services. State
    oversight should help prevent incumbent LEC abuses in these areas.

47. Where technically feasible, an incumbent LEC must make physical
    collocation available in any incumbent LEC structure that houses
    network facilities and has space available for collocation.[^120]
    Such structures include, to the extent technically feasible, central
    offices, controlled environmental vaults, controlled environmental
    huts, cabinets, pedestals, and other remote terminals. As we stated
    in the *UNE Remand Order*, our collocation rules apply to
    collocation at any technically feasible point, from the largest
    central office to the most compact feeder distribution
    interface.[^121] Whenever physical collocation space becomes
    exhausted within any of these structures, the incumbent must permit
    a competitive LEC to construct its own physical collocation
    structure as described above.[^122]

## Reserving Space for Future Use

### Background

48. Under section 251(c)(6) of the Communications Act, an incumbent LEC
    must provide physical collocation unless it demonstrates to the
    state commission that "physical collocation is not practical for
    technical reasons or because of space limitations.\"[^123] In the
    *Local Competition First Report and Order*, the Commission
    recognized that incumbent LECs should be allowed to retain a limited
    amount of floor space for specific future uses.[^124] The Commission
    specified, however, that incumbent LECs may not reserve space for
    future use on terms more favorable than those that apply to other
    telecommunications carriers seeking to reserve collocation space for
    their own future uses.[^125] In the *Advanced Services First Report
    and Order*, the Commission did not adopt any new warehousing
    requirements, despite Sprint's request that we preclude incumbent
    LECs from reserving collocation space beyond their needs for the
    next year.[^126]

49. In its petition, Sprint asks that we limit incumbent LEC and
    competitive LEC reservations of potential collocation space to one
    year.[^127] Sprint also asks that we require that any reservation of
    collocation space be made pursuant to specific business plans to
    utilize that space. Sprint argues that, absent these actions,
    incumbent LECs will reserve excessive space in order to limit the
    amount of collocation space available to competitors.[^128] Several
    incumbent LECs state that Sprint proposed similar actions previously
    in this proceeding. These parties contend that the Commission has
    already rejected Sprint's proposals and should do so again.[^129]
    Incumbent LECs also maintain that existing safeguards adequately
    protect against hoarding of space,[^130] that effective network
    growth and service deployment requires considerably longer than a
    one-year planning horizon,[^131] and that the Commission should not
    restrict the state commissions' discretion in resolving collocation
    space disputes.[^132]

### Discussion

50. In the *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, we recognized
    that incumbent LECs have the incentive and capability to impede
    competition by reducing the amount of space available for
    collocation by competitors.[^133] We conclude that space reservation
    policies should recognize both the importance of providing physical
    collocation to competitive LECs as well as incumbent LECs' and
    competitive LECs' need to reserve space to meet the future needs of
    their customers.[^134] However, as competitive LECs point out,
    excessive space reservations can create artificial space exhaustion
    that would prevent the timely deployment of advanced services.[^135]
    This can be a particular problem for new entrants, whose space needs
    remain unfilled as space reserved for future use sits idle in many
    incumbent LEC premises. In addition, in premises where collocation
    space is not exhausted, the incumbent may have incentives to reserve
    for its own future use all or virtually all the previously
    conditioned space suitable for collocation. Competitive LECs will
    continue to encounter excessive delays in their collocation efforts
    if incumbent LECs are able to reserve for their own future use
    disproportionate portions of this space.

51. Several state commissions have taken significant steps to limit the
    period for which incumbent LECs and collocators can reserve space in
    incumbent LEC premises. The California Public Utilities Commission
    (California Commission), for example, has adopted an interim policy
    that limits space reservations in Pacific Bell (Pacific) premises to
    one year for equipment similar to that used by collocators and five
    years for other equipment.[^136] Similarly, the Texas Commission
    limits space reservations by SWBT to one year for transport
    equipment, three years for digital cross-connect systems, and five
    years for switching equipment, power equipment, and main
    distribution frames.[^137] In addition, the Texas Commission
    prohibits incumbent LECs from reserving a disproportionate amount of
    conditioned space.[^138] The Washington Utilities and Transportation
    Commission (Washington Commission) limits space reservations by U S
    WEST to one year for transmission equipment and three years for
    switching equipment.[^139]

52. We believe that the state commissions should have the primary
    responsibility for resolving space reservation disputes. Because of
    their knowledge of local circumstances, the state commissions are in
    the best position to determine whether a carrier has reserved more
    space than necessary to meet its future needs. Given this knowledge,
    the state commissions also are in the best position to assess
    whether excessive space reservations are impeding physical
    collocation. We strongly urge the state commissions to adopt space
    reservation policies similar to the state policies described above.
    We decline, however, to mandate specific space reservation periods
    at this time that would apply where a state does not set its own
    standard. Unlike the situation with regard to provisioning
    intervals, the record before us does not establish a need for
    immediate Commission action to keep incumbent LECs' space
    reservation policies from limiting competitive LECs' collocation
    opportunities. As described in the *Second Further Notice*, below,
    however, we invite comment on whether this is an area in which we
    should adopt national standards governing the periods for which
    incumbent LECs and collocating carriers can reserve space for future
    use in incumbent LEC premises that would apply except to the extent
    a state sets its own standard.[^140]

53. As indicated previously,[^141] our rules require that an incumbent
    LEC may not reserve space for future use on terms more favorable
    than those that apply to other telecommunications carriers seeking
    to reserve collocation space for their own future uses. Our rules,
    however, do not directly preclude an incumbent LEC from allowing an
    affiliate to reserve space for future use on preferential terms and
    thus do not ensure that all competitors are able to reserve space on
    a nondiscriminatory basis. In order to deter potential
    discrimination, we amend our rules to specify that neither an
    incumbent LEC nor any incumbent LEC affiliate may reserve space for
    future use on preferential terms.

## Other Issues

### Safety Standards

54. In the *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, we determined
    that compliance with the Network Equipment and Building
    Specifications (NEBS) Level 1 safety requirements generally is
    sufficient to protect competitive LEC and incumbent LEC equipment
    from harm from equipment that competitive LECs collocate in
    incumbent LEC offices.[^142] Certain competitive LECs maintain that
    incumbent LECs are continuing to subject equipment that meets NEBS
    Level 1 safety requirements to additional safety and performance
    review. These competitive LECs request that we clarify that
    incumbent LECs must allow competitive LECs to collocate equipment
    used for interconnection or access to unbundled elements if such
    equipment has received a NEBS Level 1 safety certificate.[^143]

55. We agree that an incumbent LEC may not preclude collocation of any
    equipment necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled
    network elements based on performance, as opposed to safety,
    standards. In particular, as we determined in the *Advanced Services
    First Report and Order*, an incumbent LEC cannot claim NEBS
    performance, as opposed to safety, requirements as grounds for
    refusing to permit collocation of competitive LEC equipment.[^144]

56. We recognized, however, in the *Advanced Services First Report and
    Order*, that an incumbent LEC may impose safety standards in
    addition to the NEBS safety standards, provided the incumbent does
    not impose safety requirements that are more stringent than the
    safety requirements it imposes on its own equipment that it locates
    at its premises.[^145] Because we remain unconvinced that the NEBS
    safety standards address all legitimate safety concerns that may
    arise, we do not preclude incumbent LECs from imposing on their own
    equipment and collocators' equipment safety standards in addition to
    the NEBS Level 1 safety requirements. Any such standards must be
    reasonable and nondiscriminatory.[^146]

57. In the *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, we required that
    an incumbent LEC that denies collocation of a competitor\'s
    equipment, citing safety standards, must provide to the competitive
    LEC within five business days a list of all equipment that the
    incumbent LEC locates at the premises in question, together with an
    affidavit attesting that all of that equipment meets or exceeds the
    safety standard that the incumbent LEC contends the competitor\'s
    equipment fails to meet.[^147] To ensure that incumbent LECs do not
    use safety concerns as a guise for restricting collocators'
    equipment choices, we also require that this affidavit set forth in
    detail: the exact safety requirement that the requesting carrier's
    equipment does not satisfy; the incumbent LEC's basis for concluding
    that the requesting carrier's equipment does not meet this safety
    requirement; and the incumbent LEC's basis for concluding why
    collocation of equipment not meeting this safety requirement would
    compromise network safety.

### Access to Collocation Space

58. In the *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, we required that
    a requesting telecommunications carrier must have access to its
    collocated equipment 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We reasoned
    that this access would enable the collocator to service and maintain
    equipment, and respond to customer outages in a timely manner.[^148]

59. We conclude that a requesting telecommunications carrier also must
    have reasonable access to its designated collocation space while the
    incumbent LEC prepares that space for collocation.[^149] Access to
    the collocation space will help the requesting carrier promptly
    identify any defects in the incumbent LEC's work and thus reduce
    collocation delays. We are amending our rules to require that
    incumbent LECs allow such access.

60. Bell Atlantic asserts that it has adopted "safe-time" work practices
    that limit the times during which its technicians and contractors
    ordinarily perform non-critical work on central office equipment
    located in close proximity to operational equipment.[^150] We do not
    preclude an incumbent LEC from applying reasonable and
    nondiscriminatory "safe-time" work practices to itself and
    collocators.[^151] To be "reasonable," a safe-time work practice
    must apply only to activities that pose a substantial risk of
    significant harm to the incumbent's or other collocators' equipment
    or services.[^152] To be nondiscriminatory, a practice must apply
    equally, both on its face and in actual execution, to the
    incumbent's own technicians and contractors and to each collocator's
    technicians and contractors. Safe-time work practices that the
    incumbent may waive to keep from competitively disadvantaging its or
    an affiliate's operations or that prevent a collocator from
    restoring service in the event of an outage are inherently suspect
    and must receive explicit state commission approval.[^153]

### Floor Plans

61. In the *Local Competition First Report and Order*, the Commission
    required any incumbent LEC that denies a request for physical
    collocation to provide the state commission with detailed floor
    plans or diagrams of its premises. The Commission reasoned that
    these plans or diagrams would help the state commission evaluate
    claims of space exhaustion.[^154] To ensure that each state
    commission has sufficient information to evaluate space exhaustion
    claims, we require that each incumbent LEC provide the state
    commission with all information necessary for the state commission
    to evaluate the reasonableness of the incumbent LEC's and its
    affiliates' reservations of space for future growth. This
    information shall include any information the state commission may
    require to implement its specific space reservation policies,
    including which space, if any, the incumbent or any of its
    affiliates have reserved for future use. The incumbent shall also
    provide the state commission with a detailed description of the
    specific future uses for which the space has been reserved.[^155]

62. An incumbent LEC shall permit any requesting telecommunications
    carrier to inspect any floor plans or diagrams that the incumbent
    LEC provides a state commission, subject to any nondisclosure
    protections the state commission deems appropriate.[^156]

### Nonstandard Equipment

63. CoreComm requests that we clarify that an incumbent LEC must not
    impose a single "standard" bay size that forces competitive LECs
    using wider industry standard equipment to make requests for
    "nonstandard" collocation that impose needless delay.[^157] Each
    incumbent LEC must implement internal controls, methods, and
    procedures that ensure timely and full compliance with section
    251(c)(6) and our implementing rules, including the time limits set
    forth in part IV.D, above. In view of those time limits, we see no
    need to delve into the details of the collocation application
    process at this time. We therefore decline to issue the requested
    clarification.

### Space Availability Reports

64. In the *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, we required that
    an incumbent LEC must provide a requesting telecommunications
    carrier with a report indicating the space available for collocation
    within a particular premises.[^158] In response to the Indiana
    Commission's request, we make clear that the incumbent LEC must
    provide this report within ten calendar days, as opposed to ten
    business days, after it is requested by a telecommunications
    carrier.[^159]

### Spectrum Management Disputes

65. In the *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, we adopted
    spectrum management rules designed to help telecommunications
    carriers deploy advanced services without significantly degrading
    the quality of other advanced services or traditional voice band
    services.[^160] We required, among other items, that a carrier that
    claims its services are being significantly degraded by another
    carrier's services "must notify the causing carrier and allow that
    carrier a reasonable opportunity to correct the problem."[^161]
    Sprint requests that we clarify that incumbent LECs are in all
    instances the initial point of contact for service degradation
    disputes among competitive LECs.[^162] Ameritech, Bell Atlantic,
    BellSouth, and SBC contend that incumbent LECs should not have to
    act as clearinghouses for those disputes.[^163]

66. In our *Advanced Services Third Report and Order*,[^164] we
    confirmed that an incumbent LEC need not act as the initial point of
    contact in all service degradation disputes and adopted procedures
    to be followed in the event a competitive LEC does not know with
    certainty the identity of the carrier causing the degradation.
    Because we addressed this area fully in that *Order*, we find that
    no further action on this Sprint request is warranted.

### Takings

67. US WEST maintains that much of Sprint's petition is predicated on an
    incorrect notion of private property. U S WEST argues that the fifth
    amendment fully protects its private property and that Sprint's
    dissatisfaction with incumbent LECs' collocation policies cannot
    justify more intrusive governmental occupation of the incumbent's
    premises. U S WEST maintains that collocation constitutes a physical
    taking of property for which the incumbent LEC is entitled to just
    compensation and for which the United States may be liable.[^165]

68. To a large extent, US WEST's concerns regarding possible
    infringement of its fifth amendment rights arise from actions in the
    *Advanced Services First Report and Order* that the D.C. Circuit has
    affirmed,[^166] Sprint proposals that we reject,[^167] or Sprint
    proposals that, as a consequence of the D.C. Circuit's decision, we
    could only act on after further deliberation.[^168] We note that we
    believe that our actions in this *Order* are well within the limits
    of "the ordinary and fair meaning" of section 251(c)(6) as well as
    the Congressional intent behind that provision.[^169]

69. Moreover, U S WEST fails to provide evidence that our collocation
    rules are facially unconstitutional. In *Gulf Power v. United
    States*,[^170] the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
    Circuit held that although the 1996 Act's mandatory access
    provisions with regard to utility poles effect a *per se* taking of
    property under the fifth amendment, those provisions are not
    facially unconstitutional because they provide a constitutionally
    adequate process to ensure just compensation.[^171] Even if
    requiring incumbent LECs to provide collocation in accordance with
    our rules constitutes a taking under the fifth amendment, U S WEST
    has failed to show that it is unjustly compensated for this taking.
    Thus, we conclude that U S WEST has failed to show that our
    collocation rules effect an unconstitutional taking under the fifth
    amendment.

# Second further notice of proposed rulemaking in cc docket no. 98-147

## Overview

70. As stated above, in *GTE v. FCC*, the D.C. Circuit vacated and
    remanded certain of the collocation rules we had adopted in the
    *Advanced Services First Report and Order*.[^172] In this *Second
    Further Notice*, we invite comment on what actions we should take in
    response to that judicial decision. We also invite comment on
    changing the minimum space requirements for physical collocation, on
    issues relating to collocation at remote incumbent LEC premises, and
    on whether we should modify our collocation rules to facilitate line
    sharing and subloop unbundling. We invite comment, in addition, on
    adopting provisioning intervals shorter than 90 calendar days and on
    adopting a national policy limiting the period for which potential
    collocation space can be reserved for future use.

## Meaning of "Necessary" under Section 251(c)(6)

### Equipment

#### Background

71. Section 251(c)(6) of the Communications Act requires incumbent LECs
    to permit physical collocation of equipment "necessary for
    interconnection or access to unbundled network elements."[^173] In
    the *Local Competition First Report and Order*, the Commission
    interpreted section 251(c)(6) as requiring incumbent LECs to permit
    competitors to collocate equipment that is "used" or "useful" for
    either interconnection or access to unbundled network
    elements.[^174] Consistent with this interpretation, the Commission
    concluded that competitive LECs may collocate transmission
    equipment, including optical terminating equipment and multiplexers,
    on incumbent LEC premises.[^175] The Commission also concluded that
    section 251(c)(6) does not require that an incumbent LEC permit the
    collocation of switching equipment or equipment used to provide
    enhanced services.[^176]

72. In the *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, we interpreted
    the rules we had adopted in the *Local Competition Proceeding* as
    requiring incumbent LECs to permit collocation of any equipment that
    is "used or useful" for either interconnection or access to
    unbundled network elements, regardless of whether such equipment
    includes a switching functionality, provides enhanced services
    capabilities, or offers other functionalities.[^177] We concluded
    that those rules required incumbent LECs to permit collocation of
    such equipment as DSLAMs, routers, asynchronous transfer mode (ATM)
    multiplexers, and remote switching modules.[^178] We also concluded
    that an incumbent LEC must not limit a competitor's ability to use
    all the features, functions, and capabilities of collocated
    equipment, including, but not limited to, switching and routing
    features and functions.[^179]

73. In *GTE v. FCC*, the D.C. Circuit determined that our interpretation
    of "necessary" under section 251(c)(6) "seem\[ed\] overly broad and
    disconnected from \[that provision's\] statutory purpose."[^180] The
    court vacated and remanded the *Advanced Services First Report and
    Order* to the extent it required that an incumbent LEC permit
    physical collocation of equipment that is not "directly related to
    and thus necessary, required, or indispensable to 'interconnection
    or access to unbundled network elements.'"[^181] The court made
    clear that we would have the opportunity to refine our collocation
    equipment requirements on remand as long as we stayed "within the
    limits of 'the ordinary and fair meaning'" of section
    251(c)(6).[^182]

#### Discussion

74. We invite comment on the meaning of "necessary," as section
    251(c)(6) uses that term. The D.C. Circuit specifically stated that
    it did not vacate the *Advanced Services First Report and Order* to
    the extent it requires that an incumbent LEC permit physical
    collocation of equipment "that is directly related to and thus
    necessary, required, or indispensable to 'interconnection or access
    to unbundled network elements.'"[^183] We note that this definition
    arguably excludes much of the equipment that incumbent LECs and
    their competitors use to serve their customers. We therefore invite
    comment on whether this definition is adequate to allow physical
    collocation as required by the Act. We ask whether the definition of
    \"necessary\" under section 251(c)(6) should instead require that an
    incumbent LEC permit physical collocation of equipment having
    additional capabilities, such as the multi-functional equipment
    incumbent LECs deploy in central offices and remote terminals. We
    also ask whether each proposed definition would be consistent with
    the statutory language and serve the statutory purpose of
    \"seek\[ing\] to ensure competition in areas of advanced technology
    in telecommunications.\"[^184]

75. We note that in the *UNE* *Remand* *Proceeding*, we concluded that a
    proprietary network element is "necessary" within the meaning of
    section 251(d)(2)(A) of the Communications Act "if, taking into
    consideration the availability of alternative elements outside the
    incumbent's network, including self-provisioning by a requesting
    carrier or acquiring an alternative from a third-party supplier,
    lack of access to that element would, as a practical, economic, and
    operational matter, *preclude* a requesting carrier from providing
    the services it seeks to offer."[^185] We invite comment on whether
    we must adopt a similar definition of "necessary" for purposes of
    section 251(c)(6), given that "'\[i\]dentical words may have
    different meanings where the subject-matter to which the words refer
    is not the same in the several places where they are used, or the
    conditions are different.'"[^186] We ask the commenters to propose
    alternative definitions of "necessary," and to explain why each
    proposed definition would be consistent with the statutory language
    and the purpose behind section 251(c)(6).

76. We also invite comment on the relationship between the phrase
    "necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network
    elements" and the remaining language in section 251(c)(6). We note
    that section 251(c)(6) specifies that an incumbent LEC must provide
    any required physical collocation "on rates, terms, and conditions
    that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory." Section 251(c)(6)
    also specifies that an incumbent LEC need not provide physical
    collocation where it is "not practical for technical reasons or
    because of space limitations." We ask the parties to address how, if
    at all, these statutory phrases should influence our interpretation
    of when physical collocation is necessary for interconnection or
    access to unbundled network elements.

77. In its opinion, the D.C. Circuit stated that section 251(c)(6)
    "seeks to ensure competition in areas of advanced technology in
    telecommunications."[^187] We ask the parties to address whether
    Congress intended to restrict collocators to deployment of equipment
    that can only be used for interconnection or access to unbundled
    network elements even if that equipment is not the most efficient
    for providing telecommunications services. We seek comment on
    whether deployment of equipment that can only be used for
    interconnection or access to unbundled network elements will
    necessarily require competitors to provide service of a
    significantly lower quality than that which could be provided using
    equipment that incorporates other functions. We note that section
    51.321(i) of our rules requires incumbent LECs to remove obsolete
    unused equipment from their premises in certain circumstances in
    order to increase the space available for collocation.[^188] We
    invite comment on whether we must preclude collocators, including
    incumbent LEC affiliates, from deploying state-of-the-art equipment
    in the space made available through the operation of this rule.

78. We invite manufacturers to describe their telecommunications
    equipment offerings that are intended to be used for interconnection
    or access to unbundled network elements, the various features,
    functions, and capabilities of such equipment, and any advantages of
    including these features, functions, and capabilities in collocated
    equipment. We seek comment on whether or the extent to which we
    should consider whether it might be more efficient for manufacturers
    to design equipment with functions in addition to those needed for
    interconnection and access to unbundled network elements. We ask, in
    particular, whether section 251(c)(6) permits us to require that an
    incumbent LEC allow the collocation of such multi-functional
    equipment even though aspects of that equipment are not, as the
    statute mandates, necessary for interconnection or access to
    unbundled network elements.

