**Before the**

**FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

Alcatel USA, Inc. ) File No. NSD-L-99-81

)

Petition for Waiver of the Signal Power )

Limitations Contained in )

Section 68.308(e)(1) of the )

Commission\'s Rules )

# MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted: February 28, 2000 Released: February 28, 2000

By the Chief, Network Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau:

# I. INTRODUCTION

1.  On October 18, 1999, Alcatel USA, Inc. (Alcatel) filed with the
Chief, Network Services Division (NSD), Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau),
a Petition for waiver of the out‑of‑band metallic signal power
limitations contained in 47 C.F.R. section 68.308(e)(1) of the
Commission\'s rules, so that it may register under Part 68 its Model
1000 Asynchronous Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) modem.[^1] Alcatels's
modem provides high bit-rate digital transmission concurrent with analog
voice transmission over a single telephone line.[^2] In response to
Alcatel's Petition, NSD issued a Public Notice that requested public
comment regarding the merits of Alcatel's claims, and whether or not a
waiver should be granted.[^3] We grant the Petition, subject to
conditions, and establish a streamlined process for future ADSL waiver
requests.

2\. All terminal equipment sold in the United States and connected to
the public switched telephone network (PSTN) must be registered under
Part 68 of the Commission's rules.[^4] The Part 68 registration process
requires testing of the device to demonstrate that it conforms to Part
68 requirements, so as to prevent harm to the PSTN.[^5] Once the
equipment tests show that the applicant's device meets the Part 68
requirements, a registration number is issued, and the device may be
sold and connected to the PSTN in the United States.

3\. Section 68.308 contains limitations on metallic and longitudinal
signal power to protect the network from crosstalk.[^6] Excessive
metallic signal power in the 100 Hz to 4 kHz range is limited by 47
C.F.R. section 68.308(b). Section 68.308(e)(1) limits the power level of
metallic signals in the 4 kHz to 6 MHz range.[^7] These limits are
represented by a maximum value of root mean square (rms) voltage across
the terminals of the equipment when terminated in networks shown in
figure in 47 C.F.R., section 68.308, *Figure 68.308(a)*. While section
68.308(e) provides two limitations to prevent crosstalk in telephone
company transmission systems or services,[^8] petitioner seeks waiver of
the first limitation, the limitation on excessive metallic signal power
in the 4 kHz to 6 MHz range. In its *Petition*, Alcatel claims that its
modem complies with all other sections of Part 68, except for section
68.308(e)(1).[^9]

## II. BACKGROUND

4.  *Waiver Standard*. In analyzing Alcatel's *Petition*, we consider
established legal standards for waiver of the Commission\'s rules. The
Commission will adhere strictly to its rules unless a party can
demonstrate that \"in the public interest the rule should be
waived.\"[^10] Furthermore, the Commission may only waive a provision of
its rules for "good cause shown."[^11] The Commission must take a \"hard
look\" at applications for waiver[^12] and must consider all relevant
factors when determining if good cause exists.[^13] The party
petitioning the Commission for a waiver bears the heavy burden of
showing good cause: \"\[a\]n applicant \[for a waiver\] faces a high
hurdle even at the starting gate.\"[^14] In addition, \"\[t\]he agency
must explain why deviation better serves the public interest, and
articulate the nature of the special circumstances, to prevent
discriminatory application and to put future parties on notice as to its
operation.\"[^15] Finally, a waiver of one or more portions of the
Commission's rules does not excuse an applicant from compliance with the
Commission's other requirements.[^16]

5.  On March 29, 1999, NSD released an *Order* granting waiver of
section 68.308(e) of the Commission's rules to permit Paradyne
Corporation to register its Hotwire^©^ MVL modem, a device that complied
with the ANSI T1.601 standard.[^17] On July 30, 1999, NSD released an
*Order* granting waiver of section 68.308(e)(1) of the Commission's
rules to permit Northern Telecom Inc. ("Nortel") to register its 1-Meg
Modem, a device that complied with the ANSI T1.413 standard.[^18] In the
former proceeding, we formulated and applied, and in the latter
elaborated on and applied, a two-part test to determine the merits of a
request for waiver of Section 68.308(e)(1) to permit registration of
non-conforming Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) *(Nortel Test*).[^19]
The first prong of the test is an evaluation of the CPE's benefit to the
public interest, with an emphasis on the potential gain in consumer
choice and value.[^20] The second prong of the test is an evaluation of
the CPE's potential for causing network harm.[^21] The issues raised by
Alcatel's *Petition* are substantially similar to those raised in the
Paradyne and Nortel proceedings. Accordingly, we will apply the same
two-part test to the merits of Alcatel's *Petition* that we applied in
the two earlier proceedings.