79. Assuming that section 251(c)(6) permits such a requirement, we
    invite commenters to suggest "limiting standard\[s\]" we might
    employ to determine which functions are "unnecessary" and,
    therefore, should not be permitted in collocated equipment.[^189] We
    ask whether any standard we might adopt in this area should
    distinguish between telecommunications and non-telecommunications
    functions.[^190] We seek comment on whether any standard we adopt in
    this area should evolve as manufacturers develop equipment having
    additional capabilities. We ask the commenters to address how each
    proposed standard would affect manufacturers' incentives to develop
    equipment having features, functions, and capabilities that increase
    network efficiency, lower consumer rates, or otherwise advance
    important statutory objectives.[^191] We also ask manufacturers to
    discuss the effect each proposed standard would have on their
    research and development efforts and, in particular, whether any
    particular standard would reduce the funds available for developing
    equipment that incumbent LECs might deploy at their premises.

80. We seek comment on whether the deployment of equipment that provides
    no functionalities other than those directly related to, required
    for, or indispensable to interconnection or access to unbundled
    network elements would consume more or less space in the incumbent's
    premises than would equipment that has multiple functions. We also
    seek comment on the technical differences between such equipment and
    state-of-the-art multi-functional equipment. We ask, in particular,
    whether limiting collocators to less than state-of-the-art equipment
    would mean that incumbent LECs would have to reconfigure any part of
    their networks.

81. We request that competitive LECs describe the particular
    functionalities of the equipment they seek to collocate and explain
    how each functionality is necessary for interconnection, access to
    unbundled network elements, or both. We ask that incumbent LECs
    describe the functionalities of the equipment they or their
    affiliates plan to deploy at incumbent LEC premises, including
    remote premises, to provide services similar to those competitive
    LECs provide. We invite incumbent LECs to specify whether each of
    these functionalities should be permissible in competitors'
    physically collocated equipment and, if not, to explain in detail
    why excluding those functionalities from collocated equipment would
    be consistent with the language and purpose of section 251(c)(6). We
    ask, in addition, why excluding those functionalities from
    collocated equipment would be just, reasonable, and
    nondiscriminatory and, therefore, satisfy the requirements of
    sections 251(c)(2) and (3).

82. We recognize that carriers often provide service from remote
    terminals through digital loop carrier systems.[^192] Indeed,
    providing advanced services through digital loop carrier systems is
    considered a typical method for deploying a next generation network,
    so we may find more carriers relying on digital loop carrier
    systems, specifically "next generation" digital loop carrier
    systems, in the future.[^193] These "next generation" digital loop
    carrier systems contain, among other things, integrated line cards
    (often referred to as "plug-in cards") that are used to provide
    specific advanced services and other telecommunications services to
    consumers. Manufacturers recently have developed plug-in line cards
    that perform functions such as spectrum splitting and exchanging
    cells with ATM switches, in addition to connecting subscriber lines
    served by remote terminals to the rest of the telephone network. We
    ask whether line cards are equipment necessary for interconnection
    or access to unbundled network elements. We also recognize that
    manufacturers are continually increasing the capabilities of these
    line cards to enable carriers to provide telecommunications
    services, including advanced services, and information services more
    efficiently. We request comment on impending developments in these
    cards. We ask whether limiting the functionalities of the line cards
    that a competitive LEC could collocate would reduce innovation in
    digital loop carrier systems, assuming that these line cards are
    necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network. We
    also ask whether such a limitation would be consistent with section
    251(c)(6) and further Congress' goal of promoting the deployment of
    advanced services to all Americans.[^194]

83. We seek comment, in addition, on the effect, if any, of each
    alternative definition of "necessary" would have on a collocator's
    ability to provide the types of telecommunications services it
    wishes to provide or to serve the types of areas it wishes to serve.
    We ask, for instance, whether, pursuant to section 251(c)(6),
    providers of dark fiber[^195] or interoffice transport services may
    collocate in incumbent LEC central offices. In the event a proposed
    definition of "necessary" would prevent a collocator from providing
    a desired telecommunications service or serving a particular type of
    area, we invite comment on how limiting the telecommunications
    services a collocator may provide would further the purpose behind
    section 251(c)(6) and the goals of the 1996 Act, and would be just,
    reasonable, and nondiscriminatory and satisfy sections 251(c)(2) and
    (3).

84. We ask, in addition, whether any proposed definition of "necessary"
    would "unnecessar\[ily\] tak\[e\]" incumbent LEC property.[^196]

### Cross Connections between Collocators

#### Background

85. Section 251(c)(6) requires an incumbent LEC to permit collocation of
    equipment "necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled
    network elements at the premises of the local exchange
    carrier."[^197] Section 251(a)(1) requires each telecommunications
    carrier "to interconnect directly or indirectly with the facilities
    and equipment of other telecommunications carriers . . . ."[^198]
    Section 251(c)(2) requires an incumbent LEC "to provide, for the
    facilities and equipment of any requesting telecommunications
    carrier, interconnection with the local exchange carrier's network .
    . . for the transmission and routing of telephone exchange service
    and exchange access . . . ."[^199] Section 251(c)(3) requires an
    incumbent LEC "to provide, to any requesting telecommunications
    carrier for the provision of a telecommunications service,
    nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an unbundled basis .
    . . ."[^200] In the *Local Competition First Report and Order*, the
    Commission concluded that the term "interconnection" as used in
    section 251(c)(2) refers "only to the physical linking of two
    networks for the mutual exchange of traffic."[^201]

86. In the *Local Competition Order*, the Commission required that an
    incumbent LEC allow a collocating carrier to connect its collocated
    equipment to the collocated equipment of another carrier within the
    same incumbent LEC premises so long as each collocator's equipment
    is used for interconnection with the incumbent or access to the
    incumbent's unbundled network elements.[^202] In the *Advanced
    Services First Report and Order*, we amended this rule to require
    incumbent LECs to permit collocating carriers to construct their own
    cross‑connect facilities between collocated equipment located on the
    incumbent\'s premises, subject only to the same reasonable safety
    requirements the incumbent places on its own facilities.[^203]

87. In *GTE v. FCC*, the D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded the
    cross-connects rule adopted in the *Advanced Services First Report
    and Order*.[^204] The court stated that "requiring \[incumbent\]
    LECs to allow collocating competitors to interconnect their
    equipment with other collocating carriers . . . imposes an
    obligation on \[incumbent\] LECs that has no apparent basis in the
    statute."[^205] The court also stated that section 251(c)(6) is
    focused solely on connecting new competitors to incumbent LECs'
    networks and that the Commission had not even attempted to show that
    cross-connects between collocators are "necessary for
    interconnection or access to unbundled network elements" within the
    meaning of that provision.[^206]

#### Discussion

88. We invite comment on whether section 251(c)(6) encompasses
    cross-connects between collocators. We also invite comment on when a
    cross-connect between collocators should be deemed "necessary for
    interconnection or access to unbundled network elements" within the
    meaning of section 251(c)(6). We ask whether we may permissibly
    interpret "interconnection" as used in section 251(c)(6) as
    referring only to the interconnection of a collocator's equipment or
    network to the incumbent LEC's network, and not to the
    interconnection of two collocators' equipment or networks as well.
    Assuming that "interconnection" as used in section 251(c)(6) may be
    construed to encompass interconnection between two collocators
    pursuant to section 251(a)(1) as well as interconnection pursuant to
    section 251(c)(2), we also ask whether section 251(c)(6) encompasses
    both direct interconnection (i.e., direct physical links between the
    collocators' facilities or equipment) and indirect interconnection
    (i.e., links through the incumbent's facilities or equipment).[^207]

89. With respect to indirect interconnection, we ask whether section
    251(c)(6) authorizes the Commission to require that incumbent LECs
    permit telecommunications carriers to collocate for the sole purpose
    of interconnecting with other collocating carriers through the use
    of cross-connects. Additionally, we ask whether we may require an
    incumbent LEC to provide direct physical connections between two
    collocators pursuant to any other statutory provision, such as
    sections 251(a)(1), 251(c)(2), and 251(c)(3) of the Communications
    Act.[^208]

90. We also invite comment on whether a cross-connect between two
    collocators is "necessary" within the meaning of section 251(c)(6)
    when the collocators have alternative means of interconnecting.
    Specifically, we ask whether a direct physical link between two
    collocators' collocated equipment is "necessary for interconnection
    . . . at the premises of the local exchange carrier" when the
    incumbent LEC offers the collocators indirect interconnection within
    that premises or the collocators are able to interconnect directly
    or indirectly outside that premises. We request detailed information
    regarding the relative costs and quality of these three types of
    interconnection (direct physical links between collocators at the
    incumbent's premises, indirect links at that premises, and direct or
    indirect links outside that premises). We seek comment on whether
    any of these interconnection alternatives impose disproportionate
    costs or adverse operational impacts on the incumbent or other
    collocators. We ask whether a significant disparity in costs or
    quality among these alternatives makes any particular alternative
    "necessary" within the meaning of section 251(c)(6).[^209] That is,
    we ask what weight, if any, should we give to disparities in cost or
    quality in determining whether equipment is necessary for
    interconnection or access to unbundled network elements within the
    meaning of section 251(c)(6). We also seek comment on whether the
    interconnection alternatives available to collocators would affect a
    collocator's ability to exploit the features, functions, and
    capabilities of the collocated equipment, provide a desired
    telecommunications service, or serve a particular type of geographic
    area. Additionally, we ask whether the time intervals necessary for
    provisioning and constructing cross-connects would vary depending
    upon whether they are constructed by an incumbent LEC or a
    competitive LEC.

91. We further invite comment on whether there are any circumstances in
    which we may, consistent with section 251(c)(6), require that an
    incumbent LEC permit collocators to construct their own cross
    connections as opposed to obtaining them from the incumbent. We ask
    for detailed information on the relative costs, quality, and
    provisioning intervals of collocator and incumbent LEC construction
    in this area and whether a significant disparity in costs, quality,
    or provisioning intervals makes construction by a collocator
    necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network
    elements. We seek comment on whether permitting collocators to
    construct their own cross connections would impose disproportionate
    costs or adverse operational impacts on the incumbent LEC or other
    collocators.

92. We invite comment on whether, if we may permissibly construe section
    251(c)(6) to permit collocators to cross-connect at the incumbent's
    premises, we should require incumbent LECs to designate specific
    points at which collocators may enter the incumbent's premises in
    order to cross-connect to other collocators' equipment. We note that
    Metromedia Fiber states that many incumbent LEC central offices are
    surrounded by five, ten, or more manholes and that it could
    cross-connect to other collocators most efficiently if it were able
    to enter the incumbent LEC's structure at one or two predesignated
    manholes.[^210] We therefore ask whether, assuming that section
    251(c)(6) encompasses cross-connects between collocators, the
    Commission may require incumbents to provide requesting carriers
    with one or two points of entry into the incumbent LEC's premises so
    that collocators may cross-connect more efficiently. We also request
    specific comment on whether incumbent LECs should exercise exclusive
    discretion over determining which manholes will act as a point of
    entry for collocated carriers, whether it is technically feasible
    for incumbent LECs to designate one or two points of entry into the
    central office, and whether we may require incumbent LECs to permit
    cross-connecting collocators to utilize the same point of entry into
    the central office.

## Meaning of "Physical Collocation" under Section 251(c)(6)

### Background

93. In the *Advanced Services First Report and Order,* we required that
    "an incumbent LEC must give competitors the option of collocating
    equipment in any unused space within the incumbent\'s premises, to
    the extent technically feasible. We also precluded an incumbent LEC
    from requiring competitors to collocate in a room or isolated space
    separate from the incumbent\'s own equipment."[^211] We specified
    that while an incumbent LEC may require collocators to use a central
    entrance to the incumbent's premises, the incumbent cannot require
    construction of a new entrance for the collocators' use.[^212]

94. In *GTE v. FCC*, the D.C. Circuit determined that we had not
    adequately justified the rules set forth above. The court stated
    that those rules "appear\[ed\] to favor the \[incumbent\] LECs'
    competitors in ways that exceed what is 'necessary' to achieve
    reasonable 'physical collocation' and in ways that may result in
    unnecessary takings of \[incumbent\] LEC property."[^213] The court
    therefore vacated and remanded these rules. The court stated,
    however, that we would have the opportunity on remand to "refine
    \[our\] regulatory requirements to tie the rules to the statutory
    standard, which only mandates physical collocation as 'necessary for
    interconnection or access to unbundled network elements at the
    premises of the local exchange carrier.'"[^214]

### Discussion

95. The physical collocation requirements that the D.C. Circuit remanded
    implicate three aspects of our collocation policies: the procedure
    by which physical collocation space is assigned; where within an
    incumbent LEC's premises that space is located; and how the
    collocator accesses its assigned space. We invite comment on the
    extent of our statutory authority regarding each of the areas. We
    also invite comment on what physical collocation requirements, if
    any, we should adopt to replace those the D.C. Circuit vacated.

96. We invite comment on what space assignment policies are necessary to
    achieve reasonable and nondiscriminatory physical collocation that
    does not result in any "unnecessary taking" of incumbent LEC
    property.[^215] We ask that the commenters address whether the
    incumbent, as opposed to the requesting carrier, should select a
    requesting carrier's physical collocation space from among the
    unused space in the incumbent's premises. If so, we invite comment
    on what criteria, if any, we should require the incumbent to employ
    in selecting that space. We also invite comment on whether an
    incumbent would be providing physical collocation under just,
    reasonable, and nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions if it
    assigned a collocator space that would cost more or take longer to
    provision than the space the incumbent assigns to itself on any of
    its affiliates.

97. We invite comment on whether we may, consistent with section
    251(c)(6), preclude the incumbent from placing collocators in a room
    or isolated space separate from the incumbent's own equipment. In
    particular, we seek comment on whether an incumbent's placing
    collocators in isolated or separate space affects the ability of
    collocators to collocate equipment that is "directly related to and
    thus necessary, required, or indispensable to 'interconnection or
    access to unbundled network elements.'"[^216] Assuming we have
    authority to preclude such placement, we ask under what
    circumstances, if any, would such placement be unjust, unreasonable,
    or discriminatory within the meaning of section 251(c)(6). We seek
    comment on any technical issues involved in connection with such
    placement and whether relegating collocators to separate rooms or
    space affects the quality of collocation arrangements. We also
    invite comment on whether placing collocators in such a room or
    space would increase the costs of conditioning space for physical
    collocation or otherwise affect physical collocation costs. We ask
    the commenters to address whether any such cost increases would
    eliminate the cost savings from cageless collocation. We request
    comment on whether an incumbent LEC may require a collocator to
    construct or pay for a wall, structure, or buffer separating the
    incumbent LEC's equipment from collocator equipment. We invite
    comment on whether the construction of such a wall, structure, or
    buffer zone would lengthen collocation intervals and, if so, whether
    we should preclude an incumbent LEC from using its perceived need
    for such a wall, structure, or buffer zone to delay collocation by a
    requesting carrier.

98. We invite comment on whether section 251(c)(6) permits an incumbent
    LEC to require requesting carriers to construct or pay for new
    entrances to the incumbent's premises for the collocators' use. We
    ask the commenters to address whether construction of such separate
    entrances is technically feasible in remote terminals. We request
    comment on whether an incumbent LEC may use its perceived need for
    such an entrance to delay physical collocation by a requesting
    carrier.

## Minimum Space Requirements

99. In the *Advanced Services First Report and Order,* we specified that
    incumbent LECs must ensure that cageless collocation arrangements do
    not place unreasonable minimum space requirements on collocating
    carriers.[^217] We required incumbent LECs "to make collocation
    space available in single‑bay increments, meaning that a competing
    carrier can purchase space in increments small enough to collocate a
    single rack, or bay, of equipment."[^218] We did not specifically
    address, however, whether incumbent LECs must make physical
    collocation space available in smaller increments. In its petition,
    Sprint requests that we require incumbent LECs to make physical
    collocation space available in increments of less than a rack or
    bay.[^219] In *GTE v. FCC*, the D.C. Circuit affirmed that incumbent
    LECs must not impose unreasonable minimum space requirements on
    collocators.[^220]

100. We invite comment on whether we have statutory authority to require
     incumbent LECs to permit the physical collocation of competitive
     LEC equipment within spaces too small to accommodate a rack or bay
     of equipment or to permit smaller increments such as a quarter
     rack. Assuming *arguendo* that we have such authority, we also
     invite comment on whether this authority extends to requiring
     incumbent LECs to permit placement of competitive LEC and incumbent
     LEC equipment within the same racks or bays when no other physical
     collocation space is available, given the D.C. Circuit's vacatur of
     our action precluding incumbent LECs from requiring competitors to
     collocate in a room or isolated space separate from the
     incumbent\'s own equipment.[^221] We ask the commenters to address,
     in particular, whether the placement of incumbent LEC and
     competitive LEC equipment within these spaces is necessary to
     achieve reasonable and nondiscriminatory physical collocation in
     premises having insufficient physical collocation space available
     to accommodate all carriers requesting physical collocation space
     in a separate space apart from the incumbent LEC's own equipment.

101. We also invite comment on whether physical collocation of
     competitive LEC equipment within the same racks or bays as
     incumbent LEC equipment is a practical solution to space shortages
     within incumbent LEC structures, including remote terminals. We ask
     whether it is feasible to physically collocate any equipment that
     is necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network
     elements in space smaller than that required for a rack or bay. In
     part V.B.1.b, above, we request that competitive LECs describe the
     equipment they seek to collocate in incumbent LECs' premises. We
     ask whether any of this equipment would fit in space smaller than a
     rack or bay. We also ask whether any equipment that competitive
     LECs seek to collocate need not be placed within racks or bays.

102. We ask for information on the security implications of placing
     incumbent LEC and competitive LEC equipment within the same racks
     or bays, or in areas that cannot accommodate racks or bays of
     equipment. We recognize, of course, that the cages and other
     partitions incumbent LECs have used to separate their own equipment
     from collocators' equipment were not designed to separate different
     carriers' equipment within a rack or bay. We invite comment on
     whether construction of different types of partitions, such as
     lockable equipment cabinets, would adequately protect an incumbent
     LEC's own equipment without reducing the space available for
     physical collocation. We ask, in addition, whether an incumbent LEC
     may use its perceived need for a partition to delay collocation by
     a requesting carrier or require a collocator to construct or pay
     for these types of partitions. We also invite comment on whether a
     collocator should be allowed to construct such cabinets and similar
     partitions in cageless and shared collocation space or whether
     there are other adequate security measures under such a
     scenario.[^222]

## Collocation at Remote Incumbent LEC Premises

103. In the *UNE Remand Order*, we required incumbent LECs to offer
     unbundled access to subloops, or portions of the local loop, where
     technically feasible.[^223] We defined subloops as "portions of the
     loop that can be accessed at terminals in the incumbent's outside
     plant."[^224] We stated that an accessible terminal is "a point on
     the loop where technicians can access the wire or fiber within the
     cable without removing a splice case to reach the fiber
     within."[^225] In addition, we made clear that our collocation
     rules apply to collocation at any technically feasible point, from
     the largest central office to the most compact feeder distribution
     interface.[^226]

104. We invite comment on whether and to what extent we should modify
     our collocation rules to facilitate subloop unbundling. We ask
     whether physical collocation in remote terminals presents technical
     or security concerns and, if so, whether these concerns warrant
     modification of our collocation rules. We request collocating
     carriers to describe the technical arrangements necessary for
     collocation in controlled environmental huts, controlled
     environmental vaults, and cabinets, including sufficient heat, air
     conditioning, power, and physical connectivity for the types of
     services collocating carriers wish to offer. In addition, we
     request comment regarding procedures for ensuring that collocating
     carriers receive the necessary power arrangements and other
     technical support in remote terminals.

105. We ask incumbent LECs to describe their current deployment of
     controlled environmental huts, controlled environmental vaults, and
     cabinets as well as their plans for future deployment of these
     structures. We understand, for example, that cabinets are often
     specifically designed to house a single manufacturer's
     equipment.[^227] We request that incumbent LECs state how much
     space within each type of remote terminal will be available for
     physical collocation.[^228] Further, to the extent that the digital
     loop carrier systems now being manufactured occupy less space than
     the systems currently installed in incumbent LEC remote terminals,
     we invite comment on whether incumbent LECs intend to retrofit
     existing remote terminals with this relatively compact equipment
     and, if so, how much additional space will thereby be made
     available for collocation. We invite competitive LECs to state how
     much space, if any, they wish to obtain within remote terminals to
     collocate equipment necessary for interconnection or access to
     unbundled network elements.

106. We invite manufacturers to state whether they make or plan to make
     each type of remote terminal in a range of sizes, rather than in
     one standard size, and whether these structures are capable of
     expansion. We request that commenters specify the factors they
     believe an incumbent should consider in determining the size and
     configuration of new and renovated remote terminals.[^229] We also
     request comment on whether manufacturers of remote terminals
     currently offer or intend to make available structures that are
     suitable for collocation adjacent to remote terminals, such as
     small cabinets that can be interconnected with incumbent LEC remote
     terminals.

107. We invite suggestions for amendments to our collocation rules that
     might allow incumbents and collocators to make more efficient use
     of the space available in remote incumbent LEC structures. We note
     that the configuration of remote terminals may make it impossible
     for the incumbent to place collocators in separate space isolated
     from the incumbent's own equipment.[^230] We ask whether we should
     require that incumbent LECs allow the placement of competitive LEC
     and incumbent LEC equipment within the same racks or bays in remote
     locations, even if we do not require that incumbents allow this
     practice in central offices.[^231] We also ask what effect any such
     amendments to our collocations rules would have upon the obligation
     of incumbent LECs to unbundle packet switching capability under
     Commission rule 51.319(c)(5). Additionally, we ask whether
     incumbent LECs should be required to provide requesting carriers
     with demographic and other information regarding particular remote
     terminals similar to the information available regarding incumbent
     LEC central offices.

108. We ask the commenters to suggest potential solutions for the
     collocation space shortages within remote terminals. We invite
     comment on whether we should require incumbent LECs to make a
     certain amount of additional space available for collocation within
     all remote terminals and, if so, how much space we should require.
     For example, we ask whether we should require that each remote
     terminal have sufficient space available to accommodate a
     particular number of collocators and, if so, how many collocators
     should be accommodated.

109. We seek specific comment on Rhythms' proposal that we require
     incumbent LECs to permit collocation of individual line cards in
     digital loop carriers located in incumbent LEC remote terminals,
     assuming that these line cards are equipment necessary for
     interconnection or access to unbundled network elements.[^232] We
     invite comment on whether it is feasible for competitive LECs to
     collocate their own line cards, either physically or virtually,
     within incumbent LECs' digital loop carriers. We request comment on
     whether and to what extent providing service through digital loop
     carriers owned by an incumbent LEC might prevent a data LEC from
     offering the xDSL-based services it wishes to offer. We ask, in
     particular, whether deployment of digital loop carriers affects
     distinct types of collocating carriers differently (*e.g.,*
     interexchange carriers operating as competitive LECs as compared to
     data LECs).

110. As set forth in the attached *Order*, an incumbent LEC must make
     available physical collocation in adjacent controlled environmental
     vaults or similar structures, to the extent technically feasible,
     only when physical collocation space in a particular incumbent LEC
     structure is legitimately exhausted.[^233] We invite comment on
     whether we should require that an incumbent LEC allow adjacent
     collocation of equipment that cannot be collocated within a remote
     terminal without interfering with the operation of equipment
     already placed within that terminal. We ask whether we should
     require an incumbent LEC to allow adjacent collocation at remote
     premises of structures, such as cabinets similar to those incumbent
     LECs install, that occupy less space than controlled environmental
     vaults and similar structures. We invite the commenters to suggest
     other steps we might take to ensure that adjacent collocation
     becomes an acceptable substitute for physical collocation within
     remote incumbent LEC structures.

111. We request that the commenters discuss how, if at all, zoning,
     rights-of-way, and other property laws will affect an incumbent
     LEC's ability to install remote structures that are sufficiently
     large to accommodate potential collocators. We invite comment on
     whether incumbent LECs' easements permit adjacent collocation of
     remote terminals. We ask whether local governments, electric power
     companies, and similar third parties will allow collocators to
     place their own controlled environmental huts, controlled
     environmental vaults, cabinets, and other structures at remote
     locations, including on public rights of way. We note that in the
     *UNE Remand Order* we found that a competitive LEC should be
     responsible for resolving any obstacles that it encounters from
     municipalities or electric utilities in seeking to obtain unbundled
     access to an incumbent's subloop elements.[^234] We invite comment
     on whether a competitive LEC should also be responsible for
     resolving similar problems in connection with collocation at remote
     incumbent LEC premises.

112. We invite comment, in addition, on whether virtual collocation
     constitutes an acceptable substitute for physical collocation in
     remote locations.[^235] We ask commenters to discuss the relative
     advantages and disadvantages to incumbent and competitive LECs of
     physical and virtual collocation in remote incumbent LEC
     structures. We note that under virtual collocation, the incumbent
     is responsible for installing, maintaining, and repairing equipment
     designated by a competitive LEC.[^236] The incumbent also might
     install, maintain, and repair similar equipment located in the same
     remote structure and used in its own or an affiliate's operations.
     We invite comment on what steps, if any, we should take to ensure
     that an incumbent does not discriminate in favor of itself or its
     affiliate in these installation, maintenance, and repair
     activities. We ask the commenters to suggest how we might amend our
     virtual collocation rules to facilitate subloop unbundling and
     access to remote terminals.

## Line Sharing

113. In the *Line Sharing Order*, we required incumbent LECs to provide
     unbundled access to a new network element, the high frequency
     portion of the local loop.[^237] We reasoned that this unbundled
     network element would enable competitive LECs to compete with
     incumbent LECs to provide xDSL-based services through telephone
     lines that the competitive LECs can share with incumbent
     LECs.[^238] We specified that incumbent LECs must provide to
     requesting carriers unbundled access to the high frequency portion
     of the loop at the remote terminal as well as at the central
     office.[^239] We invite comment on what changes to our collocation
     rules, if any, we should adopt to facilitate line sharing.

## Provisioning Intervals

114. In the attached *Order*,[^240] we require that to the extent a
     state does not set its own standard or a requesting carrier and the
     incumbent LEC have not agreed to an alternative standard, an
     incumbent LEC must provide physical collocation, including cageless
     collocation, no later than 90 calendar days after receiving a
     collocation application. In establishing this national standard, we
     specifically recognize that an incumbent LEC should be able to
     provision many collocation arrangements in periods shorter than 90
     calendar days.[^241] We invite comment on whether we should specify
     an overall maximum collocation provisioning interval shorter than
     90 calendar days or shorter intervals for particular types of
     collocation arrangements. Like the 90 calendar day interval we
     adopt above, these shorter intervals would apply to the extent a
     state does not set its own standard or a requesting carrier and the
     incumbent LEC have not agreed to an alternative standard.

115. We ask commenters to suggest possible maximum intervals for caged,
     cageless, shared, and adjacent collocation arrangements,
     modifications to existing collocation arrangements, collocation
     within remote incumbent LEC premises, and collocation involving
     conditioned and unconditioned space.[^242] We also ask commenters
     to provide detailed information regarding the steps required to
     provision each of these types of collocation arrangements and the
     time it should take an incumbent LEC to complete those steps. We
     ask further whether we should specify shorter intervals when the
     carrier requesting collocation is willing to construct portions of
     a collocation arrangement itself. For instance, we ask whether we
     should specify a maximum provisioning interval shorter than 90
     calendar days for arrangements in which a competitive LEC would
     install its own cage. We ask whether different collocation
     intervals should apply to conditioned and unconditioned space and,
     if so, what those intervals should be. We also invite comment on
     whether we should specify maximum provisioning intervals for
     virtual collocation arrangements and, if so, what those intervals
     should be.

## Space Reservation Policies

116. As discussed in the attached *Order*,[^243] several state
     commissions, including the California Commission, Texas Commission,
     and Washington Commission, have taken significant steps to limit
     the period for which incumbent LECs and collocators can reserve
     space in incumbent LEC premises. We believe that these state
     policies properly recognize the importance of space reservation
     practices and their impact on a competitive LECs' ability to
     collocate in certain incumbent LEC premises.[^244] As stated in the
     attached *Order*, we also believe that state commissions should
     have the primary responsibility for resolving space reservation
     disputes.[^245] In that *Order*, we encourage state commissions to
     adopt space reservation policies similar to those adopted by the
     California Commission, Texas Commission, and Washington Commission,
     and we decline to mandate specific space reservation periods at
     this time.[^246]

117. We now seek comment on whether we should adopt a national space
     reservation policy that would apply where a state does not set its
     own standard. We ask about the prevalence of incumbent LEC premises
     in which physical collocation space is or is about to become
     exhausted and the need for a national space reservation standard.
     To the extent commenters indicate that a national space reservation
     standard is warranted, we request comment on appropriate standards
     for varying types of equipment. The Texas Commission, for instance,
     restricts space reservations in SBC central offices to one year for
     transport equipment; three years for digital cross-connect systems;
     and five years for switching equipment, power equipment, and main
     distribution frames.[^247] We request comment on whether these or
     other standards would be appropriate for a national space
     reservation policy applicable where a state does not set its own
     standard.

# fifth further notice of proposed rulemaking in CC docket no. 96-98

## Background 

118. We recognize that some incumbent LECs are investing in new
     technologies and upgrading their networks by installing fiber
     transmission facilities and advanced electronics in the loop
     facility. One incumbent LEC, for example, has announced plans to
     deploy additional fiber transmission facilities from its central
     offices to new or retrofitted remote terminal sites where it will
     install "Next Generation" Digital Loop Carrier (NGDLC) systems and
     related equipment.[^248] These NGDLC systems will convert and
     multiplex signals originating at customers' premises for transport
     back to the central office, and demultiplex and convert the signals
     coming from a central office for transport to customers' premises.
     In this section, we seek comment on whether the deployment of new
     network architectures, including the installation of fiber deeper
     into the neighborhood, necessitates any modification to or
     clarification of the Commission's local competition rules,
     particularly our rules pertaining to access to unbundled transport,
     loops, and subloops.

## Access to Loops, Subloops and Interoffice Transport

### Loops and Interoffice Transport

119. In the *UNE Remand Order*, the Commission required incumbent LECs
     to provide access to loops and dedicated transport on an unbundled
     basis. The Commission clarified that the loop facility includes
     dark fiber, or fiber that has not been activated through connection
     to the electronics that "light" it.[^249] Specifically, the
     Commission defined the loop network element to include "all
     features, functions, and capabilities of the transmission
     facilities, including dark fiber and attached electronics (except
     those used for the provision of advanced services, such as DSLAMs)
     owned by the incumbent LEC, between an incumbent LEC's central
     office and the loop demarcation point at the customer
     premises."[^250] Thus, with the exception of DSLAMs, the loop
     includes attached electronics, including multiplexing equipment
     used to derive the loop transmission capacity.[^251] The Commission
     also required incumbent LECs to provide unbundled access to
     interoffice transport on a dedicated and shared basis.[^252]

120. There have been a number of developments, including new product
     introductions, that have occurred since the release of the *UNE
     Remand Order*. For example, some incumbent LECs may intend to
     deploy dense wavelength division multiplexing (DWDM)[^253] or
     similar multiplexing equipment in the fiber feeder portion of the
     loop element, as well as in the transport portion of the network.
     Such multiplexing equipment will significantly increase the
     capacity of the loop from the central office to the remote
     terminal. Currently, an incumbent LEC is obligated to provide an
     unbundled loop including, but not limited to DS1, DS3, fiber and
     other high capacity loops as an unbundled network element under
     section 251(c)(3), regardless of whether the incumbent has deployed
     DWDM equipment or a digital loop carrier system.[^254] An incumbent
     LEC is also required to provide dedicated transport, including DS1,
     DS3 and OC-n levels, along with the necessary attached
     electronics.[^255]

121. To the extent that incumbent LECs deploy DWDM equipment on any
     portion of the fiber loop, we invite comment on whether an
     individual optical wavelength generated by DWDM equipment is itself
     a loop or is it a feature, function, or capability of the fiber
     loop.[^256] Parties should also address whether there are any
     proprietary concerns related to accessing an optical wavelength of
     the loop. We ask these same questions with respect to unbundled
     dedicated transport.

122. We also seek comment on the nature and type of electronics that are
     or may be attached to a loop. Currently our unbundling rules
     specify that the loop includes "attached electronics (except those
     electronics used for the provision of advanced services, such as
     Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexers)."[^257] In view of
     developments in technology, we seek comment on whether we should
     modify this rule to exclude only those electronics used
     "exclusively" or "primarily" in the provision of advanced services.
     For example, we excluded DSLAMs from the definition of "attached
     electronics" because an integral function of a DSLAM is the routing
     and packetizing of data.[^258] We did not, however, identify any
     attached electronics other than the DSLAM that were excluded from
     the definition of the loop. In order to clarify an incumbent LEC's
     obligation to provide access to unbundled loops, we seek comment on
     whether there is specific equipment other than a DSLAM that should
     be excluded from the definition of the loop. And, if so, on what
     basis should we exclude this equipment? For example, should
     equipment that is multi-functional (*i.e*., used for both voice and
     data) be included in the definition of a loop? How should we
     consider, for purposes of the loop definition, such
     multi-functional equipment?

### Subloops 

123. In the *UNE Remand Order*, we required incumbent LECs to offer
     unbundled access to subloops, defined as the portions of the loop
     that can be accessed at terminals in the incumbent's outside plant,
     including the feeder, feeder/distribution interface, and
     distribution components of the loop.[^259] The subloop element
     therefore includes, among other possible portions, the portion of
     the loop between the remote terminal and the customers' premises,
     as well as the portion of the loop between the central office and
     the remote terminal (*i.e.*, the feeder portion of the loop), as
     distinct unbundled network elements. As with the loop, the subloop
     element also includes the attached electronics with the exception
     of equipment used to provide advanced services such as DSLAMs. We
     invite comment generally on whether the deployment of new network
     architectures necessitates any modification to or clarification of
     the Commission's rules concerning subloops, as well as those
     pertaining to line sharing.[^260]

124. As discussed above, some incumbent LECs may intend to overlay or
     replace their existing network architecture with new remote
     terminals, fiber feeder subloops, and NGDLC systems. For example,
     new network architectures that employ NGDLC systems will allow
     incumbent LECs to provide xDSL services (as well as traditional
     voice services) to customers that are served by loop facilities
     consisting of fiber feeder plant and copper distribution plant. We
     ask incumbent LECs to describe their current deployment of fiber
     and associated multiplexing equipment in any portion of the loop
     facility, as well as their plans for future deployment. As
     incumbent LECs modify their network, we seek comment on whether
     incumbent LECs are required under section 251(c)(5) or any other
     provision of the Act to notify competing carriers of where they are
     deploying fiber facilities in the loop. If so, how much advance
     notice is appropriate? We seek comment from equipment manufacturers
     regarding their plans to build NGDLC systems in response to
     carriers' plans. We also invite manufacturers of NGDLC systems and
     other "next generation" equipment to describe the features,
     functions, and capabilities of their products, and to indicate
     whether their products are designed with open or proprietary
     interfaces.

125. As incumbent LECs deploy new network architectures, such as fiber
     feeder and NGDLC systems, we seek comment on what features,
     functions, and capabilities of the subloop are created by such
     deployment.[^261] In particular, we ask whether accessing the
     features, functions, and capabilities of subloops consisting of
     fiber facilities includes access to all technically feasible
     transmission speeds and quality of service (QoS) classes such as
     Constant Bit Rate (CBR) and real time and non-real time Variable
     Bit Rate (VBR) that exist in the attached electronics.[^262] We
     invite comment on whether the provision of multiple CBR and or VBR
     channels, circuits, paths, or connections over the same fiber
     feeder facility would cause interference or congestion that could
     lead to service degradation. We further seek comment on how to
     eliminate or control such interference. We also ask whether, in
     providing access to the features, functions, and capabilities of
     the subloop, incumbent LECs must provide access to all technically
     feasible transmission speeds and QoS classes even if the incumbent
     (or any applicable affiliate) is not itself using such
     capability.[^263] In addition, we seek comment on how the various
     service levels should be priced, including how common costs should
     be allocated.

126. With respect to the capacity of the subloop, particularly the fiber
     feeder subloop, we seek comment on how capacity should be allocated
     among carriers where there appears to be inadequate capacity in the
     subloop to accommodate the services they seek to provide. In other
     words, how can a competitor obtain access to the fiber subloop
     between the central office and the remote terminal when there is
     not sufficient capacity on the fiber, or other available dark
     fiber, for the competitor to provide its service?[^264] What are
     incumbent LECs' obligations to provide unbundled access to the
     subloop in these situations? We note that, by installing
     electronics on both ends of the fiber, the capacity of fiber can be
     increased many fold.[^265] To the extent that the necessary
     electronics have already been installed, but not fully activated,
     our rules require incumbent LECs, at the competitors' expense, to
     activate such electronics to permit access by requesting carriers.
     In other situations, is it technically feasible for a competing
     carrier to install multiplexing equipment in the remote terminal
     and the central office that would enable competitors to access the
     subloop? If so, must a competitor access the fiber subloop through
     the incumbent's equipment, or can it access the fiber, or a
     wavelength, directly? To the extent the capacity between the
     central office and remote terminal is dictated by the equipment
     attached to it, is a competitor's ability to access the subloop
     limited by the equipment that the incumbent installs in the remote
     terminal? Are there any proprietary concerns related to accessing
     the subloop at the remote terminal?

127. To the extent there is dark fiber available between the central
     office and the remote terminal, competitive carriers could install
     the necessary electronics to light the fiber and thereby access the
     subloop element. If there is no space in the remote terminal to
     access the dark fiber, however, competitors may be unable to
     install the appropriate electronics. To the extent that competitors
     are unable to install the appropriate electronics, we seek comment
     on whether under section 251(d)(2) and 251(c)(3) incumbent LECs
     should be required to increase the capacity of the subloop to
     accommodate carriers' requests for access to the subloop.[^266] We
     invite comment on manufacturers' plans to build NGDLC systems and
     other equipment to maximize the transmission capacity of the
     subloop.

128. We seek comment on what modifications, if any, to an incumbent's
     operations support systems are needed to ensure nondiscriminatory
     access under section 251(c)(3) in order for requesting carriers to
     order loops and subloops, including the features, functions, and
     capabilities of the fiber feeder portion of the loop. We also seek
     comment on operational issues stemming from these new network
     architectures, including how the deployment of fiber facilities and
     NGDLC systems affects the ability of carriers to test and monitor
     loop and subloop facilities and equipment. To what extent would
     lack of remote testing capabilities impair competitors' access to
     the subloop network element?

### Spare Copper

129. As part of their plans to upgrade their networks, some incumbent
     LECs may overlay existing copper facilities in portions of the loop
     with fiber facilities and install NGDLC equipment in remote
     terminals.[^267] When incumbents overlay existing copper facilities
     with fiber facilities, the copper facilities that remain in the
     field represent unused loop capacity that is already installed and
     capable of providing service. We note that in the *UNE Remand
     Order*, we clarified that unused loop capacity that incumbents keep
     dormant but ready for service, like dark fiber, is included within
     the definition of the loop and must be unbundled pursuant to
     sections 251(d)(2) and 251(c)(3).[^268] We seek comment on what
     obligations incumbent LECs have with respect to the loop plant that
     is being replaced. For example, should competitors bear the cost
     and responsibility of maintaining this copper plant, to the extent
     they seek to utilize it?

130. In light of the anticipated deployment of additional fiber
     facilities, we ask incumbent LECs to describe any plans that they
     have to decommission, or remove from the network, copper
     facilities, including copper terminated at the remote terminal and
     copper terminated at a distribution frame in the central office. We
     ask incumbent LECs to describe the processes by which they
     determine whether to retire unused loop facilities, including
     unused copper facilities, and whether they intend to alter their
     retirement policies, such as by accelerating retirement of copper
     wire, in the event that they deploy additional fiber facilities in
     the network. In addition, we seek comment on whether incumbents
     should provide notice to competitors before retiring and removing
     copper facilities. For example, how far in advance should
     incumbents notify competitors of such retirement and by what means
     should incumbents provide such notice?

131. We ask whether the removal of copper plant would be consistent with
     incumbent LECs' obligations under section 251(c)(3) to provide
     unbundled access to loops and subloops. We inquire about the extent
     of involvement by state regulatory authorities in the process of
     retiring and removing loop plant. Should there be a state or
     federal approval process before incumbent LECs are permitted to
     retire and remove loop plant? We also seek comment on the various
     scenarios that could occur if an incumbent decides to retire and
     remove its loop plant. For example, should competitors have an
     opportunity to purchase copper plant that the incumbent LEC intends
     to retire, particularly along routes where no other copper
     facilities are available? If an incumbent sells its loop plant to
     another entity, what are the implications under the Act and our
     rules? Would the purchasing entity be considered a successor or
     assign of the incumbent for that particular loop pursuant to
     section 251(h)(1)(B)(ii)?

### Cross Connection

132. Because the Commission concluded in the *UNE Remand Order* that
     cross connection presents a potential bottleneck, and that
     incumbents may have the incentive to impose unreasonable rates,
     terms, and conditions for cross-connect facilities, the Commission
     required incumbent LECs to provide cross-connect facilities
     according to sections 252(d)(2) and 251(c)(3) at any technically
     feasible point that a requesting carrier seeks access to the
     loop.[^269] The Commission further established a rebuttable
     presumption that the subloop can be unbundled at any accessible
     terminal in the outside loop plant.[^270]

133. In light of the new network architectures that incumbent LECs are
     deploying, we seek comment on the technically feasible points for
     accessing the copper distribution portion of the loop and the fiber
     feeder portion of the loop at remote terminal locations.
     Specifically, is it technically feasible for carriers to access the
     subloop by interconnecting at the remote terminal? In other words,
     are cables containing copper pairs typically hardwired into remote
     terminal equipment? If so, is there a technical reason why this
     arrangement is necessary? Should we require incumbent LECs to
     modify their facilities to allow carriers to interconnect and
     access the subloop at the remote terminal?[^271] With respect to
     new build-outs, should we require incumbent LECs to ensure that
     there is a technically feasible access point at the remote
     terminal? In general, are there any circumstances under which a
     special construction arrangement, including a cable splice, is
     necessary to access a subloop?[^272] If so, how should these
     special construction arrangements be priced? Should they be priced
     in the same way as cross-connects? That is, should incumbents
     provide these according to section 252(d)(1)?[^273] Are there
     means, other than special construction arrangements, that will
     enable competing carriers to obtain access to the subloop at the
     remote terminal when the copper pairs are hardwired at the remote
     terminal? Commenters should provide detailed information on the
     operational, technical and cost issues involved in the alternative
     ways of accessing the subloop element at the remote terminal.