6*.  The Petition*. In its *Petition*, Alcatel claims that a grant of
this petition would increase opportunities for business and residential
users to access the Internet at high speeds and at a reasonable cost and
would stimulate significantly competition for provision of ADSL services
to a larger potential customer base.[^22] Furthermore, Alcatel claims
that the availability of its Model 1000 ADSL modem would introduce
innovative equipment, increase consumer choice and enhance consumer
value, while supporting the goal of providing broadband services to all
Americans.[^23]

7.  Alcatel further claims that the Model 1000 ADSL modem will not cause
harm to the network because the Model 1000 ADSL modem complies with all
Part 68 requirements other than section 68.308(e)(1)[^24] and satisfies
sections 7.14 and 7.15 of ANSI T1.413‑1998, which is a widely accepted
industry standard.[^25] Alcatel notes that more than 100,000 of these
modems have been deployed in the PSTN by BellSouth, Ameritech, Bell
Atlantic and Southwestern Bell in the provision of ADSL offerings,[^26]
and that the same technical characteristics of those modems will
safeguard the network when they are marketed as customer premises
equipment.[^27] More specifically, Alcatel claims that the modem\'s
performance meets the transmitter spectral response power spectral
density mask for the transmitted signal, as required in Section 7.14 of
T1.413‑1998, and operates within an aggregate transmission power over
the 25.875 to 138 kHz band of less than 12.5 dBm.[^28] In support of the
claims that this modem meets the requirements of Section 7.14 of
T1.413‑1998, Alcatel provides test data for the modem in an Appendix
attached to its petition.

8.  *Position of the Parties*. In addition to Alcatel, there were only
two parties that participated in the instant proceeding. Bell Atlantic
filed comments supporting a conditional grant of the Petition.[^29]
Lucent filed comments supporting grant of the Petition, without
conditions, but recommended that a streamlined waiver process be
instituted for future waiver petitions. Lucent and Alcatel filed reply
comments that reiterated their earlier positions. No parties opposed
Alcatel's *Petition*.

9\. Bell Atlantic urged the Commission to grant the waiver requested by
Alcatel, but subject to the following conditions:[^30]

> a\. Meeting the transmitter PSD mask and aggregate power limits for
> the ATU-R steady-state signal specified in ANSI standard T1.413.[^31]
>
> b\. Providing a minimum of 35 dB of transverse balance across the
> entire upstream and downstream ADSL frequency bands.[^32]
>
> c\. Limiting deployment of Alcatel's Model 1000 ATU-R modem to local
> loops in binder groups that the exchange carrier identifies as
> qualified for ADSL.[^33]

10\.  Bell Atlantic also stated that the transmission into the network
of longitudinal signals exceeding Part 68 limits could cause
cross-talk.[^34] Based upon Alcatel's assertion, however, that the Model
1000 meets all the requirements of Part 68 except section 68.301(e)(1),
[^35] thus meeting the longitudinal signal limits of section 68.308(d)
and section 68.308(e)(2), Bell Atlantic concluded that the public
network is adequately protected from the transmission by the Model 1000
of excessive longitudinal signals up to 6 MHz.[^36]

11\. Alcatel accepted the conditions proposed by Bell Atlantic.[^37]
Lucent, however, characterized the Bell Atlantic conditions as
"unnecessary and contrary to the public interest."[^38] Regarding Bell
Atlantic's first condition, Lucent claimed that the Commission's past
decisions "have found that compliance with the ANSI T1.413 standard is
an acceptable basis for grant of waiver of section 68.308(e)(1)" so that
"further conditioning the waiver to require compliance would be
meaningless."[^39] Lucent stated that the second condition is
unnecessary, and notes that "the Commission did not impose a similar
restriction in the Nortel case."[^40] With respect to the third
condition, Lucent points out that "in the Nortel decision, the
Commission explicitly rejected Bell Atlantic's request to limit the
Nortel's DSL device to qualified loops," observing that "such an onerous
condition would create substantial and needless delays in the
implementation of DSL technology."[^41]