# procedural matters

## Order on Reconsideration

### Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

134. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^274] an
     Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in
     the *Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed
     Rulemaking* in CC Docket No. 98-147.[^275] The Commission sought
     written public comment on the proposals in this *NPRM*, including
     comment on the IRFA.[^276] In addition, pursuant to the RFA,[^277]
     a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was incorporated in the
     *First Report and Order* in CC Docket No. 98-147.[^278] Appendix C,
     part A sets forth the Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility
     Analysis for the present *Order on Reconsideration*.

### Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

135. The *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* from which this *Order* issues
     proposed changes to the Commission\'s collocation requirements. As
     required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Commission
     sought comment from the public and from OMB on the proposed
     changes.[^279] This *Order* contains several modified information
     collections that have been submitted to OMB for approval.
     Implementation of these information collections is subject to OMB
     approval, as prescribed by the Paperwork Reduction Act.

## Notices of Proposed Rulemaking

### Ex Parte Presentations

136. These matters shall be treated as a \"permit‑but‑disclose\"
     proceedings in accordance with the Commission\'s *ex parte*
     rules.[^280] Persons making oral *ex parte* presentations are
     reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain
     summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a
     listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence
     description of the views and arguments presented is generally
     required.[^281] Other rules pertaining to oral and written
     presentations are set forth in section 1.1206(b) as well.

### Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

137. Appendix C, part B sets forth the Commission\'s IRFA regarding the
     policies and rules proposed in the *Second Further Notice of
     Proposed Rulemaking* in CC Docket No. 98-147 and the *Fifth Further
     Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* in CC Docket No. 96-98. Written
     public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be
     identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
     deadlines for comments on the *Second Further Notice* and the
     *Fifth Further Notice*. The Commission will send a copy of the
     *Second Further Notice* and the *Fifth Further Notice*, including
     this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
     Administration.[^282] In addition, the *Second Further Notice* and
     the *Fifth Further Notice* and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be
     published in the Federal Register.[^283]

### Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

138. The rule changes proposed in the *Second Further Notice* and the
     *Fifth Further Notice* may cause modifications to the collections
     of information approved by OMB in connection with the *Advanced
     Services First Report and Order* and the *Local Competition Second
     Report and Order*.[^284] As part of our continuing effort to reduce
     paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and OMB to comment
     on the information collections contained in this *Second Further
     Notice* and the *Fifth Further Notice*, as required by the
     Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Public and agency comments are due
     at the same time as other comments on the *Second Further Notice*
     and the *Fifth Further Notice*; OMB comments are due 60 days from
     the date of publication of notice of the *Second Further Notice*
     and the *Fifth Further Notice* in the Federal Register. Comments
     should address: (a) whether the proposed information collections
     are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
     Commission, including whether the information shall have practical
     utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission\'s burden
     estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
     the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of
     the collection of information on the respondents, including the use
     of automated collection techniques or other forms of information
     technology.

### Comment Filing Procedures

139. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in sections 1.415 and
     1.419 of the Commission\'s rules,[^285] interested parties may file
     comments on or before September 18, 2000, and reply comments on or
     before October 10, 2000. All filings should refer to CC Docket No.
     98-147 and CC Docket No. 96-98. Comments may be filed using the
     Commission\'s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing
     paper copies.[^286] Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as
     an electronic file via the Internet to
     \<http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html\>. Generally, only one copy
     of an electronic submission must be filed. In completing the
     transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name,
     Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket number,
     which in this instance is CC Docket No. 98-147. Parties may also
     submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing
     instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail
     to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body
     of the message, \"get form \<your e-mail address.\" A sample form
     and directions will be sent in reply.

140. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four
     copies of each filing. All filings must be sent to the
     Commission\'s Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the
     Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-B204, 445
     12th St. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

141. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their
     comments on diskette. These diskettes should be submitted to Janice
     Myles, Common Carrier Bureau, Policy & Program Planning Division,
     445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Such a submission
     should be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in an IBM compatible
     format using WordPerfect 5.1 for Windows or compatible software.
     The diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter and should be
     submitted in \"read only\" mode. The diskette should be clearly
     labeled with the commenter\'s name, proceeding (including the
     docket numbers, in this case, CC Docket No. 98-147 and CC Docket
     No. 96-98), type of pleading (comment or reply comment), date of
     submission, and the name of the electronic file on the diskette.
     The label should also include the following phrase \"Disk Copy -
     Not an Original.\" Each diskette should contain only one party\'s
     pleadings, preferably in a single electronic file. In addition,
     commenters must send diskette copies to the Commission\'s copy
     contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th
     Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

142. Regardless of whether parties choose to file electronically or by
     paper, parties should also file one copy of any documents filed in
     this docket with the Commission\'s copy contractor, International
     Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington,
     D.C. 20036. Comments and reply comments will be available for
     public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC
     Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington,
     D.C. 20554.

143. Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise
     summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading.
     Comments and reply comments must also comply with section 1.49 and
     all other applicable sections of the Commission\'s rules.[^287] We
     also direct all interested parties to include the name of the
     filing party and the date of the filing on each page of their
     comments and reply comments. All parties are encouraged to utilize
     a table of contents, regardless of the length of their submission.
     We also strongly encourage that parties track the organization set
     forth in the *Second Further Notice* and the *Fifth Further Notice*
     in order to facilitate our internal review process.

144. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified
     information collections are due on or before September 18, 2000,
     and reply comments on or before October 10, 2000. Written comments
     must be submitted by the OMB on the proposed and/or modified
     information collections on or before 60 days after date of
     publication of notice of this *Second Further Notice* in the
     Federal Register. In addition to filing comments with the
     Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections
     contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal
     Communications Commission, 1‑C804, 445 12th Street, S.W.,
     Washington, D.C. 20554 or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and to
     Virginia Huth, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, N.W.,
     Washington, D.C. 20503, or via the Internet to vhuth@omb.eop.gov.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

145. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, 201, 202,
     251-254, 256, 271, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
     amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154, 201, 202, 251-254, 256, 271, and
     303(r), that the Petition for Partial Reconsideration and/or
     Clarification filed June 1, 1999, by Sprint Corporation IS GRANTED
     to the extent indicated herein and otherwise IS DENIED.

146. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, 201, 202, 251-254,
     256, 271, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
     47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154, 201, 202, 251-254, 256, 271, and 303(r), that
     the *Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* in CC Docket No.
     98-147 and the *Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* in CC
     Docket No. 96-98 ARE ADOPTED.

147. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, 201, 202, 251-254,
     256, 271, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
     47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154, 201, 202, 251-254, 256, 271, and 303(r), that
     Part 51 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 51, IS AMENDED,
     as set forth in Appendix B.

148. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, 201, 202, 251-254,
     256, 271, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
     47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154, 201, 202, 251-254, 256, 271, and 303(r), that
     the requirements and rules adopted in this *Order on
     Reconsideration* not pertaining to new or modified reporting or
     recordkeeping requirements SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE thirty (30) days
     after publication of the text or summary thereof in the Federal
     Register.

149. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1-4, 201, 202, 251-254,
     256, 271, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
     47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154, 201, 202, 251-254, 256, 271, and 303(r), that
     the requirements and rules adopted in this *Order on
     Reconsideration* pertaining to new or modified reporting or
     recordkeeping requirements are subject to approval by the Office of
     Management and Budget (OMB) as prescribed by the Paperwork
     Reduction Act and SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE upon announcement in the
     Federal Register of OMB approval.

150. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission\'s Consumer Information
     Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this
     *Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed
     Rulemaking* in CC Docket No. 98-147 and this *Fifth Further Notice
     of Proposed Rulemaking* in CC Docket No., including the
     Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and the Initial
     Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
     of the Small Business Administration.

     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

# APPENDIX A \-- LIST OF PARTIES 

**SPRINT PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION**

# (CC Docket No. 98-147)

**Comments**

1.  Ameritech

2.  AT&T Corp. (AT&T)

3.  Bell Atlantic

4.  BellSouth Corporation (BellSouth)

5.  GTE Service Corporation (GTE)

6.  SBC Communications Inc. (SBC)

7.  United States Telephone Association (USTA)

8.  U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST)

    **Replies**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  AT&T

2.  Bell Atlantic

3.  Network Access Solutions Corp. (NAS)

4.  Sprint

# Ex Parte Letters

1.  \@link Networks, Inc. (@link)

2.  Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (Allegiance)

3.  Association for Local Telecommunications Services (ALTS)

4.  Bell Atlantic

5.  BellSouth

6.  Bluestar Communications, Inc. (Bluestar)

7.  BroadSpan Communications, Inc. (BroadSpan)

8.  Cavalier Telephone Company (Cavalier)

9.  Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco)

10. CoreComm Incorporated (CoreComm)

11. Covad Communications (Covad)

12. DSL Access Telecommunications Alliance (DATA)

13. DSLnet Communications, LLC (DSLnet)

14. GTE

15. Gluon Networks (Gluon)

16. Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (Indiana Commission)

17. Intermedia Communications Inc. (Intermedia)

18. MCI WorldCom, Inc. (WorldCom)

19. Metromedia Fiber Network Services, Inc. (Metromedia Fiber)

20. New Edge Networks, Inc. (New Edge)

21. NewPath Holdings, Inc. (NewPath)

22. NorthPoint Communications, Inc. (NorthPoint)

23. Rhythms NetConnections Inc. (Rhythms)

24. SBC

25. Sigma Networks (Sigma)

26. USTA

27. U S WEST

# APPENDIX B \-- FINAL RULES

Part 51 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

**PART 51 \-- INTERCONNECTION**

1\. The authority for Part 51 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 1-5, 7, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 225-27, 251-54, 271,
332, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 151-55, 157, 201-05,
207-09, 218, 225-27, 251-54, 271, 332, unless otherwise noted.

2\. § 51.5 is amended by revising the definition of "premises" and by
adding in alphabetical order a definition of "day" to read as follows:

§ 51.5 Terms and definitions.

\*\*\*\*\*

*Day.* *Day* means calendar day.

\*\*\*\*\*

*Premises.* *Premises* refers to an incumbent LEC\'s central offices and
serving wire centers; all buildings or similar structures owned, leased,
or otherwise controlled by an incumbent LEC that house its network
facilities; all structures that house incumbent LEC facilities on public
rights-of-way, including but not limited to vaults containing loop
concentrators or similar structures; and all land owned, leased, or
otherwise controlled by an incumbent LEC that is adjacent to these
central offices, wire centers, buildings, and structures.

\*\*\*\*\*

3\. § 51.321 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:

\*\*\*\*\*

\(f\) An incumbent LEC shall submit to the state commission, subject to
any protective order as the state commission may deem necessary,
detailed floor plans or diagrams of any premises where the incumbent LEC
claims that physical collocation is not practical because of space
limitations. These floor plans or diagrams must show what space, if any,
the incumbent LEC or any of its affiliates has reserved for future use,
and must describe in detail the specific future uses for which the space
has been reserved and the length of time for each reservation. An
incumbent LEC that contends space for physical collocation is not
available in an incumbent LEC premises must also allow the requesting
carrier to tour the entire premises in question, not only the area in
which space was denied, without charge, within ten days of the receipt
of the incumbent's denial of space. An incumbent LEC must allow a
requesting telecommunications carrier reasonable access to its selected
collocation space during construction.

\*\*\*\*\*

4\. § 51.323 is amended revising paragraphs (b), (f), and (k), and by
adding paragraph (l) to read as follows:

\*\*\*\*\*

\(b\) Whenever an incumbent LEC objects to collocation of equipment by a
requesting telecommunications carrier for the purposes within the scope
of section 251(c)(6) of the Act, the incumbent LEC shall prove to the
state commission that the equipment will not be actually used by the
telecommunications carrier for the purpose of obtaining interconnection
or access to unbundled network elements. An incumbent LEC may not object
to the collocation of equipment on the grounds that the equipment does
not comply with safety or engineering standards that are more stringent
than the safety or engineering standards that the incumbent LEC applies
to its own equipment. An incumbent LEC may not object to the collocation
of equipment on the ground that the equipment fails to comply with
Network Equipment and Building Specifications performance standards or
any other performance standards. An incumbent LEC that denies
collocation of a competitor\'s equipment, citing safety standards, must
provide to the competitive LEC within five business days of the denial a
list of all equipment that the incumbent LEC locates at the premises in
question, together with an affidavit attesting that all of that
equipment meets or exceeds the safety standard that the incumbent LEC
contends the competitor\'s equipment fails to meet. This affidavit must
set forth in detail: the exact safety requirement that the requesting
carrier's equipment does not satisfy; the incumbent LEC's basis for
concluding that the requesting carrier's equipment does not meet this
safety requirement; and the incumbent LEC's basis for concluding why
collocation of equipment not meeting this safety requirement would
compromise network safety. Equipment used for interconnection or access
to unbundled network elements includes, but is not limited to:

\*\*\*\*\*

\(f\) An incumbent LEC shall allocate space for the collocation of the
equipment identified in paragraph (b) of this section in accordance with
the following requirements:

\*\*\*\*\*

\(4\) An incumbent LEC may retain a limited amount of floor space for
its own specific future uses, provided, however, that neither the
incumbent LEC nor any of its affiliates may reserve space for future use
on terms more favorable than those that apply to other
telecommunications carriers seeking to reserve collocation space for
their own future use.

\*\*\*\*\*

\(k\) An incumbent LEC\'s physical collocation offering must include the
following:

\*\*\*\*\*

\(3\) *Adjacent space collocation.* An incumbent LEC must make
available, where physical collocation space is legitimately exhausted in
a particular incumbent LEC structure, collocation in adjacent controlled
environmental vaults, controlled environmental huts, or similar
structures located at the incumbent LEC premises to the extent
technically feasible. The incumbent LEC must permit a requesting
telecommunications carrier to construct or otherwise procure such an
adjacent structure, subject only to reasonable safety and maintenance
requirements. The incumbent must provide power and physical collocation
services and facilities, subject to the same nondiscrimination
requirements as applicable to any other physical collocation
arrangement. The incumbent LEC must permit the requesting carrier to
place its own equipment, including, but not limited to, copper cables,
coaxial cables, fiber cables, and telecommunications equipment, in
adjacent facilities constructed by the incumbent LEC, the requesting
carrier, or a third-party. If physical collocation space becomes
available in a previously exhausted incumbent LEC structure, the
incumbent LEC must not require a carrier to move, or prohibit a
competitive LEC from moving, a collocation arrangement into that
structure. Instead, the incumbent LEC must continue to allow the carrier
to collocate in any adjacent controlled environmental vault, controlled
environmental vault, or similar structure that the carrier has
constructed or otherwise procured.

\*\*\*\*\*

\(l\) An incumbent LEC must offer to provide and provide all forms of
physical collocation (i.e., caged, cageless, shared, and adjacent)
within the following deadlines, except to the extent a state sets its
own deadlines or the incumbent LEC has demonstrated to the state
commission that physical collocation is not practical for technical
reasons or because of space limitations.

\(1\) Within ten days after receiving an application for physical
collocation, an

incumbent LEC must inform the requesting carrier whether the application
meets each of the incumbent LEC's established collocation standards. A
requesting carrier that resubmits a revised application curing any
deficiencies in an application for physical collocation within ten days
after being informed of them retains its position within any collocation
queue that the incumbent LEC maintains pursuant to paragraph (f)(1) of
this section.

\(2\) Except as stated in paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this section,
an incumbent LEC must complete provisioning of a requested physical
collocation arrangement within 90 days after receiving an application
that meets the incumbent LEC's established collocation application
standards.

\(3\) An incumbent LEC need not meet the deadline set forth in paragraph
(l)(2) of this section if, after receipt of any price quotation provided
by the incumbent LEC, the telecommunications carrier requesting
collocation does not notify the incumbent LEC that physical collocation
should proceed.

\(4\) If, within seven days of the requesting carrier's receipt of any
price quotation provided by the incumbent LEC, the telecommunications
carrier requesting collocation does not notify the incumbent LEC that
physical collocation should proceed, then the incumbent LEC need not
complete provisioning of a requested physical collocation arrangement
until 90 days after receiving such notification from the requesting
telecommunications carrier.

# APPENDIX C -- REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT

I.  **ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION -- SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL REGULATORY**

**FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

1.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^288] an
    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in
    the *Advanced Services Order and NPRM* (Notice) in CC Docket
    98-147.[^289] The Commission sought written public comment on the
    proposals in the Notice, including comment on the IRFA.[^290] We
    received no comments specifically directed toward the IRFA. In
    addition, we incorporated the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    (FRFA) into the *Advanced Services First Report and Order* and
    received no petitions for reconsideration specifically directed
    toward the FRFA. This Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility
    Analysis (SFRFA) conforms to the RFA.

## Need for and Objectives of this Order on Reconsideration and the Rules Adopted Herein

151. This *Order* continues our efforts to facilitate the development of
     competition in telecommunications services. In the *Advanced
     Services First Report and Order*, we strengthened our collocation
     rules to reduce the costs and delays faced by competitors that seek
     to collocate equipment in incumbent LEC premises. In this *Order*,
     we take additional steps toward implementing Congress' goals in
     enacting section 251(c)(6) of the Communications Act by clarifying
     and further strengthening our collocation rules. These steps should
     eliminate the major problems competitive LECs have been
     encountering in seeking to collocate in incumbent LEC premises, and
     thereby reduce the barriers that frustrate competitive LECs'
     efforts to compete effectively in the provision of advanced
     services and other telecommunications services.

## Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response of the FRFA

152. In the IRFA, we stated that any rule changes would impose minimum
     burdens on small entities and solicited comments on alternatives to
     our proposed rules that would minimize the impact that might have
     on small entities. In the *Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis*
     (FRFA), we discussed the impact on small entities of the rules
     adopted in the *Advanced Services First Report and Order*. As noted
     above, we have received no comments or petitions specifically
     directed to the IRFA or the FRFA. In making the determinations
     reflected in the *Order*, however, we have considered the impact of
     our actions on small entities.

## Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities Affected by the Order on Reconsideration

153. In the IRFA to the *Advanced Services Order and NPRM*, we adopted
     the analysis and definitions set forth in determining the small
     entities affected by this *Order* for purposes of this SFRFA. The
     RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
     feasible, an estimate of the number of entities that will be
     affected by the rules.[^291] The RFA generally defines "small
     entity" as having the same meaning as the term "small business,"
     "small organization," and "small governmental jurisdiction."[^292]
     In addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the
     term "small business concern" under the Small Business Act, unless
     the Commission has developed one or more definitions that are
     appropriate to its activities.[^293] 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) meets any additional criteria established by the Small
     Business Administration (SBA).[^294] The SBA has defined a small
     business for Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories
     4812 (Radiotelephone) to be small entities when they have no more
     than 1,500 employees.[^295] We first discuss the number of small
     telephone companies falling within these SIC categories, then
     attempt to refine further those estimates to correspond with the
     categories of telephone companies that are commonly used under our
     rules.

154. The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers
     of common carrier and related providers nationwide, as well as the
     numbers of commercial wireless entities, appears to be data the
     Commission publishes annually in its Carrier Locator report,
     derived from filings made in connection with the Telecommunications
     Relay Service (TRS).[^296] According to data in the most recent
     report, there are 4,144 interstate carriers.[^297] These carriers
     include, *inter alia*, LECs, wireline carriers and service
     providers, interexchange carriers, competitive access providers,
     operators services providers, pay telephone operators, providers of
     telephone toll service, providers of telephone exchange service,
     and resellers.

155. 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."[^298]
     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.[^299] We have
     therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis,
     although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on FCC
     analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

156. *Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected*. The United States
     Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) reports that, at the end of
     1992, there were 3,497 firms engaged in providing telephone
     services, as defined therein, for at least one year.[^300] These
     firms include a variety of different categories of carriers,
     including LECs, interexchange carriers, competitive access
     providers, cellular carriers, mobile service carriers, operator
     service providers, pay telephone operators, PCS providers, covered
     SMR providers, and resellers. It seems certain that some of those
     4,144 telephone service firms may not qualify as small entities or
     small incumbent LECs because they are not "independently owned and
     operated."[^301] For example, a PCS provider that is affiliated
     with an interexchange carrier having more than 1,500 employees
     would not meet the definition of a small business. It seems
     reasonable to conclude, therefore, that fewer than 4,144 telephone
     service firms are small entity telephone service firms or small
     incumbent LECs that may be affected by the decisions and rules
     adopted in this Order.

157. *Wireline Carriers and Service Providers.* SBA has developed a
     definition of small entities for telephone communications companies
     other than radiotelephone companies. The Census Bureau reports
     that, there were 2,321 such telephone companies in operation for at
     least one year at the end of 1992.[^302] According to SBA's
     definition, a small business telephone company other than a
     radiotelephone company is one employing no more than 1,500
     persons.[^303] All but 26 of the 2,231 non-radiotelephone companies
     listed by the Census Bureau were reported to have fewer that 1,000
     employees. Thus, even if all 26 of those companies had more than
     1,500 employees, there would still be 2,295 non-radiotelephone
     companies that might qualify as small entities or small incumbent
     LECs. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not
     independently owned and operated, we are unable at this time to
     estimate with greater precision the number of wireline carriers and
     service providers that would qualify as small business concerns
     under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are
     fewer than 2,295 small entity telephone communications companies
     other than radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the
     decisions and rules adopted in this *Order*.