12\. *Streamlining of ADSL Waiver Process.* In its comments, Lucent
requested the creation of a streamlined procedure for future
ADSL-related waiver requests of Part 68 as an interim procedure, until
the proceeding to streamline or eliminate Part 68 requirements is
completed.[^42] In particular, Lucent suggests that the Commission
should dispense with the public notice and comment waiver process for
ADSL waiver requests if the petitioner reasonably demonstrates that its
modem complies with well-established criteria found to be acceptable in
the past by the Commission.[^43] Lucent stated that the Commission
should grant waivers based upon the petitioner's representations, as it
currently does for stutter dial tone waiver petitions, and be allowed to
provide notice of its actions after the fact.[^44] No other party
submitted comments or reply comments on the issue of streamlining the
ADSL waiver process.

# III. DISCUSSION

13\. Based upon the record and its application to current law,
regulations and precedent, we grant Alcatel's *Petition*, subject to the
limitations listed below. We also accept Lucent's recommendation and
provide a streamlined ADSL waiver petition process for use by future
manufacturers who wish to register ADSL equipment for sale in the United
States.

14\. *The first prong of the Nortel Test:* *Public Interest - New
Products and Innovation*. As we described in paragraph 5, *supra*, NSD
will apply the two-prong *Nortel Test* that it applied in previous ADSL
petitions for waiver. The first prong of the test considers whether
granting Alcatel's *Petition* will serve the public interest by
providing greater consumer choice and value. In its Petition, Alcatel
claims that granting this waiver would increase opportunities for
business and residential users to access the Internet at high speeds and
at a reasonable cost, and stimulate competition for provision of these
services to a larger potential customer base.[^45] Alcatel points out
the particular benefits to competitive local exchange carriers.[^46]

15.  No party submitted comments or reply comments suggesting that
granting the *Petition* would not enhance consumer choice and value and
be in the public's interest. Bell Atlantic and Lucent agree with Alcatel
that grant of the *Petition* will serve the public interest.
Specifically, Bell Atlantic agrees that NSD approval of an expanded
array of ADSL CPE will help increase the availability of ADSL services
and help foster competition for ADSL CPE.[^47] Lucent supports Alcatel's
claims with regard to benefits by restating Alcatel's claims.[^48] We
agree with Bell Atlantic, Lucent and Alcatel that granting this waiver
will serve the public interest. Accordingly, we find that Alcatel\'s
*Petition* meets the first prong of the *Nortel Test*.

16.  *Public Interest - Harm to the Network*. The second prong of the
*Nortel Test* considers whether the connection and use of the Model 1000
ADSL Modem would harm the PSTN. Alcatel claims that grant of the waiver
will not result in any interference or other harm to the PSTN.[^49]
Alcatel further claims that its Model 1000 ADSL Modem complies with
Sections 7.14 and 7.15 of T1.413-1998, and operates with an aggregate
transmission power over the 25.875 to 138 kHz band of less than 12.5
dBm.[^50] In addition to providing test data, Alcatel claims that
several thousand of these modems have been installed in carrier networks
without causing any harm, that no empirical evidence exists to suggest
that interference would occur, and that the same technical
characteristics resulting in such performance will safeguard the network
when the modems are marketed as customer premises equipment.[^51]

17\. As we noted in paragraph 9, *supra*, Bell Atlantic recommended that
we grant the waiver subject to three conditions, but Lucent opposed
those conditions. With respect to Bell Atlantic's first condition,
meeting the signal limits of ANSI T1.413, we believe that implementing
Lucent's view would lead to less explicit language than is in the public
interest. In the *Nortel Order*, the Commission required the condition
"that the NORTEL 1 MEG MODEM continue to comply with the signal power
limitations contained in the T1.413 standard, Issue 2."[^52] We require
as a condition of waiver that the modem: (1) meets the transmitter
spectral response requirements specified in Sections 7.14 and 7.15 of
T1.413-1998, and (2) operates with an aggregate power of less than 12.5
dBm over the range 25.875 to 138 kHz.

18\. With respect to Bell Atlantic's second condition, that a minimum of
transverse balance be provided, we agree with Lucent, and note that the
matter of transverse balance was not addressed in the *Nortel
Order*.[^53] We do not agree, as a matter of law, that the failure to
address an issue in the past is, *per se*, reason never to address
it.[^54] Nevertheless, we decline to adopt an additional limit on
transverse balance beyond the existing limits of 47 C.F.R. section
68.310, as a condition for granting Alcatel's *Petition*. Based upon the
record, we find that the current limits of 47 C.F.R. section 68.310 and
the general conditions for self-help afforded by 47 C.F.R. section
68.108, provide the PSTN with adequate protection.[^55]

19\. With respect to Bell Atlantic's third condition, that deployment be
limited to qualified loops, we also agree with Lucent that such
limitation is not necessary, and decline to adopt it as a condition for
waiver. In the *Nortel Order*, the Commission considered that condition
and agreed with Petitioner Nortel that requiring an ILEC determination
that the local loop is "qualified" before every installation would
create substantial and needless delays. Given the general conditions for
self-help that section 68.108 of our rules affords carriers and our
actions in the *Nortel Order,*[^56] and the absence of evidence that
additional protection is needed, we find that Bell Atlantic's third
condition is not necessary.

20\. We noted in the *Nortel Order* that compliance with both the
upstream and downstream power spectral limits specified by T1.413
satisfied our second criterion for waiver of Section 68.308(e)(1) for
ADSL devices.[^57] The Alcatel *Petition* requested waiver for the
remote transmitting unit, the Model 1000 ADSL modem, which only
generates the upstream signal.[^58] Since Alcatel claims that its Model
1000 ADSL modem complies with the upstream spectral and aggregate power
limits specified by T1.413‑1998, we find that it complies with the
second prong of the *Nortel Test*.

 21. *Streamlining Petitions for Waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 68.308(e)(1), for
ADSL*: We agree with Lucent and find that the process for deciding ADSL
petitions should be streamlined, in the same manner as the Bureau
provided for stutter dial tone waiver petitions.[^59] We believe that
the records in this, and the *Paradyne* and *Nortel* proceedings,
support such a finding. The waivers contemplated in the *Alameda Order*
differ from those contemplated by the *Alcatel,* *Paradyne* and *Nortel
Petitions* in one aspect, however. Petitioners to the *Alameda*
proceeding did not enjoy the benefit of established industry standards
to corroborate their claims and refute opposition to those claims.
Instead, participants of the *Alameda* proceeding submitted their own
data for and against the grant of a waiver to then-section 68.312(k) of
the Commission's rules, to allow petitioners to apply for registration
of the stutter dial tone detection devices. In addition, opponents
supplied the Bureau with performance conditions that would lessen the
negative impact that the stutter dial tone detection devices could
introduce to the PSTN. Based upon this adversarial record, the Bureau
granted waivers subject to eight performance criteria that were later
modified.[^60]

22\. In the *Alameda Order*, the Bureau invited any stutter dial tone
equipment manufacturer to apply for a waiver, as long as that
manufacturer was able to meet the eight performance conditions specified
therein.[^61] Upon receipt of a petition containing the appropriate
claims, the Bureau would issue an order granting the waiver. Thus,
streamlined waivers are granted if the petitioners certify conformance
with the eight performance conditions exactly as they appear in *Alameda
Recon. Order*, without a notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. The
*Alameda Order* also encouraged parties to monitor stutter dial tone
devices' load on carrier equipment and to gather information that might
be relevant to potential impact on carriers' switches.[^62]

23\. By contrast, the ADSL waivers rely on the manufacturers'
conformance with established industry standards that may be changed at
any time by the T1 Committee proceeding under the open forum/consensus
process; changes to the industry standard are accomplished by the
consensus process. As witnessed by the *Alameda Order* and its progeny,
the Commission can only change its rules after conducting a notice and
comment rulemaking process pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act
requirements. Thus, the legal challenge presented by Lucent's request
for a streamlined ADSL waiver process is reconciling these two
rulemaking processes -- one private, one public -- so that manufacturers
and carriers can enjoy the stability afforded by Part 68 rules, without
the expense and delay associated with the rulemaking process.

24\. In the *Paradyne and Nortel Orders,* we found that both ANSI T1.601
and ANSI T1.413 industry standards reflect a reasonable level of
industry consensus on CPE output limitations intended to protect the
viability of the PSTN as a transmission medium for currently deployed
and nascent digital transmission technologies.[^63] In the *Paradyne
Order,* we found that the Paradyne modem's compliance with ANSI T1.601
indicated that the modem does not pose a threat of harm to the
PSTN.[^64] In the *Nortel Order*, we found that by meeting the T1.413
standard, Nortel would satisfy the second prong of our test, and
therefore not pose a threat of harm to the PSTN.[^65] Our confidence in
these industry standards is based on ATIS Committee T1's use of an open,
industry consensus-building process to develop network protection
standards, and if a proposed standard introduces harm to the PSTN, some
participant or group of participants is likely to spot it. Furthermore,
we note that we have not received any complaints of harm to the PSTN
arising from the performance of either the Paradyne or Nortel modems.
Consistent with our findings in the Nortel Order, we find that modems
meeting the ANSI T1.413 standard for protection of the PSTN will satisfy
the second prong of the *Nortel Test*.