158. *Local Exchange Carriers.* The Commission has not developed a
     special size definition of small LECs or competitive LECs. The
     closet applicable definition for these types of carriers under SBA
     rules is, again, that used for telephone communications companies
     other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies.[^304] The most
     reliable source of information regarding the number of these
     carriers nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data
     that we collect annually in connection with the Telecommunications
     Relay Service (TRS).[^305] According to our most recent data, there
     are 1,348 incumbent LECs, 212 competitive LECs,[^306] and 442
     resellers.[^307] Although it seems certain that some of these
     carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more
     than 1,500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with
     greater precision the number of these carriers that would qualify
     as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we
     estimate that there are no more than 1,348 small entity incumbent
     LECs, 212 competitive LECs, and 442 resellers that may be affected
     by the decisions and rules adopted in this *Order*.[^308]

## Description of Projected Reporting, Record Keeping, and other Compliance Requirements

159. In this *Order*, we take a number of steps that may affect small
     entities that either provide or obtain collocation pursuant to
     section 251(c)(6) of the Communications Act. The requirements we
     adopt will require small incumbent LECs to improve their
     collocation provisioning processes and otherwise change their
     collocation practices. As Congress contemplated in enacting section
     251(c)(6), however, our collocation requirements benefit small
     competitive LECs in their efforts to compete against incumbent LECs
     in the provision of telecommunications services, including advanced
     services. We believe that, on balance, the benefits to small
     competitive LECs of our actions in this *Order* far outweigh any
     burdens the *Order* places on small incumbent LECs.

160. Specifically, the national standards for physical collocation
     intervals that we adopt in this *Order* will decrease the costs and
     delays small competitive LECs encounter in seeking to collocate at
     incumbent LEC premises. In particular, the provisioning interval
     requirements we adopt (paragraphs 12-16 of this Supplemental FRFA,
     below) should enable competitive LECs that are small entities to
     bring services to potential customers more quickly than previously
     and thus increase their ability to compete against larger firms.
     Similarly, the adjunct collocation requirements (paragraphs 17 and
     18, below), space denial standards (paragraphs 19 & 21, below), and
     safe-time work practice standards (paragraph 20, below) adopted in
     the *Order* should benefit competitive LECs that are small entities
     helping them obtain the collocation space them need to compete and
     otherwise helping them streamline their collocation-related
     operations.

161. We require that, except to the extent a state sets its own
     standards or the requesting carrier and the incumbent LEC have
     mutually agreed to alternative standards, an incumbent LEC must
     notify the requesting telecommunications carrier as to whether a
     collocation application has been accepted or denied within ten
     calendar days after receiving the application. We also require that
     if the incumbent LEC deems a collocation application unacceptable,
     it must advise the competitive LEC of any deficiencies within this
     ten calendar day period. We require that an incumbent LEC must
     provide sufficient detail so that the requesting carrier has a
     reasonable opportunity to cure each deficiency. We specify that to
     retain its place in the incumbent LEC's collocation queue, the
     competitive LEC must cure any deficiencies in its collocation
     application and resubmit the application within ten calendar days
     after being advised of them. We also require that, if the
     requesting carrier informs an incumbent LEC that physical
     collocation should proceed within seven calendar days after
     receiving the incumbent LEC's price quotation, the incumbent LEC
     must comply with the 90 calendar day provisioning interval set
     forth below, or any alternative interval set by a state commission
     or agreed to by the requesting carrier and the incumbent LEC.

162. We require, in addition, that if the competitive LEC fails to meet
     this deadline, the provisioning interval will begin on the date the
     requesting carrier informs the incumbent LEC that physical
     collocation should proceed. We specify that an incumbent LEC must
     complete any technically feasible physical collocation arrangement,
     whether caged or cageless, no later than 90 calendar days after
     receiving an acceptable collocation application, where space,
     whether conditioned or unconditioned, is available in the incumbent
     LEC premises and the state commission does not set a different
     interval or the incumbent and requesting carrier have not agreed to
     a different interval. We specify that complete provisioning of a
     collocation arrangement, an incumbent LEC must finish construction
     in accordance with the requesting carrier's application and turn
     functioning space over to the requesting carrier.

163. We state that incumbent LECs and competitive LECs must comply with
     renegotiation clauses in their interconnection agreements in
     negotiating specific provisions to implement changes in our
     collocation rules, including the application processing deadline
     and 90 calendar day physical collocation interval we adopt above.
     We further conclude that, within 30 days after the effective date
     of this Order on Reconsideration, the incumbent LEC must file with
     the state commission proposed amendments to any tariff or statement
     of generally available terms and conditions (SGAT) that does not
     comply with the national standards. These amendments must provide
     for application processing intervals and physical collocation
     intervals no longer than the national standards except to the
     extent a state sets its own standard. We require that, for SGAT,
     the national standards shall take effect within 60 days after the
     amendment's filing except to the extent the state commission
     specifies other application processing or provisioning intervals
     for a particular type of collocation arrangement, such as cageless
     collocation. We also require that, where a tariff must be amended
     to reflect the national standards, those standards shall take
     effect at the earliest time permissible under applicable state
     requirements.

164. Absent the incumbent LEC's and requesting carrier's mutual consent,
     the ten calendar day deadline for responding to a collocation
     application and the 90 calendar day provisioning deadline will
     serve as maximum intervals, to the extent a state does not set its
     own deadlines. We require that an incumbent LEC must provide any
     information the state commission requires Where an incumbent LEC
     seeks a departure from either deadline, the incumbent also must
     provide any additional information the state commission requires to
     resolve whether an incumbent LEC should be allowed to depart from
     the ten day deadline for telling the requesting carrier whether a
     collocation application is acceptable or the 90 calendar day
     provisioning deadline.

165. We conclude that to the extent the state commission permits, the
     incumbent LEC may require a competitive LEC to pay reasonable
     application fees or portions of the total collocation charges prior
     to processing a collocation application or provisioning a
     collocation agreement. We specify that a competitive LEC's exercise
     of any right it has to dispute those fees or charges, or any of the
     rates, terms, or conditions under which an incumbent LEC seeks to
     provide collocation, shall not relieve the incumbent LEC of its
     obligation to comply with each of the time limits set forth in this
     section. We state that an incumbent LEC may require a competitive
     LEC to forecast its physical collocation demands. We also specify
     that, absent state action conditioning compliance with application
     processing and provisioning intervals upon forecasts, a competitive
     LEC's failure to submit timely forecasts will not relieve the
     incumbent LEC of its obligation to comply with deadlines described
     above.

166. We confirm that, when space is exhausted in a particular structure,
     the incumbent LEC must permit a competitive LEC to collocate in a
     controlled environmental vault or similar structure that the
     competitive LEC or a third party constructs adjacent to an
     incumbent LEC structure. We amend section 51.5 of our rules to make
     clear that "premises" includes all buildings and similar structures
     owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the incumbent LEC that
     house its network facilities, all structures that house incumbent
     LEC facilities on public rights-of-way, and all land owned, leased,
     or otherwise controlled by an incumbent LEC that is adjacent to
     these structures.

167. We conclude that an incumbent must make available collocation in
     adjacent controlled environmental vaults or similar structures, to
     the extent technically feasible, at premises where physical
     collocation space is legitimately exhausted, even if virtual
     collocation space is not exhausted. We specify that if collocation
     space becomes available in a previously exhausted incumbent LEC
     structure, the incumbent LEC must not require a competitive LEC to
     move, or preclude an competitive LEC from moving, a collocation
     arrangement into that structure. Where technically feasible, an
     incumbent LEC must make physical collocation available in any
     incumbent LEC structure that houses network facilities and has
     space available for collocation. Such structures include, to the
     extent technically feasible, central offices, controlled
     environmental vaults, controlled environmental huts, cabinets,
     pedestals, and other remote terminals.

168. In the *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, we required than
     an incumbent LEC that denies collocation of a competitor's
     equipment based on safety standards must, within five business days
     after the denial, provide the requesting carrier with an affidavit
     attesting that all equipment that the incumbent LEC locates at the
     premises in question meets or exceeds the safety standard that,
     according to the incumbent LEC, the competitor's equipment does not
     meet. In this Order, we require that the affidavit set forth in
     detail: the exact safety requirement that the requesting carrier's
     equipment does not satisfy; the incumbent LEC's basis for
     concluding that the requesting carrier's equipment does not meet
     this safety requirement; and the incumbent LEC's basis for
     concluding why collocation of equipment not meeting this safety
     requirement would compromise network safety.

169. We require that an incumbent LEC allow the carrier requesting
     collocation reasonable access to its selected collocation space
     while the incumbent LEC prepares that space for collocation. While
     we do not preclude an incumbent LEC from applying reasonable and
     nondiscriminatory "safe-time" work practices to itself and
     collocators, we specify requirements for when such a practice will
     be considered reasonable and nondiscriminatory.

170. In the *Local Competition First Report and Order*, the Commission
     required any incumbent LEC that denies a request for physical
     collocation to provide the state commission with detailed floor
     plans or diagrams of its premises. In this Order, we require that
     each incumbent LEC provide the state commission with all
     information necessary for the state commission to evaluate the
     reasonableness of the incumbent LEC's and its affiliates'
     reservations of space for future growth. We require that this
     information shall include any information the state commission may
     require to implement its specific space reservation policies,
     including which space, if any, the incumbent or any of its
     affiliates have reserved for future use. We also require that the
     incumbent shall provide the state commission with a detailed
     description of the specific future uses for which the space has
     been reserved. We require further that an incumbent LEC shall
     permit any requesting telecommunications carrier to inspect any
     floor plans or diagrams that the incumbent LEC provides a state
     commission, subject to any nondisclosure protections the state
     commission deems appropriate. As indicated, all these requirements
     will produce benefits to small competitive LECs that far outweigh
     any burdens the Order places on small incumbent LECs.

## Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered

171. In this *Order*, we clarify and strengthen our collocation
     rul**e**s in implementation of section 251(c)(6) of the
     Communications Act. These actions will affect both
     telecommunications carriers that request collocation and the
     incumbent LECs that, under section

172. 

173. 251(c)(6), must provide collocation. As indicated above, both
     groups of carriers include entities that, for purposes of this
     SFRFA, are classified as small entities.

174. The record makes clear that, despite our actions in the *Advanced
     Services First Report and Order*, incumbent LECs have continued to
     impede requesting telecommunications carriers collocation efforts.
     Our actions in this *Order* should benefit requesting
     telecommunications carriers, many of which may be small entities,
     by reducing barriers they encounter in seeking to compete
     effectively in the provision of advanced services and other
     telecommunications services. These actions include requiring that,
     where a state does not set its own standard, an incumbent LEC must
     provide physical collocation, including cageless collocation,
     within 90 calendar days after receiving a collocation application.

175. In taking the actions in this *Order*, we have considered
     significant alternatives, such as setting maximum collocation
     provisioning intervals either shorter or longer than 90 calendar
     days. We selected 90 calendar days, however, based on the balance
     of competing considerations, including competitive LECs' need for a
     provisioning interval of relatively short duration. We also
     considered adopting shorter collocation intervals for particular
     types of collocation arrangements, different adjunct collocation
     requirements, and requirements regarding reserving space for future
     use, but instead invite comment on those requirements in the
     *Second Further Notice*. Finally, any alternative space denial and
     safe-time work practice requirements would decrease the ability of
     competitive LECs that are small entities to compete effectively. In
     choosing among the various alternatives, we have sought to minimize
     the adverse economic impact on carriers, including those that are
     small entities. We recognize that, while our actions should benefit
     competitive LECs, they may impose economic burdens on incumbent
     LECs, as Congress envisioned when it enacted section 251(c)(6). In
     comparison to incumbent LECs, however, many competitive LECs are
     small, entrepreneurial businesses. Our actions in this *Order*
     should reduce the costs and delays these competitive LECs encounter
     in seeking to collocate in incumbent LEC premises.

## Report to Congress

176. The Commission will send a copy of the *Order*, including this
     SFRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the
     SBREFA.[^309] In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the
     *Order*, including the SFRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
     the SBA. A copy of the *Order* and the SFRFA (or summaries thereof)
     will also be published in the Federal Register.[^310]

177. 

178. 

179. 

# Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 98-147 -- Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

180. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^311] the
     Commission has prepared this present Supplemental Initial
     Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (SIRFA) of the possible significant
     economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules
     proposed in the *Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* in
     Docket No. 98-147 (*Second Further Notice*). Written public
     comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as
     responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for
     comments on the *Second Further Notice*. The Commission will send a
     copy of the *Second Further Notice*, including this SIRFA, to the
     Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
     Administration.[^312] In addition, the *Second Further Notice* and
     SIRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal
     Register.[^313]

## Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules

181. This *Second Further Notice* continues our efforts to facilitate
     the development of competition in telecommunications services. In
     the *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, we strengthened our
     collocation rules to reduce the costs and delays faced by
     competitors that seek to collocate equipment in incumbent LEC
     premises. While many aspects of those rules were affirmed on
     appellate review, the D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded certain
     aspects of those rules. In this *Second Further Notice*, we invite
     comment on what action we should take regarding the rules the D.C.
     Circuit vacated and remanded, and on other collocation related
     issues. We also invite comment on whether we should amend our
     unbundled network element rules to ensure that carriers are able to
     access subloops as incumbent LECs introduce new network
     technologies.

## Legal Basis

182. The *Second Further Notice* is adopted pursuant to sections 1-4,
     201, 202, 251-254, 256, 271, and 303(r) of the Communications Act
     of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154, 201, 202, 251-254, 256,
     271, and 303(r).

## Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities Affected by this Second Further Notice

183. 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 the proposals in this Further NPRM, if adopted.[^314]
     In the IRFA to the *Advanced Services Order and NPRM*, we adopted
     the analysis and definitions set forth in determining the small
     entities affected by this Second Further Notice for purposes of
     this SIRFA. The RFA generally defines "small entity" as having the
     same meaning as the term "small business," "small organization,"
     and "small governmental jurisdiction."[^315] In addition, the term
     "small business" has the same meaning as the term "small business
     concern" under the Small Business Act, unless the Commission has
     developed one or more definitions that are appropriate to its
     activities.[^316] 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) meets any
     additional criteria established by the Small Business
     Administration (SBA).[^317] The SBA has defined a small business
     for Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories 4812
     (Radiotelephone) to be small entities when they have no more than
     1,500 employees.[^318]

184. We further describe and estimate below the number of small
     telephone companies that may be affected by the proposals in the
     *Second Further Notice*, if adopted.

185. The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers
     of common carrier and related providers nationwide, as well as the
     numbers of commercial wireless entities, appears to be data the
     Commission publishes annually in its Carrier Locator report,
     derived from filings made in connection with the Telecommunications
     Relay Service (TRS).[^319] According to data in the most recent
     report, there are 4,144 interstate carriers.[^320] These carriers
     include, *inter alia*, LECs, wireline carriers and service
     providers, interexchange carriers, competitive access providers,
     operators services providers, pay telephone operators, providers of
     telephone toll service, providers of telephone exchange service,
     and resellers.

186. The SBA has defined establishments engaged in providing "Telephone
     Communications, Except Radiotelephone" to be small businesses when
     they have no more than 1,500 employees.[^321] We discuss below the
     total estimated number of telephone companies and small businesses
     in this category and then attempt to refine further those
     estimates.

187. 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."[^322]
     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.[^323] We have
     therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis,
     although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on FCC
     analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

188. *Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected.* The Census Bureau
     reports that, at the end of 1992, there were 3,497 firms engaged in
     providing telephone services, as defined therein, for at least one
     year.[^324] These firms include a variety of different categories
     of carriers, including LECs, interexchange carriers, competitive
     access providers, cellular carriers, mobile service carriers,
     operator service providers, pay telephone operators, PCS providers,
     covered SMR providers, and resellers. It seems certain that some of
     those 4,144 telephone service firms may not qualify as small
     entities or small incumbent LECs because they are not"
     independently owned and operated."[^325] For example, a PCS
     provider that is affiliated with an interexchange carrier having
     more the 1,500 employees would not meet the definition of a small
     business. It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that fewer
     than 4,144 telephone service firms are small entity telephone
     service firms or small incumbent LECs that may be affected by the
     decisions and rules proposed in this *Second Further Notice*.

189. *Wireline Carriers and Service Providers*. SBA has developed a
     definition of small entities for telephone communications companies
     other than radiotelephone companies. The Census Bureau reports
     that, there were 2,321 such telephone companies in operation for at
     least one year at the end of 1992.[^326] According to SBA's
     definition, a small business telephone company other than a
     radiotelephone company is one employing no more than 1,500
     persons.[^327] All but 26 of the 2,231 non-radiotelephone companies
     listed by the Census Bureau were reported to have fewer that 1,000
     employees. Thus, even if all 26 of those companies had more than
     1,500 employees, there would still be 2,295 non-radiotelephone
     companies that might qualify as small entities or small incumbent
     LECs. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not
     independently owned and operated, we are unable at this time to
     estimate with greater precision the number of wireline carriers and
     service providers that would qualify as small business concerns
     under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are
     fewer than 2,295 small entity telephone communications companies
     other than radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the
     decisions and rules proposed in this *Second Further Notice*.

190. *Local Exchange Carriers*. The Commission has not developed a
     special size definition of small LECs or competitive LECs. The
     closet applicable definition for these types of carriers under SBA
     rules is, again, that used for telephone communications companies
     other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies.[^328] The most
     reliable source of information regarding the number of these
     carriers nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data
     that we collect annually in connection with the Telecommunications
     Relay Service (TRS).[^329] According to our most recent data, there
     are 1,348 incumbent LECs, 212 competitive LECs,[^330] and 442
     resellers.[^331]

191. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not
     independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500
     employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater
     precision the number of these carriers that would qualify as small
     business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate
     that there are no more than 1,348 small entity incumbent LECs, 212
     competitive LECs, and 442 resellers that may be affected by the
     proposals in this *Second Further Notice*.[^332]

## Description of Projected Reporting, Record Keeping, and other Compliance Requirements

192. In the *Second Further Notice*, we seek comment regarding rules
     recently vacated and remanded by the D.C. Circuit, as well as on
     other issues regarding collocation by incumbent LECs. We invite
     comment, for instance, on whether we should require incumbent LECs
     to make physical collocation space available in increments smaller
     than the space necessary to accommodate a single rack or bay of
     equipment. We request comment on issues relating to collocation at
     remote incumbent LEC premises, and on whether we should change our
     collocation rules to facilitate line sharing and subloop
     unbundling. We ask whether we should specify an overall maximum
     collocation provisioning interval shorter than 90 calendar days or
     shorter intervals for particular types of collocation arrangements,
     such as cageless collocation, modifications to existing collocation
     arrangements, or collocation within remote incumbent LEC
     structures. We also ask whether we should adopt national standards
     governing the period for which incumbent LECs and collocating
     carriers can reserve space for future use in incumbent LEC
     premises. As described below, the measures under consideration in
     this *Second Further Notice* may, if adopted, result in additional
     reporting, record keeping, or other compliance requirements for
     telecommunications carriers, including small entities.

193. If the Commission does not establish any new requirements regarding
     the provision of collocation, no additional compliance requirements
     are anticipated from further consideration of these issues. If,
     however, further obligations with respect to the provision of
     collocation are imposed, depending upon the specific nature of
     those obligations, small entities, including small incumbent LECs,
     may be subject to additional reporting, recordkeeping, and other
     compliance requirements. If further collocation requirements are
     imposed, compliance with further requests for collocation may
     require the use of engineering, technical, operational, accounting,
     billing, and legal skills.

## Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered

194. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
     that it has considered in reaching its proposed 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.[^333]

195. In this *Second Further Notice*, we seek to develop a record
     sufficient to adequately address issues related to developing
     long-term policies related to collocation. In addressing these
     issues, we seek to ensure that competing providers, including small
     entity carriers, obtain access to inputs necessary to the provision
     of advanced services. We believe that the issues on which we invite
     comment would impose minimal burdens on small entities, including
     both telecommunications carriers that request collocation and the
     incumbent LECs that, under section 251 of the Communications Act,
     must provide collocation to requesting carriers. As indicated
     above, both groups of carriers include entities that, for purposes
     of this SIRFA, are classified as small entities. In framing the
     issues in this *Second Further Notice*, we have sought to develop a
     record on the potential impact our proposed rules could have upon
     small entities. We thus ask that commenters propose measures to
     avoid significant economic impact on small business entities.

196. 

197. 

198. 

199. 

## Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules

200. None.

# Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 96-98 -- Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

201. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^334] the
     Commission has prepared this present Supplemental Initial
     Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (SIRFA) of the possible significant
     economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules
     proposed in the *Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* in
     Docket No. CC 96-98 (*Fifth Further Notice*). Written public
     comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as
     responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for
     comments on the *Fifth Further Notice*. The Commission will send a
     copy of the *Fifth Further Notice*, including this SIRFA, to the
     Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
     Administration.[^335] In addition, the *Fifth Further Notice* and
     SIRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal
     Register.[^336]

## Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules

202. This *Fifth Further Notice* continues our efforts to facilitate the
     development of competition in telecommunications services,
     particularly local telecommunications. We invite comment on whether
     we should amend our unbundled network element rules to ensure that
     carriers are able to gain competitive access to subloops and loops
     as incumbent LECs introduce new network technologies. Specifically,
     the Commission seeks comment on the legal and policy bases for
     amending our local competition unbundling rules to ensure that
     competitors will have competitive access to subloops and loops as
     new network technologies are deployed.