25\. In addition, we find that further waivers of our Part 68 rules that
facilitate the marketing of ADSL modems will provide more innovative
equipment and choices for consumers, and are therefore in the public
interest and satisfy the first part of the *Nortel Test*. For the second
part of the test, parties able to meet these same specifications,
conditions and limitations are invited to file petitions for waiver of
section 68.308(e)(1) of the Commission\'s rules for their ADSL modems.
Streamlined waivers will be granted without a notice and comment
rulemaking proceeding if the petitioners certify conformance to the two
performance conditions stated in paragraph 26. Petitions for waiver of
section 68.308(e)(1) may be submitted concurrently with, or in advance
of applications for registration, as is presently the practice for
stutter dial tone devices.

26*. Conclusion*. We conclude that the Petitioner Alcatel has shown good
cause for waiver of 47 C.F.R. section 68.308(e)(1), and that granting of
this petition is in the public interest and will not result in harm to
the PSTN. We grant Alcatel\'s *Petition* for waiver of 47 C.F.R. section
68.308(e)(1) of the Commission\'s rules for its the Model 1000 ADSL
Modem, subject to the following conditions: (1) meets the transmitter
spectral response requirements specified in Sections 7.14 and 7.15 of
T1.413- Issue Two (1998), and (2) operates with an aggregate power of
less than 12.5 dBm over the range 25.875 to 138 kHz. We further conclude
that other parties seeking waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 68.308(e)(1) for the
purpose of completing an application for registration of ADSL modems
under Part 68 of the Commission\'s rules may utilize the streamlined
procedure described above. Specifically, in the future, parties seeking
waiver for ADSL modems may submit a letter to the Chief, Network
Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau, certifying that the equipment
for which waiver is requested complies with the two performance
conditions listed above. The waiver request must be signed by a company
representative or officer responsible for its truthfulness.

27\. Our decision to grant a waiver only for ADSL equipment that meets
the performance conditions described above is based upon the information
in the record before us. In the event it becomes evident that the
information is incomplete or inaccurate and harm to the PSTN becomes
possible, we provide two additional safeguards to facilities-based
telecommunications carriers to protect their networks. First, section
68.108 of the Commission's rules affords carriers certain self‑help
privileges, enabling them to take necessary actions to protect the PSTN.
These actions include temporarily disconnecting or refusing to connect
inside wiring or CPE that is likely to cause harm to the PSTN.[^66]
Pursuant to Section 68.108, carriers must notify the customer of their
intended action, give the customer an opportunity to correct problems,
and inform the customer of his right to complain to the Commission
should the customer feel that the carrier has acted improperly.[^67]
Second, we encourage parties to monitor the performance of these ADSL
modems and the networks that serve them, and to gather and share with us
information that might be relevant to general harm to the PSTN or
cross-talk problems.

# IV. ORDERING CLAUSE

28\. Accordingly, pursuant to authority delegated in sections 0.91 and
0.291 of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. sections 0.91, 0.291, and
section 1.3 of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. section 1.3, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that the request for waiver of section 68.308(e)(1) of
the Commission's rules 47 C.F.R. § 68.308(e)(1), by Alcatel USA, Inc.,
IS GRANTED to the extent discussed herein.

29\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the petition for waiver is granted
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: that the equipment (1) meet the
transmitter spectral response requirements specified in Sections 7.14
and 7.15 of T1.413- Issue Two (1998), and (2) operate with an aggregate
power of less than 12.5 dBm over the range 25.875 to 138 kHz.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

L. Charles Keller

Chief, Network Services Division

Common Carrier Bureau

[^1]: Alcatel USA, Inc., Petition for Waiver of Section 68.308(e)(1),
    NSD L-99-81 (filed October 18, 1999) (*Petition*). Although Alcatel
    does not define the acronym "ADSL" in its Petition explicitly, it is
    clear for the purposes of this order that Alcatel intends it to
    represent the commonly accepted abbreviation for Asymmetrical
    Digital Subscriber Line.