## Legal Basis

203. The *Fifth Further Notice* is adopted pursuant to sections 1-4,
     201, 202, 251-254, 256, 271, and 303(r) of the Communications Act
     of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154, 201, 202, 251-254, 256,
     271, and 303(r).

## Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities Affected by this Fifth Further Notice

204. 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 the proposals in this *Further NPRM*, if adopted.[^337]
     In the IRFA to the *Advanced Services Order and NPRM*, we adopted
     the analysis and definitions set forth in determining the small
     entities affected by this *Fifth Further Notice* for purposes of
     this SIRFA. The RFA generally defines "small entity" as having the
     same meaning as the term "small business," "small organization,"
     and "small governmental jurisdiction."[^338] In addition, the term
     "small business" has the same meaning as the term "small business
     concern" under the Small Business Act, unless the Commission has
     developed one or more definitions that are appropriate to its
     activities.[^339] 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) meets any
     additional criteria established by the Small Business
     Administration (SBA).[^340] The SBA has defined a small business
     for Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories 4812
     (Radiotelephone) to be small entities when they have no more than
     1,500 employees.[^341]

205. We further describe and estimate below the number of small
     telephone companies that may be affected by the proposals in the
     *Fifth Further Notice*, if adopted.

206. The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers
     of common carrier and related providers nationwide, as well as the
     numbers of commercial wireless entities, appears to be data the
     Commission publishes annually in its Carrier Locator report,
     derived from filings made in connection with the Telecommunications
     Relay Service (TRS).[^342] According to data in the most recent
     report, there are 4,144 interstate carriers.[^343] These carriers
     include, *inter alia*, LECs, wireline carriers and service
     providers, interexchange carriers, competitive access providers,
     operators services providers, pay telephone operators, providers of
     telephone toll service, providers of telephone exchange service,
     and resellers.

207. The SBA has defined establishments engaged in providing "Telephone
     Communications, Except Radiotelephone" to be small businesses when
     they have no more than 1,500 employees.[^344] We discuss below the
     total estimated number of telephone companies and small businesses
     in this category and then attempt to refine further those
     estimates.

208. 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."[^345]
     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.[^346] We have
     therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis,
     although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on FCC
     analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

209. *Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected*. The Census Bureau
     reports that, at the end of 1992, there were 3,497 firms engaged in
     providing telephone services, as defined therein, for at least one
     year.[^347] These firms include a variety of different categories
     of carriers, including LECs, interexchange carriers, competitive
     access providers, cellular carriers, mobile service carriers,
     operator service providers, pay telephone operators, PCS providers,
     covered SMR providers, and resellers. It seems certain that some of
     those 4,144 telephone service firms may not qualify as small
     entities or small incumbent LECs because they are not"
     independently owned and operated."[^348] For example, a PCS
     provider that is affiliated with an interexchange carrier having
     more the 1,500 employees would not meet the definition of a small
     business. It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that fewer
     than 4,144 telephone service firms are small entity telephone
     service firms or small incumbent LECs that may be affected by the
     decisions and rules proposed in this *Second Further Notice*.

210. *Wireline Carriers and Service Providers*. SBA has developed a
     definition of small entities for telephone communications companies
     other than radiotelephone companies. The Census Bureau reports
     that, there were 2,321 such telephone companies in operation for at
     least one year at the end of 1992.[^349] According to SBA's
     definition, a small business telephone company other than a
     radiotelephone company is one employing no more than 1,500
     persons.[^350] All but 26 of the 2,231 non-radiotelephone companies
     listed by the Census Bureau were reported to have fewer that 1,000
     employees. Thus, even if all 26 of those companies had more than
     1,500 employees, there would still be 2,295 non-radiotelephone
     companies that might qualify as small entities or small incumbent
     LECs. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not
     independently owned and operated, we are unable at this time to
     estimate with greater precision the number of wireline carriers and
     service providers that would qualify as small business concerns
     under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are
     fewer than

211. 2,295 small entity telephone communications companies other than
     radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the decisions and
     rules proposed in the *Fifth Further Notice*.

212. *Local Exchange Carriers*. The Commission has not developed a
     special size definition of small LECs or competitive LECs. The
     closet applicable definition for these types of carriers under SBA
     rules is, again, that used for telephone communications companies
     other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies.[^351] The most
     reliable source of information regarding the number of these
     carriers nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data
     that we collect annually in connection with the Telecommunications
     Relay Service (TRS).[^352] According to our most recent data, there
     are 1,348 incumbent LECs, 212 competitive LECs,[^353] and 442
     resellers.[^354]

213. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not
     independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500
     employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater
     precision the number of these carriers that would qualify as small
     business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate
     that there are no more than 1,348 small entity incumbent LECs, 212
     competitive LECs, and 442 resellers that may be affected by the
     proposals in this *Fifth Further Notice*.[^355]

## Description of Projected Reporting, Record Keeping, and other Compliance Requirements

214. In the *Fifth Further Notice* in CC Docket No. 96-98, we invite
     comment on several issues concerning the deployment of new network
     architectures. We ask, for instance, whether we should modify or
     clarify our definition of the loop to include access for requesting
     carriers at the wavelength level. We request comment on the
     features, functions, and capabilities of the subloop created by the
     deployment of new network architectures. We invite comment on
     incumbent LECs' obligations to provide unbundled access to the
     subloop, particularly the fiber feeder portion, in situations where
     there is inadequate existing capacity. We also seek comment on
     whether we should change the technically feasible points at which
     competing carriers may access subloops at remote terminal
     locations. We further invite comment on whether, as part of their
     deployment of additional fiber facility, incumbent LECs plan to
     retire and remove existing copper plant and how that would affect
     their obligations under our local competition rules. Finally, we
     inquire about whether we should alter our definition of the
     transport element in view of new network architectures being
     deployed by carriers.

215. If the Commission does not amend our local competition rules, no
     additional compliance requirements are anticipated from further
     consideration of these issues. If, however, the Commission amends
     of clarifies the local competition rules to impose further
     obligations upon incumbent LECs to ensure competitive access to
     unbundled network elements, depending upon the specific nature of
     those obligations, small entities, including small incumbent LECs,
     may be subject to additional reporting, recordkeeping, and other
     compliance requirements. If further requirements are imposed,
     compliance with further requests for unbundled network elements may
     require the use of engineering, technical, operational, accounting,
     billing, and legal skills.

## Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered

216. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
     that it has considered in reaching its proposed 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.[^356]

217. In the *Fifth Further Notice*, we seek to develop a record
     sufficient to adequately address issues related to developing
     long-term policies for ensuring that competitive carriers have
     access to unbundled network elements as changes are made to
     traditional telephone networks. In addressing these issues, we seek
     to ensure that competing providers, including small entity
     carriers, obtain access to inputs necessary to the provision voice
     and advanced telecommunications services. We believe that the
     issues on which we invite comment could impose minimal burdens on
     small entities, including both telecommunications carriers that
     request unbundled network elements and the incumbent LECs that,
     under section 251 of the Communications Act, must provide unbundled
     network elements to requesting carriers. As indicated above, both
     groups of carriers include entities that, for purposes of this
     SIRFA, are classified as small entities. In framing the issues in
     this *Fifth Further Notice*, we have sought to develop a record on
     the potential impact our proposed rules could have upon small
     entities. We thus ask that commenters propose measures to avoid
     significant economic impact on small business entities.

## Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules

218. None.

[^1]: *Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced
    Telecommunications Capability*, CC Docket No. 98-147, First Report
    and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 4761
    (1999) (*Advanced Services First Report and Order*), *aff'd in part
    and remanded in part sub nom. GTE Service Corp. v. FCC*, 205 F.3d
    416 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (*GTE v. FCC*). For purposes of this Order, we
    use the term \"advanced services\" to mean high speed, switched,
    broadband, wireline telecommunications capability that enables users
    to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics or video
    telecommunications using any technology. Today\'s broadband services
    include services that are based on digital subscriber line
    technologies (commonly referred to as xDSL), such as ADSL
    (asymmetric digital subscriber line) and HDSL (high-speed digital
    subscriber line).

[^2]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6).

[^3]: *See GTE v. FCC*, 205 F.3d at 420-27.

[^4]: In a caged physical arrangement, a competitive LEC leases and has
    direct physical access to caged space at an incumbent LEC structure
    for its equipment. Cageless physical collocation eliminates the cage
    surrounding the competitive LEC's equipment. In adjacent physical
    collocation, the competitive LEC's equipment is located within a
    controlled environmental vault or similar structure that the
    competitive LEC or its contractor constructs on property leased from
    the incumbent LEC.

[^5]: *GTE v. FCC*, 205 F.3d at 420-27.

[^6]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6).

[^7]: *E.g.*, Letter from Russell M. Blau, *et al.*, Counsel for \@link,
    to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, at 2-4 (filed Dec. 7, 1999)
    (*\@link Dec. 7, 1999 Letter*); Letter from Glenn B. Manishin, *et
    al.*, Counsel for Rhythms, to William A. Kehoe, FCC, at 2 (filed
    Oct. 19, 1999) (*Rhythms Oct. 19, 1999 Letter*); Letter from Patrick
    J. Donovan, *et al.*, Counsel for BroadSpan, to Magalie Roman Salas,
    Secretary, FCC, at att., p. 1 (filed Aug. 4, 1999) (*BroadSpan Aug.
    4, 1999 Letter*).

[^8]: *GTE v. FCC*, 205 F.3d at 420-27.

[^9]: *Id.* at 424 & 426.

[^10]: *Id*. (*quoting AT&T v. Iowa Util. Bd*., 525 U.S. 366, 390
    (1999)).

[^11]: Pub.L. 104-104, Title VII, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 153, *codified
    at* 47 U.S.C. §§ 151 *et seq.* Hereinafter, all citations to the
    1996 Act will be to the 1996 Act as codified in the United States
    Code. The 1996 Act amended the Communications Act of 1934. We will
    refer to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended as the
    "Communications Act" or the "Act."

[^12]: Joint Statement of Managers, S. Conf. Rep. No. 104‑230, 104th
    Cong. 2d Sess. 1 (1996) (*Joint Explanatory Statement*).

[^13]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6).

[^14]: *See Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    4771, n.27.

[^15]: *Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996*, First Report and Order, CC Docket
    No. 96‑98, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15782-807, ¶¶ 555-607 (1996) (*Local
    Competition First Report and Order*), *aff\'d in part and vacated in
    part sub nom. Competitive Telecommunications Ass\'n v. FCC*, 117
    F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 1997) & *Iowa* *Util. Bd. v. FCC*, 120 F.3d 753
    (8th Cir. 1997), *affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
    sub nom. AT&T v. Iowa Util. Bd*., 525 U.S. 366 (1999), *aff'd in
    part and vacated in part on remand*, 2000 WL 979117 (2000), *Order
    on Reconsideration*, 11 FCC Rcd 13042 (1996) (*Local Competition
    First Reconsideration Order*), *Second Order on Reconsideration*, 11
    FCC Rcd 19738 (1996) (*Local Competition Second Reconsideration
    Order*), *Third Order on Reconsideration and Further Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 12 FCC Rcd 12460 (1997) (*Local Competition Third
    Reconsideration Order*), *further recon. pending*.

[^16]: *Local Competition First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    15783-84, ¶ 558.

[^17]: *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    4773-74, ¶¶ 23-24.

[^18]: *Id.* at 4784, ¶ 41. In a shared physical collocation
    arrangement, two or more competitive LECs share caged collocation
    space pursuant to terms and conditions agreed to by the competitive
    LECs. *Id.*

[^19]: *Id.* at 4773-74, ¶ 24, & 4787-88, ¶¶ 47-48.

[^20]: *See* para. 2, *supra*.

[^21]: *GTE v. FCC*, 205 F.3d at 422-24.

[^22]: *Id.* at 424-26.

[^23]: *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    4784-86, ¶¶ 42-44.

[^24]: *Id.* at 4791, ¶ 55.

[^25]: *Id.* at 4790-91, ¶ 54.

[^26]: *Id.*

[^27]: *Id.*

[^28]: *Id.*

[^29]: Sprint Petition at 9-10.

[^30]: *Id.* at 9-10; *see BroadSpan Aug.4, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note
    Error: Reference source not found, at att., p. 2 (Commission should
    establish a minimum provisioning interval of no more than 90 days
    for physical collocation when previously conditioned space is
    available).

[^31]: Sprint Petition at 10; *see* AT&T Comments at 2.

[^32]: *E.g.*, *Rhythms Oct. 19, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error:
    Reference source not found, at 7 (proposing that we require
    incumbent LECs to provide physical collocation within 90 days from
    the date of application and no more than 45 days from the date the
    incumbent LEC receives a competitive LEC's deposit); Letter from
    Norton Cutler, Vice President Regulatory and General Counsel,
    Bluestar, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, at 1 (filed Nov.
    19, 1999) (*Bluestar Nov. 19, 1999 Letter*); Letter from Richard M.
    Rindler, Counsel for Allegiance, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary,
    FCC, at 1 (filed Dec. 10, 1999) (*Allegiance Dec. 10, 1999 Letter*)
    (proposing that the Commission establish an interval of no more than
    90 day for all caged collocation); *\@link Dec. 7, 1999 Letter*,
    *supra* note Error: Reference source not found, at 1 (proposing 45
    days where space and power are readily available and 90 days
    otherwise); Letter from William B. Wilhelm, Jr., Counsel for
    BroadSpan, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, at 4-5 (filed
    Dec. 21, 1999) (*BroadSpan Dec. 21, 1999 Letter*) (urging a
    collocation provisioning interval of 45 days when power is available
    and 90 days when power is unavailable); Letter from Jason Oxman,
    Senior Government Affairs Counsel, Covad, to William A. Kehoe, FCC,
    2-5 (filed Jan. 20, 2000) (*Covad Jan. 20, 2000 Letter*) (proposing
    a collocation interval of 45 days from date the competitive LEC
    submits its collocation order).

[^33]: *Rhythms Oct. 19, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error: Reference
    source not found, at 6-7.

[^34]: *E.g.*, Bell Atlantic Comments at 10; BellSouth Comments at
    14-15; U S WEST Comments at 9; Bell Atlantic Reply at 7. Although we
    recognize that Bell Atlantic is now operating as "Verizon
    Communications," *see Application of GTE, Transferor, and Bell
    Atlantic Corporation, Transferee, For Consent to Transfer Control of
    Domestic and International Sections 214 and 310 Authorizations and
    Application to Transfer Control of a Submarine Cable Landing
    License*, CC Docket No. 98-184, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC
    00-221 (rel. June 16, 2000), we nonetheless refer to Bell Atlantic
    and GTE in this *Order*, rather than to Verizon, because the bulk of
    those parties' filings in these dockets were made prior to
    completion of the merger.

[^35]: *E.g.*, SBC Comments at 10-12; U S WEST Comments at 9 (asserting
    that factors such as the availability of personnel and
    manufacturer's equipment affect collocation intervals).

[^36]: *E.g.*, Bell Atlantic Comments at 10; SBC Comments at 11-12.

[^37]: Bell Atlantic Comments at 10-11.

[^38]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6).

[^39]: *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4773, ¶
    13; *Local Competition First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 15783,
    ¶ 558.

[^40]: *E.g.*, *Rhythms Oct. 19, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error:
    Reference source not found, at 5 (stating that short collocation
    intervals are of absolute necessity in the nascent competitive
    telecommunications market); *Allegiance Dec. 10, 1999 Letter*,
    *supra* note Error: Reference source not found, at 3 (arguing that
    collocation intervals are delaying facilities-based competitive
    entry); *\@link Dec. 7, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error: Reference
    source not found, at 2 (collocation delays make planning a
    nationwide facilities-based roll-out all but impossible).

[^41]: *See*, *e*.*g*., *Allegiance Dec. 10, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note
    Error: Reference source not found, at 2; *Investigation of
    Southwestern Bell Telephone Company's Entry into the Texas InterLATA
    Telecommunications Market, Project No. 16251*, Order No. 51
    Approving Time Intervals for Provisioning Collocation under Revised
    Physical Collocation Tariff, at 1-2 (Texas PUC Aug. 18, 1999)
    (*Texas Commission Order No. 51*).

[^42]: *Texas Commission Order No. 51*¸ *supra* note Error: Reference
    source not found, at 1-2. Collocation space is active when it has
    sufficient telecommunications infrastructure systems, including
    power, to support collocation. *Investigation of Southwestern Bell
    Telephone Company's Entry into the Texas InterLATA
    Telecommunications Market*, Project No. 16251, Order No. 59
    Approving Revised Physical and Virtual Collocation Tariffs, at 4
    (Texas PUC Oct. 29, 1999) (*Texas Commission Order No. 59*).

[^43]: *Nextlink Pennsylvania, Inc*., P-00991648 *et al.*, 1999 USWL
    983416 (Pa. PUC 1999) (*Pennsylvania Commission Order*).

[^44]: *See* *\@link Dec. 7, 1999 Letter*, sup*r*a note Error: Reference
    source not found, at 3-4; Letter from Patrick J. Donovan, Counsel
    for New Edge, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, at att., p. 1
    (filed Dec. 9, 1999) (*New Edge Dec. 9, 1999 Letter*); *Bluestar
    Nov. 19, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error: Reference source not
    found, at 3.

[^45]: *New York Telephone Co.*, Case 99-C-0715 *et al.*, Order
    Directing Tariff Revisions, 1999 USWL 1054136, at \*5 (N.Y. PSC,
    Aug. 31, 1999) (*New York Commission Aug. 31, 1999 Order*). The
    virtual collocation interval includes time for testing prior to
    start-up of the virtual collection arrangement. *Id.*

[^46]: *E.g.*, *Supra Telecommunications and Information Systems v.
    BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.*, Docket No. 980-800-TP, Final
    Order Resolving Complaint regarding Physical Collocation, 1999 USLW
    99534, at \*17 (Fla. PSC 1999).

[^47]: *E.g.*, *Rhythms Oct. 19, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error:
    Reference source not found, at 7; *Bluestar Nov. 19, 1999 Letter*,
    *supra* note Error: Reference source not found, at 1-2.

[^48]: *E.g.*, *Bluestar Nov. 19, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error:
    Reference source not found, at 1; \@link *Dec. 7, 1999 Letter*,
    *supra* note Error: Reference source not found, at 2; *Allegiance
    Dec. 10, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error: Reference source not
    found, at 2; *Rhythms Oct. 19, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error:
    Reference source not found, at 5.

[^49]: *See* Letter from Patrick J. Donovan, Counsel for New Edge, to
    Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, at 4 (filed Feb.8, 2000) (*New
    Edge Feb. 8, 2000 Letter*); *see also* *Bluestar Nov. 19, 1999
    Letter*, *supra* note Error: Reference source not found, at 2;
    \@link *Dec. 7, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error: Reference source
    not found, at 2; *BroadSpan Dec. 21, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note
    Error: Reference source not found, at 4-5.

[^50]: *E.g.*, *Allegiance Dec. 10, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error:
    Reference source not found, at 3; \@link *Dec. 7, 1999 Letter*,
    *supra* note Error: Reference source not found, at 2-3.

[^51]: *See Expanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company
    Facilities*, CC Docket Nos. 91‑141 & 92‑222, Report and Order and
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 7 FCC Rcd 7369 (1992*) (Expanded
    Interconnection Order*), *vacated in part and remanded sub nom. Bell
    Atlantic v. FCC*, 24 F.3d 1441 (D.C. Cir. 1994); *First*
    *Reconsideration*, 8 FCC Rcd 127 (1993); *Second* *Reconsideration*,
    8 FCC Rcd 7341 (1993); *Second Report and Order*, 8 FCC Rcd 7374
    (1993); Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5154 (1994),
    *remanded* *sub nom. Pacific Bell v. FCC*, 81 F.3d 1147 (D.C. Cir.
    1996).

[^52]: *See*, *e.g.*, *Rhythms Oct. 19, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note
    Error: Reference source not found, at 5 (intervals as high as 120 to
    180 days); Letter from Norton Cutler, Vice President Regulatory and
    General Counsel, Bluestar, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC,
    at 2 (filed Oct. 19, 1999) (*Bluestar Oct. 19, 1999 Letter*)
    (average provisioning intervals of 150 days from date of
    application); *New Edge Feb. 8, 2000 Letter*, *supra* note Error:
    Reference source not found, at 1-2.

[^53]: *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    4790-91, ¶ 55 (recognizing that new entrants suffer competitive harm
    when collocation arrangements are delayed); *see*, *e.g.*,
    *Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996*, Third Report and Order and Fourth
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 96‑98, 15 FCC
    Rcd 3696, 3819, ¶ 270 (1999) (*UNE Remand Order*) (finding that
    collocation delays prevent a competitive LEC from responding quickly
    to demand for its services); *Rhythms Oct. 19, 1999 Letter*, *supra*
    note Error: Reference source not found, at 5; *Bluestar October 19,
    1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error: Reference source not found, at 1
    (stating that establishing collocation intervals may represent the
    most important procompetitive activity the Commission can
    undertake); *Covad Jan. 20, 2000 Letter*, *supra* note Error:
    Reference source not found, at 2.

[^54]: *E.g.*, *UNE Remand Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3741-42, ¶¶ 90-91
    (indicating that incumbent LECs can take advantage of collocation
    provisioning delays to lock-up customers in advance of competitive
    entry); @*link* *Dec. 7, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error: Reference
    source not found, at 3.

[^55]: *New Edge Feb. 8, 2000 Letter*, *supra* note Error: Reference
    source not found, at 4. In part IV.D.2.c, below, we describe how the
    national standard should be applied.