[^2]: *Petition* at footnote 2.

[^3]: Common Carrier Bureau Seeks Comment on a Petition Filed By Alcatel
    USA for Waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 68.308(e)(1), *Public Notice*, File
    Number NSD-L-99-81 (rel. Oct. 22, 1999) (*Public Notice*).

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. § 68.2.

[^5]: *See* FCC Form 730, Applications Guide, Revision C -- 273 (March
    1997)

[^6]: Crosstalk was initially used to designate the presence in a
    telephone receiver of unwanted speech sounds from another telephone
    conversation. The term has been extended in its application to
    designate interference in one communication channel or circuit
    caused by signals present in other communication channels.
    Consideration is limited here to the interference of one signal by
    another of the same general type - e.g., speech interfering with
    speech, video with video, digital with digital, etc.
    Telecommunications Transmission Engineering, Volume I - Principles,
    Second Edition, at 425 (AT&T, 1977)

[^7]: The limits are: maximum rms values, averaged over 100
    milliseconds, at the telephone connections, in all of the indicated
    8 kHz bands within the indicated frequency ranges, of -- (6 + 12.6
    log f) dBV for center frequencies of 8 to 12 kHz with a terminating
    impedance of 300 ohms; (23 -- 40 log f) dBV for center frequencies
    of 12 to 90 kHz with a terminating impedance of 135 ohms; -55 dBV
    for center frequencies of 90 kHz to 266 kHz with a terminating
    impedance of 135 ohms, and maximum rms values of --15dBV, averaged
    over 2 microseconds, at the telephone connections, in all of the 8
    kHz bands within the frequency range of 270 kHz to 6 MHz, with a
    terminating impedance of 135 ohms. Sometimes, as in the first
    sentence of the *Petition,* these limits are called the out-of-band
    signal power limitations, because the range 4kHz to 6 MHz is outside
    the voice-band range of 200 Hz to 3995 Hz. For purposes of Part 68,
    voice-band is defined in 47 C.F.R. § 68.3.

[^8]: These limitations were originally intended to limit crosstalk in
    multichannel analog carrier systems. Multichannel analog carrier
    systems use frequency division multiplexing to concentrate multiple
    subscribers\' signals onto a single wire pair. Each direction of
    transmission for each subscriber uses either 4 kHz (single sideband)
    or 8 kHz (double sideband) of frequency spectrum. Generally, the
    carrier systems most susceptible to crosstalk are those that use
    double sideband modulation methods, 8 kHz of spectrum for each
    direction of transmission per channel. Telecommunications Industry
    Association, EIA/TIA TR-41 Telecommunications Systems Bulletin, Part
    68 Rationale and Measurement Guidelines, TSB31‑B (1998), at section
    8.17.1.

[^9]: *Petition,* at paragraph 8.

[^10]: *FPC v. Texaco Inc*., 377 U.S. 33, 39 (1964).

[^11]: 47 C.F.R. §1.3.

[^12]: *Id.*

[^13]: *Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe*, 401 U.S. 402,
    416 (1971).

[^14]: *WAIT Radio v. FCC*, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969).

[^15]: *Northeast Cellular Telephone Company, L.P. v. FCC*, 897 F.2d
    1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990).

[^16]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.3; *Alameda Order* at 12139.

[^17]: Paradyne Corporation Petition of the Signal Power Limitations
    Contained in Section 68.308(e) of the Commission\'s Rules, Order, 14
    FCC Rcd 4496 (1999) ("Paradyne Order").

[^18]: Northern Telecom Inc. Petition of the Signal Power Limitations
    Contained in Section 68.308(e)(1) of the Commission\'s Rules,
    NSD-L-98-135, DA 99-1350 (rel. July 30, 1999) ("*Nortel Order*").

[^19]: *Paradyne Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at paragraph 7.

[^20]: *Id.*

[^21]: *Id.*

[^22]: *Petition,* at paragraph 3.

[^23]: *Petition,* at paragraph 2.

[^24]: *Petition,* at paragraph 8.