[^56]: *See, e.g.*, Bell Atlantic Comments at 10; SBC Comments at 11-12.

[^57]: *AT&T v. Iowa Util. Bd.*, 525 U.S. at 378.

[^58]: *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4791, ¶
    55. Contrary to certain incumbent LECs' apparent position, ten days
    means ten calendar days, not ten business days. We are amending our
    rules to make this clear.

[^59]: We note that a state commission may find a different interval as
    reasonable as our ten calendar day national default standard based
    on the specific evidence before it in proceedings on this issue.

[^60]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 51.323(f)(1). This deadline would be twenty
    calendar days after the requesting carrier submits its collocation
    application if the incumbent LEC advises that carrier of
    deficiencies in that application on the last day of the ten calendar
    day period set forth in paragraph 24, *supra*.

[^61]: *See* Letter from Norton Cutler, Vice President Regulatory and
    General Counsel, Bluestar, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC,
    at att B, pp. 3-4 (filed Nov. 23, 1999) (*Bluestar Nov. 23, 1999
    Letter*) (testimony of Florida Competitive Carriers Association
    witness Joseph Gillan before the Florida Commission).

[^62]: *Id*.

[^63]: *See*, *e.g.*, *Allegiance Dec. 10, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note
    Error: Reference source not found, at 2 (alleging that even
    slow-moving incumbents take 30 to 45 days to complete these
    processes); *Bluestar Nov. 19, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error:
    Reference source not found, at 2 (arguing that incumbent LECs can
    eliminate time-consuming price quotation processes).

[^64]: *See*, *e.g.*, *Bluestar Nov. 23, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note
    Error: Reference source not found, at att B, pp. 2-5 (testimony of
    Florida Competitive Carriers Association witness Joseph Gillan
    before the Florida Commission); *see generally Texas Commission
    Order No. 59*, *supra* note Error: Reference source not found, at
    4-12.

[^65]: This deadline is 80 calendar days after the ten calendar day
    deadline for processing applications set forth in paragraph 24,
    above, if the competitive LEC does not have to cure deficiencies in
    its collocation application and meets the deadline set forth in
    paragraph 26, above. We note that if the incumbent provides a price
    quotation on or before the application processing deadline, the
    requesting carrier must have made clear its intent to obtain a
    particular collocation arrangement from the incumbent LEC within 17
    days of the incumbent's receipt of an acceptable collocation
    application. The requesting carrier also may have paid portions of
    the total collocation changes by that date. *See* paras. 26,
    *supra*, & 38, *infra*.

[^66]: *See*, *e.g.*, *\@link Dec. 7, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error:
    Reference source not found, at 2; *Allegiance Dec. 10, 1999 Letter*,
    *supra* note Error: Reference source not found, at 3; *Rhythms Oct.
    19, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error: Reference source not found, at
    5.

[^67]: *See* paras. 17-18, *supra*.

[^68]: *See*, *e.g.*, *Rhythms Oct. 19, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note
    Error: Reference source not found, at att. pp. 3-4.

[^69]: *See Covad Jan. 20, 2000 Letter*, *supra* note Error: Reference
    source not found, at 2-3.

[^70]: *See, e.g.*, Letter from Dee May, Director, Federal Regulatory
    Group, Bell Atlantic, Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, at att.,
    pp. 1-2 (filed Dec. 17, 1999) (*Bell Atlantic Dec. 17, 1999
    Letter*).

[^71]: *See*, *e.g.*, *Rhythms Oct. 19, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note
    Error: Reference source not found, at 6-7; *Bluestar Nov. 19, 1999
    Letter*, *supra* note Error: Reference source not found, at 1-2;
    *Covad Jan. 20, 2000 Letter*, *supra* note Error: Reference source
    not found, at 5.

[^72]: *See*, *e.g.*, *Covad Jan. 20, 2000 Letter*, *supra* note Error:
    Reference source not found, at 5. We would expect, for example, that
    an incumbent LEC begin the process of improving collocation
    provisioning as soon as an incumbent LEC becomes aware that
    improvement is needed.

[^73]: *See*, *e.g.*, *Bluestar Oct. 19, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note
    Error: Reference source not found, at 2 (asserting that a
    multi-billion dollar corporation such as BellSouth should have the
    force and creativity to meet strict provisioning intervals).

[^74]: We note that incumbent LECs have known since August 8, 1996, the
    release date of the *Local Competition Order*, that they had to made
    caged physical collocation available to competitors and since March
    31, 1999, the release date of the *Advanced Services First Report
    and Order*, that they had to make cageless, adjacent, and shared
    physical collocation available to competitors. *See*, *e.g.*,
    *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4783-84, ¶
    40; *Local Competition First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 15576,
    ¶ 152.

[^75]: Sprint Petition at 9-10.

[^76]: *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    4790-91, ¶ 54; *see*, *e.g.*, *Rhythms Oct. 19, 1999 Letter*,
    *supra* note Error: Reference source not found, at 7; *Allegiance
    Dec. 10, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error: Reference source not
    found, at 1; *\@link Dec. 7, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error:
    Reference source not found, at 1.

[^77]: *Allegiance Dec. 10, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error: Reference
    source not found, at 3; Letter from Andrew D. Lipman, *et al.*,
    Counsel for DSLnet, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, at 4
    (filed Dec. 3, 1999) (*DSLnet Dec. 3, 1999 Letter*).

[^78]: *See Application of Bell Atlantic New York for Authorization
    under Section 271 of the Communications Act To Provide In-Region,
    InterLATA Service in the State of New York, FCC 99-400*, ¶¶ 73-75
    (rel. Dec. 22, 1999) (*Bell Atlantic New York Order*).

[^79]: 47 U.S.C. § 271(d)(6)(A); *see Bell Atlantic New York Order*,
    *supra* note Error: Reference source not found, at ¶ 451. We
    emphasize that, where a state does not set its own provisioning
    standard, 90 calendar days defines the outer limit of incumbent LEC
    performance that we would generally find consistent with the
    reasonableness standard in section 251(c)(6). We believe that
    incumbent LECs can provision many collocation arrangements in
    periods significantly shorter than 90 calendar days. We note, for
    example, that competitive LECs argue that an incumbent LEC should
    make minor modifications to an existing collocation arrangement,
    such as relocating racks or increasing transmission capacity, within
    very short time frames. *See Covad Jan. 20, 2000 Letter*, *supra*
    note Error: Reference source not found, at 6-7; *Bluestar Nov. 23,
    1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error: Reference source not found, at
    att. A, pp. 1 & 19 (stating that the North Carolina Utilities
    Commission has set a 15 calendar day interval for augmenting certain
    cabling arrangements and a 30 calendar day interval for augmenting
    other specified cabling arrangements); *see also Texas Commission
    Order No. 51*, *supra* note Error: Reference source not found, at
    3-4 (provisioning intervals as low as 15 calendar days for certain
    augments for certain power, lighting, and interconnection conduit).

[^80]: *Investigation of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company's Entry
    into the Texas InterLATA Telecommunications Market, Project No.
    16251*, Order No. 50 Approving Proposed Interconnection Agreement As
    Amended, at att., p. 140-68 (Texas PUC Aug. 16, 1999) (*Texas
    Commission Order No. 50*).

[^81]: *Rhythms Oct. 19, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error: Reference
    source not found, at 7 (proposing a 30-day provisioning interval for
    virtual collocation); *Allegiance Dec. 10, 1999 Letter*, *supra*
    note Error: Reference source not found, at 1 (proposing a
    provisioning interval of no more than 60 days for virtual
    collocation).

[^82]: *See* para. 23, *supra*.

[^83]: *See Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    4783-86, ¶¶ 40-44 (requiring incumbents to make cageless, adjacent,
    and shared collocation available to requesting carriers).

[^84]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6). This offer also is subject to the parties'
    right to negotiate a different provisioning interval.

[^85]: *Covad Jan. 20, 2000 Letter*, *supra* note Error: Reference
    source not found, at 8.

[^86]: In the *Local Competition Order*, the Commission determined that
    it would constitute a *per se* failure to negotiate in good faith
    for a party to refuse to include in an interconnection agreement a
    provision that permits the agreement to be amended to take into
    account future changes in Commission rules. *Local Competition First
    Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 15576, ¶ 152.

[^87]: Agreements that evidence an express intent not to reopen
    negotiations in the event of changes in our collocation rules are
    not subject to this requirement. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 252(a)(1).

[^88]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(1).

[^89]: *Id.*

[^90]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 252(f).

[^91]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 252(f)(3).

[^92]: *See Allegiance Dec. 10, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error:
    Reference source not found, at 3 (arguing that collocation intervals
    set by the Commission should not apply where state commissions have
    acted, or act in the future, to set specific intervals); *\@link
    Dec. 7, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error: Reference source not
    found, at 3 (urging that the Commission establish national
    collocation intervals to be used in circumstances where the state
    commission has not prescribed intervals).

[^93]: *See generally Bell Atlantic Dec. 17, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note
    Error: Reference source not found, at att., pp. 2-3.

[^94]: *See Texas Commission Order No. 51, supra* note Error: Reference
    source not found, at 1-2.

[^95]: 47 C.F.R. § 51.301(c)(8).

[^96]: *Local Competition First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    15577-78, ¶ 155.

[^97]: *See Bell Atlantic Dec. 17, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error:
    Reference source not found, at att., p. 1

[^98]: *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4786, ¶
    44; *see* 47 C.F.R. § 51.323(k)(3).

[^99]: *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4786, ¶
    44.

[^100]: 47 C.F.R. § 51.323(k)(3); *Advanced Services First Report and
    Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4786, ¶ 44.

[^101]: *GTE v. FCC*, 205 F.3d at 425.

[^102]: *Id.*

[^103]: *Id.*

[^104]: Sprint Petition at 1-4; *see* AT&T Reply at 2.

[^105]: Ameritech Comments at 3-4.

[^106]: *See GTE v. FCC*, 205 F.3d at 425.

[^107]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6) (emphasis added).

[^108]: We note that at least some definitions of "premises" encompass
    land adjacent to a structure. *See*, *e.g.*, Mariam Webster's
    Collegiate Dictionary, 920 (10^th^ ed. 1994) (defining premises as
    "a tract of land with the buildings thereon); Black's Law
    Dictionary, 1199 (7th ed. 1999) (defining premises as "a house or
    building along with its grounds"); 47 C.F.R. § 68.3 (defining
    "premises" as generally meaning "a dwelling unit, other building or
    a legal unit of real property on which a dwelling unit is located .
    . .").

[^109]: *Local Competition First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 15791,
    ¶ 573.

[^110]: *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4786,
    ¶ 44.

[^111]: Ameritech Comments at 2.

[^112]: *Local Competition First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 15791,
    ¶ 573.

[^113]: *Id.*

[^114]: 47 C.F.R. § 51.5.

[^115]: *See* Sprint Reply at 3**.**

[^116]: We did not make clear our intent in this area in the *Advanced
    Services First Report and Order*. *See Advanced Services First
    Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4786, ¶ 44.

[^117]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6).

[^118]: We note that in part V.D, *infra*, we invite comment on whether
    we should require that an incumbent LEC permit adjacent collocation
    at remote premises even when physical collocation space is available
    within an incumbent LEC's structure at that premises.

[^119]: *See DSLnet Dec. 3, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error: Reference
    source not found, at 7.

[^120]: *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    4784-85, ¶ 42; *see also UNE Remand Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3796, ¶
    221.

[^121]: *UNE Remand Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3796, ¶ 221. We note that the
    *UNE Remand Order*, which was released after the *Advanced Services
    First Report and Order*, defines controlled environmental vaults as
    being located below ground and controlled environmental huts as
    being located above ground. *Id.* We are amending our collocation
    rules to make clear our intent to require collocation in either
    controlled environmental huts or vaults, as well as other remote
    terminals, in appropriate circumstances.

[^122]: We are amending section 51.323(k)(3) of our rules to make clear
    that a competitive LEC may hire a third party to construct an
    adjacent collocation arrangement. *See* *Advanced Services First
    Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4786, ¶ 44 (requiring that an
    incumbent LEC permit a new entrant to construct or otherwise procure
    an adjacent collocation arrangement in certain circumstances).

[^123]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6).

[^124]: *Local Competition First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 15805,
    ¶ 604; *see* 47 C.F.R. § 51.323(f)(4).

[^125]: *Local Competition First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    15805-06, ¶ 604; *see* 47 C.F.R. § 51.323(f)(4).

[^126]: *Compare Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd
    at 4791-94, ¶¶ 56-60 *with* Sprint Sept. 25, 1998 Comments at 17-18.

[^127]: Sprint now acknowledges that the space reservation period for
    common system equipment may properly differ from the space
    reservation period for transmission equipment. Sprint Reply at 7;
    *see also* GTE Comments at 3 (asserting that a one-year limitation
    on reserving space for common system equipment would prevent
    rational network planning and expansion); SBC Comments at 7-9; note
    Error: Reference source not foundError: Reference source not found,
    *infra*.

[^128]: Sprint Petition at 7-9; *see also* AT&T Comments at 2 (urging
    that where an incumbent LEC claims that space is exhausted at a
    particular premises, the state commission should be required to
    ensure that space reservations by the incumbent LEC or its
    affiliates are limited to one year and justified by specific
    business plans); *Rhythms Oct. 19, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error:
    Reference source not found, at 9 (incumbent LECs' practice of
    reserving central office space for three or more years is
    anticompetitive and problematic for DSL carriers, such as Rhythms,
    that are only two years old).

[^129]: Ameritech Comments at 8; Bell Atlantic Comments 8; BellSouth
    Comments at 13; SBC Comments at 5.

[^130]: *E.g.*, Ameritech Comments at 8-9 (arguing that safeguards such
    as central office tours and state commission review of floor plans
    in space exhaustion situations protect against hoarding).

[^131]: *Id.* (arguing that a one-year limit on space reservations would
    make long-term network planning virtually impossible); Bell Atlantic
    Comments 8-10 (stating that its planning horizon for infrastructure
    growth is at least five years); BellSouth Comments at 13; GTE
    Comments at 2-3 (arguing that a one-year limit would be totally
    unreasonable for switching systems, main distribution frames, and
    power plants); SBC Comments at 8-9 (one-year reservation period
    ignores incumbent LECs' and competitive LECs' need to reserve space
    for a sufficient time to decrease the likelihood that they will run
    out of space before more becomes available); US WEST Comments at 7-8
    (stating that Sprint's proposal could delay switch deployment and
    postpone access to unbundled network elements); Letter from James K.
    Smith, Executive Director, Federal Regulatory, SBC, to William A.
    Kehoe, FCC, 1-2 (filed Mar. 2, 2000) (arguing that engineering
    concerns require space reservation period of 20 years for space for
    common system equipment, such as switches and power equipment).

    Although we recognize that US West is now operating as "Qwest,",
    *see Qwest Communications International Inc. and US West, Inc.,
    Applications For Consent to Transfer Control of Domestic and
    International Sections 214 and 310 Authorizations and Application to
    Transfer Control of a Submarine Cable Landing License*, CC Docket
    No. 99-272, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 00-91 (rel. Mar. 10,
    2000), we nonetheless refer to "US WEST" in this Order, rather than
    to Qwest, because the bulk of its filings in these dockets were made
    prior to completion of the merger.

[^132]: Ameritech Comments at 9; Bell Atlantic Comments 9-10; GTE
    Comments at 2 (asserting that state commissions should consider
    local space requirements and evaluate regional growth); SBC Comments
    at 6 (maintaining that states are requiring incumbent LEC to justify
    their claims of space shortages by explaining their space
    reservations); Bell Atlantic Reply at 6 (Commission should not
    restrict state commissions' discretion in determining the
    availability of space in each central office). *But see* Sprint
    Reply at 9 (contending that the Commission should adopt a national
    rule, rather than allowing states to adopt differing reservation
    standards, in order to foster nationwide deployment of advanced
    services).

[^133]: *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4793,
    ¶ 56.

[^134]: *See*, *e.g.*, SBC at 7; Bell Atlantic Reply at 6-7 (stating
    that incumbent LECs and competitive LECs both need the ability to
    group similar equipment in common locations and provide for future
    growth in adjacent areas); s*ee also* SBC Comments at 9 (arguing
    that technical factors preclude placing transmission equipment
    within the growth path of common system equipment).

[^135]: *E.g.*, *Rhythms Oct. 19, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error:
    Reference source not found, at 9.

[^136]: *Rulemaking on the Commission's Own Motion to Govern Open Access
    to Bottleneck Services and Establish a Framework for Network
    Architecture Development of Dominant Networks*, Decision 98-12-069,
    1998 WL 995609, at 68**-**69 (Ca. PUC 1998). The California
    Commission also requires that any entity, including Pacific, that
    fails to use space reserved for "similar" equipment within one year
    to forfeit a deposit that would be applied against the collocation
    charges of the next entity to collocate in the relevant central
    office. *Id*. at \*69.

[^137]: *Texas Commission Order No. 59*, *supra* note Error: Reference
    source not found, at 3.

[^138]: *Id.*

[^139]: *MFS Communication Co.*, Docket Nos. UT 960323 *et al.*, 1998
    USWL 996190 (Wash. Util. & Trans. Comm'n 1998). Other state
    commissions also have acted in this area. *See*, *e.g.*, *AT&T
    Communications of the Midwest*, Docket No. P-442, 407/M-96-939, 1997
    USWL 178602 (Minn. PUC 1997) (rejecting GTE request that it be
    permitted to reserve central office space for five years); *see also
    AT&T Communications of Hawaii*, Docket No. 96-0329, Decision No.
    15229, 1996 WL 762358 (Hawaii PUC 1996) (same).

[^140]: *See* part V.E, *infra*.

[^141]: *See* para. 48, *supra*.

[^142]: *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4781,
    ¶ 35.

[^143]: *BroadSpan Aug. 4, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error: Reference
    source not found, at Att, at att., p. 2; Letter from Paul D. Hudson,
    Counsel for DSLnet, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, at 1
    (filed Oct. 1, 1999) (*DSLnet Oct. 1, 1999 Letter*); *Allegiance
    Dec. 10, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error: Reference source not
    found, at 4.

[^144]: *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4781,
    ¶ 35.

[^145]: *Id.* at 4781-82, ¶ 36.

[^146]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6).

[^147]: *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    4781-82, ¶ 36; 47 C.F.R. § 51.323(b).

[^148]: *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    4789-90, ¶ 49.

[^149]: Letter from Eric J. Branfman, Counsel for CoreComm, to Magalie
    Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, at att., p. 1 (filed Dec. 13, 1999)
    (*CoreComm Dec. 13, 1999 Letter*).

[^150]: Bell Atlantic Comments at att. A, p. 3-4.

[^151]: *See* *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at
    4787, ¶ 47 (permitting incumbent LECs to impose reasonable and
    nondiscriminatory security measures).

[^152]: *See* Letter from William Bailey, NorthPoint, & Jason Oxman,
    Covad, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, at 2-4 (filed June
    29, 2000) (*NorthPoint* *June 29, 2000 Letter*); *compare* Letter
    from Thomas R. Parker, *et al.* Verizon Communications, to Magalie
    Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, at 1-4 (filed July 18, 2000) (*Verizon
    July 18, , 2000 Letter*) (arguing that safe-time work practices are
    reasonable security measures).

[^153]: *See id.* at 3.

[^154]: *Local Competition First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 15805,
    ¶ 602.

[^155]: Sprint Petition at 7.

[^156]: *CoreComm Dec. 13, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error: Reference
    source not found, at att., p. 1.

[^157]: *Id.*

[^158]: *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4793,
    ¶ 58.

[^159]: Letter from Sandra Ibaugh, Director of Telecommunications,
    Indiana Commission, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, at att.
    B, p. 1-2 (filed Jan. 24, 2000) (*Indiana Commission Jan. 24, 2000
    Letter*); *see* *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC
    Rcd at 4793, ¶ 58 (requiring submission of this report "within ten
    days" of the request).

[^160]: *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    4798-801, ¶¶ 70-77. Spectrum management refers to loop plant
    administration and other deployment practices that are designed to
    prevent harmful interference between services and technologies that
    use the same cable. *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14
    FCC Rcd at 4799, ¶ 71. It includes choices concerning which
    technologies are deployed over which pairs of copper wire that are
    bundled together within a binder group of 25, 50, or 100 copper
    pairs. *Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced
    Telecommunications Capability*, CC Docket No. 98-147, Third Report
    and Order in CC Docket No. 98-147 and Fourth Report and Order in CC
    Docket No. 96-98, 14 FCC Rcd 20912, 20989, n.378 (1999) (*Line
    Sharing Order*).

[^161]: *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4800,
    ¶ 75.

[^162]: Sprint Petition at 6-7; *see* AT&T Comments at 2-3.

[^163]: Ameritech Comments at 7; Bell Atlantic Comments at 7-10;
    BellSouth Comments at 12; SBC Comments at 13-14.

[^164]: *Line Sharing Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 21005, ¶ 205.

[^165]: U S WEST Comments at 1-3.

[^166]: *See* parts IV.A, *supra* (adjacent collocation).

[^167]: *See* part IV.B, *supra*, & V.E, *infra* (reserving space for
    future use).

[^168]: *See* part V.C, *infra* (inviting comment on physical
    collocation issues).

[^169]: *AT&T v. Iowa Util. Bd.*, 525 U.S. at 390 (*quoted in GTE v.
    FCC*, 205 F.3d at 423).