[^25]: ANSI T1, \"Draft Proposed Revision of ANSI T1.413‑1998 - Network
    and Customer Installation Interfaces - Asymmetrical Digital
    Subscriber Line (ADSL) Metallic Interface,\" as approved by
    Committee T1E1 and forwarded to the American National Standards
    Institute (ANSI) for publication. This specification contains the
    power spectral density (PSD) masks for spectral compatibility of
    ADSL equipment with other services in the local loop. This document
    is available on the Internet at
    \<ftp://ftp.t1.org/pub/t1e1/e1.4/dir98/8e140075.pdf\>.

[^26]: *Petition,* at paragraph 4.

[^27]: *Petition,* at paragraph 10.

[^28]: *Petition,* at paragraph 9.

[^29]: *See* Bell Atlantic Comments at paragraph 2, and discussion in
    this *Order, Infra.*

[^30]: Bell Atlantic Comments at paragraphs 15 and 3.

[^31]: Bell Atlantic Comments at paragraph 7.

[^32]: Bell Atlantic Comments at paragraph 11.

[^33]: Bell Atlantic Comments at paragraph 14.

[^34]: Bell Atlantic Comments at paragraph 6.

[^35]: *Petition,* at paragraph 2, footnote 4 and at paragraph 8.

[^36]: Bell Atlantic Comments at paragraph 8.

[^37]: Alcatel Reply Comments at paragraph 4, including footnote 8.

[^38]: Lucent Reply Comments at page 2.

[^39]: Lucent Reply Comments at page 3.

[^40]: *Id.*

[^41]: Lucent Reply Comments at page 2.

[^42]: Lucent Comments at page 3, paragraph B.

[^43]: Lucent Comments at page 4, paragraph ii.

[^44]: *Id.*

[^45]: *Petition,* at paragraph 3.

[^46]: *Petition,* at paragraph 5: "\[n\]ot only are ILECs incorporating
    the Model 1000 ADSL modem within their networks, CLECs increasingly
    are pursuing this market for their business and residential
    customers. However, unlike the ILECs, CLECs, instead of including
    the modem in their own network offerings, generally intend that
    their customers buy this equipment directly. This different approach
    is taken because financing the modem purchases would put an undue
    drain on the CLEC\'s capital. Making the Model 1000 ADSL modem
    readily available by grant of this waiver would enable CLECs to gain
    market share more effectively because they would be able to offer
    the xDSL platform to their customers at competitive prices."

[^47]: Bell Atlantic Comments at paragraph 1.

[^48]: Lucent Comments at paragraph II. A.

[^49]: *Petition,* at paragraph 9.

[^50]: *Id.*

[^51]: *Id.*

[^52]: *Nortel Order* at paragraph 16.

[^53]: In returning to the record for the Nortel Order, we did not find
    transverse balance addressed in the comments of Bell Atlantic,
    BellSouth, or Ameritech, or in the reply comments of Bell South.

[^54]: *See, e.g., SEC v. Cheney Corp.*, 332 U.S.194 (1947).

[^55]: We will, in connection with Lucent's suggestion that the
    Commission dispense with the public comment process for ADSL waiver
    requests, take up the matter of transverse balance later in this
    order.

[^56]: See *Nortel Order*, paragraph 14.

[^57]: *Nortel Order* at paragraph 12.

[^58]: That the Model 1000 ADSL modem is the remote terminating unit,
    and thus generates the upstream signal, is implicit in Footnote 2 of
    the petition, and in the presentation of only remote terminating
    data in the attachment to the petition.

[^59]: Part 68 Waiver Request of Alameda Engineering, Inc., *Order*, 10
    FCC Rcd 12135 (Com.Car. Bur. 1995) (*Alameda Order*).

[^60]: Part 68 Waiver Request of Alameda Engineering, Inc., *Order on
    Reconsideration*, NSD-L-98-154, DA 99-1542 (rel. August 9, 1999)
    (*Alameda Recon. Order*).

[^61]: *Alameda Order, supra*, 10 FCC Rcd 12135, 12141 at fn. 73.

[^62]: *Id.* at 12140.

[^63]: *Paradyne Order* at paragraph 18; *Nortel Order* at paragraph 11.

[^64]: *Paradyne Order* at paragraph 18.

[^65]: *Nortel Order* at paragraph 16.

[^66]: Carriers reasonably determining that CPE (*i.e.,* plugs, jacks,
    and inside wire) will cause harm to the PSTN may discontinue service
    after notifying the customer, and if practicable, afford the
    customer the opportunity to correct the service-affecting condition.
    Carriers must also inform the customer of his or her right to file a
    complaint with the Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 68.108.

[^67]: *Id.*