[^170]: *Gulf Power Co. v. United States*, 187 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir.
    1999) (*Gulf Power*), *aff'g* 998 F. Supp. 1386 (N.D. Fla. 1998),
    *petition for rehearing pending on other grounds*.

[^171]: The plaintiff utilities companies brought suit against the
    United States and the Federal Communications Commission, claiming
    that the 1996 Act's amendment to the Pole Attachments Act was
    facially unconstitutional because it took the utilities' property
    without adequate process for securing just compensation. *Gulf
    Power*, 187 F.3d at 1324-27, 1339; *see also* 47 U.S.C. § 224(f).

[^172]: *GTE v. FCC*, 205 F.3d at 422-24.

[^173]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6).

[^174]: *Local Competition First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    15794-95, ¶¶ 579-81.

[^175]: *Id.* at 15794, ¶ 580.

[^176]: *Id.* at 15794, ¶ 581.

[^177]: *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4776,
    ¶ 28.

[^178]: *Id.*

[^179]: *Id.*

[^180]: *GTE v. FCC*, 205 F.3d at 422.

[^181]: *Id*. at 424.

[^182]: *Id*. (*quoting AT&T v. Iowa Util. Bd*., 525 U.S. at 366).

[^183]: *Id.*

[^184]: *Id.* at 421.

[^185]: *UNE Remand Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3721, ¶ 44 (emphasis in
    original).

[^186]: *U S WEST Communications, Inc. v. FCC*, 177 F.3d 1057, 1060
    (D.C. Cir. 1999), *cert. denied*, 120 S.Ct. 1240 (2000) (*quoting*
    *Weaver v. USIA*, 87 F.3d 1429, 1437 (D.C. Cir. 1996)).

[^187]: *GTE v. FCC*, 205 F.3d at 421.

[^188]: 47 C.F.R. § 51.321(i); *Advanced Services First Report and
    Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 4793-94, ¶ 60.

[^189]: *See AT&T v. Iowa Util. Bd.*, 525 U.S. at 388.

[^190]: *See GTE v. FCC*, 205 F.3d at 425 (suggesting that equipment
    enhancements that might facilitate payroll processing or data
    collection are not necessary for interconnection or access to
    unbundled network elements).

[^191]: *See*, *e.g.*, 47 U.S.C. § 151 (establishing statutory purpose
    of "mak\[ing\] available, so far as possible, . . . a rapid,
    efficient, Nation-wide . . . wire and radio communication service .
    . .").

[^192]: Digital loop carrier (DLC) systems digitally encode an
    individual voice channel into a digital signal, and aggregate, or
    "multiplex," the traffic from several subscriber lines into DS1 or
    higher signals to improve transmission efficiency and range. *See
    Line Sharing Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 20945-46, ¶ 69 n.152.

[^193]: *See* Walter Goralski, [ADSL and DSL Technologies]{.smallcaps}
    282-83, 288-89 (1998) (describing how carriers could use digital
    loop carrier systems to deploy advanced services); *see also* Letter
    from Paul K. Mancini, Vice President and Assistant General Counsel,
    SBC Communications, Inc., to Lawrence E. Strickling, Chief, Common
    Carrier Bureau, (filed Feb. 15, 2000) (*SBC Feb. 15, 2000 Letter*)
    (describing SBC's plans for using cards plugged into digital loop
    carrier systems).

[^194]: *See* section 706(a) of the 1996 Act, Pub.L. 104‑104, Title VII,
    § 706(a), Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 153, *reproduce*d in notes under
    47 U.S.C. § 157.

[^195]: *See* *UNE Remand Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 3776, ¶ 174 (defining "dark
    fiber" as "fiber that has not been activated through connection to
    the electronics that 'light it'").

[^196]: *See GTE v. FCC*, 205 F.3d at 421.

[^197]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6).

[^198]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(a)(1). Interconnection is direct when a
    carrier's facilities or equipment is attached to another carrier's
    facilities or equipment. Interconnection is indirect when the
    attachment occurs through the facilities or equipment of an
    additional carrier or carriers.

[^199]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2).

[^200]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(3).

[^201]: *Local Competition First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 15590,
    ¶ 176.

[^202]: *Id.* at 15801-02, ¶ 594.

[^203]: *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    4779-80, ¶ 33. A cross connection or cross-connect is defined as
    "\[a\] connection scheme between cabling runs, subsystems, and
    equipment using patch cords or jumpers that attach to connecting
    hardware on each end." Newton's Telecom Dictionary, 206 (15^th^ ed.
    1999).

[^204]: *GTE v. FCC*, 205 F.3d at 423-24 (vacating and remanding
    "offending portions" of the *Advanced Services First Report and
    Order*).

[^205]: *Id. at* 423.

[^206]: *Id.*

[^207]: *See generally* 47 U.S.C. § 251(a)(1) (requiring "each
    telecommunications carrier . . . to interconnect directly or
    indirectly with the facilities and equipment of other
    telecommunications carriers . . ."). Two carrier's facilities and
    equipment are directly linked when they are attached to each other.

[^208]: *See generally* Letter from Jonathan E. Canis, *et al.*, Counsel
    for Metromedia Fiber, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, at 7-8
    (filed May 23, 2000) (*Metromedia Fiber May 23*, *2000 Letter*)
    (urging us to find that section 201(a) of the Communications Act
    authorizes the Commission to require that an incumbent LEC provide
    cross-connects between two collocators).

[^209]: *See AT&T v. Iowa Util. Bd.*, 525 U.S. at 389-90 (holding that
    assuming that "any increase in cost (or decrease in quality) imposed
    by denial of a network element renders access to that element
    'necessary' . . , is simply not in accord with the ordinary and fair
    meaning of \[section 251(d)(2)'s\] terms); *see also GTE v. FCC*,
    205 F.3d at 426.

[^210]: *See Metromedia Fiber May 23*, *2000 Letter*, *supra* note
    Error: Reference source not found, at 5-7.

[^211]: *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    4784-85, ¶ 42.

[^212]: *Id.*

[^213]: *GTE v. FCC, 205 F.3d* at 426.

[^214]: *Id.* (*quoting* 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(6)). We note that Sprint's
    petition requests that we clarify that an incumbent LEC may not
    require that a wall or similar structure separate its equipment from
    collocated equipment. Sprint Petition at 4-6. In view of the D.C.
    Circuit's opinion, we invite further comment on this area. *See*
    para. 97, *infra*.

[^215]: *See GTE v. FCC, 205 F.3d* at 426.

[^216]: *Id*. at 424.

[^217]: *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    4785-86, ¶ 43.

[^218]: *Id.* at 4785-86, ¶ 43. A "rack" or "bay" is a structure
    consisting of vertical panels or mounting strips within which an
    incumbent LEC or collocator places equipment shelves and/or
    equipment. A "line-up" is a series of racks or bays arranged
    side-by-side.

[^219]: Sprint Petition at 6.

[^220]: *GTE v. FCC*, 205 F.3d at 426.

[^221]: *See id.*

[^222]: Letter from Patrick J. Donovan, *et al.*, Counsel for BroadSpan,
    to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, at 4-6 (filed Feb. 18, 2000)
    (*BroadSpan Feb. 18, 2000 Letter*)

[^223]: *UNE Remand Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3789, ¶ 205. We defined
    subloops as "portions of the loop that can be accessed at terminals
    in the incumbent's outside plant." *Id.* at 3789-90, ¶ 206. We
    stated that an accessible terminal is "a point on the loop where
    technicians can access the wire or fiber within the cable without
    removing a splice case to reach the fiber within." *Id*.

[^224]: *Id.*

[^225]: *Id.*

[^226]: *UNE Remand Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3796, ¶ 221. We note that the
    *UNE Remand Order*, which was released after the *Advanced Services
    First Report and Order*, defines controlled environmental vaults as
    being located below ground and controlled environmental huts as
    being located above ground. *Id.* We are amending our collocation
    rules to make clear our intent to require collocation in either
    controlled environmental huts or vaults, as well as other remote
    terminals, in appropriate circumstances.

[^227]: Cabinets are often designed to house digital loop carrier
    systems. *See* Telecordia Technologies, GR-303-CORE, Integrated
    Digital loop Carriers Systems Generic Requirements, Objectives,
    Interface (Issue 3, Dec. 1999).

[^228]: We note that during a recent public forum on competitive access
    to next-generation remote terminals, certain incumbent LEC
    representatives indicated that many existing controlled
    environmental vaults, controlled environmental huts, and cabinets
    lack physical collocation space. These representatives also
    indicated that many of the remote vaults, huts, and cabinets
    incumbents plan to install in the future will lack sufficient
    physical collocation space to accommodate physical collocation of
    even one rack or bay of equipment. *Public Forum: Competitive Access
    to Next-Generation Remote* Terminals, CC Dockets Nos. 96-98, *et
    al.*, Transcript, at 16-19 (May 10, 2000) (*Remote Terminal Forum*).

[^229]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 51.323(f)(3) (requiring that "\[w\]hen
    planning renovations of existing facilities or constructing or
    leasing new facilities, an incumbent LEC must take into account
    projected demand for collocation of equipment").

[^230]: *See Remote Terminal Forum*, *supra* note Error: Reference
    source not found, at 16-21.

[^231]: *See* part V.D, *supra*.

[^232]: *See Remote Terminal Forum*, *supra* note Error: Reference
    source not found, at 106-22. In paragraph 82, *supra*, we invite
    comment on whether line cards are equipment necessary for
    interconnection or access to unbundled network elements. We note
    that an arbitrator recently recommended that the Pennsylvania
    Commission require Bell Atlantic to permit Covad and Rhythms to
    collocate line cards in digital loop carriers in Bell Atlantic's
    remote terminals. *Petition of Covad Communications Co. for an
    Arbitration Award against Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania, Inc.
    Implementing the Line Sharing Unbundled Network Element*, Docket
    Nos. A-310696F0002, *et al.*, Recommended Decision, 43 (Pa. PUC June
    28, 2000).

[^233]: *See* part IV.B, *supra*. The competitive LEC would construct
    these facilities. *See id.*

[^234]: *UNE Remand Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3792, ¶ 213.

[^235]: *See Remote Terminal Forum*, *supra* note Error: Reference
    source not found, at 128-31.

[^236]: *See* para. 8, *supra*.

[^237]: *Line Sharing Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 20915, ¶ 4.

[^238]: *Id*.

[^239]: *Id.* at 20956, ¶ 91.

[^240]: *See* part IV.A.2, *supra*.

[^241]: *See* note Error: Reference source not found, *supra*.

[^242]: *See Texas Commission Order No. 51*, *supra* note Error:
    Reference source not found, at 3-4.

[^243]: *See* part IV.C.1, *supra*.

[^244]: *See id.*

[^245]: *See id.*

[^246]: *See* para. 52, *supra*

[^247]: *Texas Commission Order No. 59*, *supra* note Error: Reference
    source not found, at 3. A digital cross-connect system is a
    high-speed data channel switch that, in response to dialing
    instructions independent of the data traveling through, switches
    transmission paths.

[^248]: *See* SBC Communications, Inc., *SBC Launches \$6 Billion
    Broadband Initiative*, Press Release (Oct. 18, 1999) (*SBC Oct. 18,
    1999 Press Release*).

[^249]: *See UNE Remand Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3776, ¶ 174; *see also* 47
    C.F.R. § 51.319(a)(1).

[^250]: *See UNE Remand Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3772-73, ¶ 167; *see also*
    47 C.F.R. § 51.319(a)(1). Section 3(29) of the Act defines the term
    "network element" as a "facility or equipment used in the provision
    of a telecommunications service," which includes "features,
    functions, and capabilities that are provided by means of such
    facility or equipment." 47 U.S.C. § 153(29).

[^251]: *UNE Remand Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3776-77, ¶ 175.

[^252]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 51.319(d).

[^253]: Wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) multiplies the capacity
    of an optical fiber by simultaneously operating at more than one
    wavelength, thereby allowing multiple information streams to be
    transmitted simultaneously over the fiber. DWDM is a higher-speed
    WDM system. *See* [Newton's Telecom Dictionary]{.smallcaps} 795-96
    (14th ed. 1998).

[^254]: 47 C.F.R. § 51.319(a)(1).

[^255]: 47 C.F.R. § 51.319(d); *see UNE Remand Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    3842-43, ¶ 323.

[^256]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 51.319(a)(1) (noting that the loop "includes,
    but is not limited to, DS1, DS3, fiber and other high capacity
    loops").

[^257]: *Id.*

[^258]: *UNE Remand Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3833-34, ¶¶ 303-04.

[^259]: 47 C.F.R. § 51.319(a)(2); *see UNE Remand Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    3789-90, ¶ 206.

[^260]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 51.319(h), 51.230-233.

[^261]: 47 U.S.C. § 153(29) (defining the term "network element").

[^262]: By using various bit rates and protocols over the fiber
    transmission facility, carriers can tailor and segregate services to
    various customers along the same transmission route. We note that
    our unbundling rules for interoffice transmission network elements
    specify that transmission facilities include "all technically
    feasible capacity-related services, including, but not limited to,
    DS1, DS3 and \[OC-n\] levels." 47 C.F.R. § 51.319(d)(1)(i).

[^263]: For example, our unbundling rules for local circuit switching
    require incumbent LECs to make available all vertical features that
    the switch is capable of providing, regardless of the particular
    vertical features that the incumbent offers to its retail customers.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. § 51.319(c)(1)(iii)(B).

[^264]: This situation could occur, for instance, where a competitor
    seeks to provide a service such as entertainment quality video over
    vDSL, which requires a large amount of capacity.

[^265]: *See UNE Remand Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3785-86, ¶ 198.

[^266]: *See Local Competition First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    15602, 15692, ¶¶ 198, 382 (noting that the obligations imposed by
    sections 251(c)(2) and 251(c)(3) include modification to incumbent
    LEC facilities to the extent necessary to accommodate
    interconnection or access to network elements).

[^267]: *See SBC Oct. 18, 1999 Press Release*, *supra* note 248.

[^268]: *See UNE Remand Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3776, ¶ 174. As such,
    incumbent LECs are required to condition such spare copper capacity
    to allow requesting carriers to use the basic features of the loop.
    *See id.* at 3771, 3775, ¶¶ 167, 172 (concluding that conditioning,
    or removing any devices that may diminish the capability of the loop
    to deliver high-speed switched wireline telecommunications
    capability such as xDSL, was required in order to secure access to
    the loop's full features, functions, and capabilities).

[^269]: *UNE Remand Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3778, ¶ 179.

[^270]: *Id.* at 3797, ¶ 223.

[^271]: *See Local Competition First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    15602, 15692, ¶¶ 198, 382; note Error: Reference source not found,
    *supra*.

[^272]: One incumbent, for example, suggests that an "engineering
    controlled splice" outside the remote terminal may be necessary to
    access the subloop at the remote terminal. *See* Letter from Austin
    C. Schlick, Counsel for SBC Communications Inc., to Magalie Roman
    Salas, Secretary, FCC, CC Docket No. 98-141; ASD File No. 99-49
    (filed July 13, 2000), Att. at 5 (SBC Voluntary Commitments).

[^273]: *See UNE Remand Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3777-78, ¶ 178 (requiring
    charges for cross-connect facilities to meet the cost-based standard
    of section 252(d)(1), and the terms and conditions of providing
    cross-connect facilities to be reasonable and nondiscriminatory
    pursuant to section 251(c)(3)).

[^274]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603.

[^275]: *Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced
    Telecommunications Capability*, CC Docket No. 98-147, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd
    24011, 24112-16, ¶¶ 215-27 (1998) (*Advanced Services Order and
    NPRM*), *recon. denied*¸ FCC 00-293 (rel. Aug. 4, 2000).

[^276]: *Id.* at 24100, ¶ 199.

[^277]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^278]: *Advanced Services First Report and Order*, Appendix C, 14 FCC
    Rcd at 4843-47, ¶¶ 1-13.

[^279]: *Advanced Services Order and* NPRM, 13 FCC Rcd at 24099, ¶ 198.

[^280]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200 *et seq*.

[^281]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2).

[^282]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^283]: *See id.*

[^284]: ^?^ *See* OMB control number 3060-0848.

[^285]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419.

[^286]: *See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings*,
    63 Fed. Reg. 24,121 (1998).

[^287]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.49.

[^288]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et. seq*.,
    has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of
    the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^289]: *Advanced Services Order and NPRM*, 13 FCC Rcd at 24112-16, ¶¶
    215-27.

[^290]: *Id*. at 24100, ¶ 199.

[^291]: 5 U.S.C. §§ 603(b)(3), 604(a)(3).

[^292]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^293]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in 5 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C §
    601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless
    an agency after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the
    Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public
    comment, established one or more definitions of such term which are
    appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
    definition in the Federal Register."

[^294]: 15 U.S.C. § 632; *see*, *e.g., Brown Transport Truckload, Inc.
    v. Southern Wipers, Inc.,* 176 B.R. 82 (N.D. Ga. 1994).

[^295]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201.

[^296]: FCC, Carrier Locator: Interstate Service Providers, Figure 1
    (Jan. 2000) (*Carrier* *Locator*).

[^297]: *Id*.

[^298]: 5 U.S.C. §601(3).

[^299]: Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to
    William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (filed May 27, 1999) (*SBA May 27,
    1999 Letter*). The Small Business Act contains a definition of
    "small business concern," which the RFA incorporates into its own
    definition of "small business." *See* U.S.C. § 632(a) (Small
    Business Act); 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (RFA). SBA regulations interpret
    "small business concern" to include the concept of dominance on a
    national basis. 13 C.F.R. § 121.201(b). Since 1996, out of an
    abundance of caution, the Commission has included small incumbent
    LECs in its regulatory flexibility analyses. *See, e.g.,
    Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996,* CC Docket 96-98, First Report and
    Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 16144-45 (1996).

[^300]: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
    *1992 Census of Transportation,* Communications, and Utilities:
    Establishment and Firm Size 1-123 91995) (*1992 Census*).

[^301]: 15 U.S.C. § 632(a)(1).

[^302]: *1992 Census*, *supra* note Error: Reference source not found,
    at Firm Size 1-123.

[^303]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC Code 4813.

[^304]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC Code 4813.

[^305]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.601 *et seq.; Carrier Locator, supra note
    Error: Reference source not found*, at fig. 1.

[^306]: The total for competitive LECs includes both competitive LECs
    and competitive access providers.

[^307]: *Carrier Locator,* *supra note Error: Reference source not
    found*, at Fig. 1. The total for resellers includes both toll
    resellers and local resellers.

[^308]: This TRS category also includes competitive access providers.

[^309]: *See* 5 U.S.C*.* § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^310]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).

[^311]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603.

[^312]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^313]: *See id.*

[^314]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^315]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^316]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in 5 U.S.C. § 632).

[^317]: 15 U.S.C. § 632; *see*, *e.g., Brown Transport Truckload, Inc.
    v. Southern Wipers, Inc.,* 176 B.R. 82 (N.D. Ga. 1994).

[^318]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201.

[^319]: *Carrier* *Locator*, *supra note Error: Reference source not
    found*, at fig. 1.

[^320]: *Id*.

[^321]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC Codes 4812 and 4813. *See* Executive
    Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, *Standard
    Industrial Classification Manual* (1987).

[^322]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3)

[^323]: *SBA May 27, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error: Reference source
    not found.

[^324]: *1992 Census*, *supra* note Error: Reference source not found,
    at Firm Size 1-123.

[^325]: 15 U.S.C. § 632(a)(1).

[^326]: *1992 Census*, *supra* note Error: Reference source not found,
    at Firm Size 1-123.

[^327]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC Code 4813

[^328]: *Id.* at SIC Code 4813.

[^329]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.601 *et seq.; Carrier* *Locator*, *supra
    note Error: Reference source not found*, at fig. 1.

[^330]: The total for competitive LECs includes both competitive LECs
    and competitive access providers.

[^331]: *Carrier* *Locator*, *supra note Error: Reference source not
    found*, at Fig. 1. The total for resellers includes both toll
    resellers and local resellers.

[^332]: This TRS category also includes competitive access providers.

[^333]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).

[^334]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603.

[^335]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^336]: *See id.*

[^337]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^338]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^339]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in 5 U.S.C. § 632).

[^340]: 15 U.S.C. § 632; *see*, *e.g., Brown Transport Truckload, Inc.
    v. Southern Wipers, Inc.,* 176 B.R. 82 (N.D. Ga. 1994).

[^341]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201.

[^342]: *Carrier* *Locator*, *supra note Error: Reference source not
    found*, at fig. 1.

[^343]: *Id*.

[^344]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC Codes 4812 and 4813. *See* Executive
    Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, *Standard
    Industrial Classification Manual* (1987).

[^345]: 5 U.S.C. §601(3)

[^346]: *SBA May 27, 1999 Letter*, *supra* note Error: Reference source
    not found.

[^347]: *1992 Census*, *supra* note Error: Reference source not found,
    at Firm Size 1-123.

[^348]: 15 U.S.C. § 632(a)(1).

[^349]: *1992 Census*, *supra* note Error: Reference source not found,
    at Firm Size 1-123.

[^350]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC Code 4813

[^351]: *Id.* at SIC Code 4813.

[^352]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.601 *et seq.; Carrier* *Locator*, *supra
    note Error: Reference source not found*, at fig. 1.

[^353]: The total for competitive LECs includes both competitive LECs
    and competitive access providers.

[^354]: *Carrier* *Locator*, *supra note Error: Reference source not
    found*, at Fig. 1. The total for resellers includes both toll
    resellers and local resellers.

[^355]: This TRS category also includes competitive access providers.

[^356]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).