******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** 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 III. BACKGROUND. . . . . . . 8 IV. ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION IN CC DOCKET NO. 98-147. . . . . 14 A. Provisioning Intervals . . . . . 14 1. Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2. Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 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 I. introduction 1. In the Advanced Services First Report and Order, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Nonetheless, the record developed in response to Sprint's petition makes clear that some incumbent LECs' collocation practices continue to impede competition. 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. 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). 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. 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. V. executive summary 6. 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. 5. 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. 11. 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. XVII. background 18. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act), 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. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. In 1996, in the Local Competition First Report and Order, the Commission adopted rules to implement section 251(c)(6). 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. 22. 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. 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. 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. 23. As indicated previously, 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. 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. XXIV. Order on reconsideration IN CC DOCKET NO. 98-147 A. Provisioning Intervals 1. Background 25. 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. 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. 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. 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. We emphasized that we retained authority to adopt specific time frames in the future as we deem necessary. We also encouraged state commissions to ensure that incumbent LECs are given specific time intervals within which to respond to collocation requests. 26. In its petition, Sprint requests that we reconsider our decision not to provide state commissions with time frames for the provisioning of collocation space. 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. 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. 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. 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. 27. 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. These parties argue that a variety of factors affect the time required to provide collocation at each individual incumbent LEC premises. 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. 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. 1. Discussion a) Need for National Standards 28. 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 . . . ." 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. 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. 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. 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. 29. 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. 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. We view these commitments as very positive developments. 30. 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. 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. 31. 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. Most state commissions, however, have not set time limits for provisioning collocation space. As a consequence, physical collocation has not been provisioned as quickly as we anticipated when we adopted the Advanced Services First Report and Order. This lack of progress has impeded competitive LECs' ability to provide facilities-based service throughout the country. 32. 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. 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. This is unacceptable. 33. 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. 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. 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. 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. 34. We reject the suggestion that we should defer all collocation interval issues to the states. 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. 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. a) Selection of National Standards 35. 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. 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. 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. 36. In some instances, an incumbent LEC also must perform specific design or planning work to accommodate the competitive LEC's specific collocation request. The incumbent LEC also may have to determine the price it will charge for the proposed collocation arrangement. We conclude that an incumbent LEC should normally be able quickly to complete any necessary design, planning, and price quotation processes. 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. 37. 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. 38. 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. 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. 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, should enable competitive LECs to bring competitive services to customers throughout the nation much more quickly than they have in the past. While a shorter interval, such as the 45 calendar day interval Covad urges, 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. We note that in part V.D, infra, we invite comment on whether should specify a collocation interval shorter than 90 calendar days. 39. 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. 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. 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. 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. 40. 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, 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, 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. 41. 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. 42. 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. 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. 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. 43. We decline at this time to set provisioning intervals for virtual collocation. Although certain competitive LECs request that we take that step, 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. a) Application of National Standards 44. 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. 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. 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." 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. 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. 45. 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. 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. 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. We expect the negotiating process will not unreasonably delay implementation of the application processing and provisioning deadlines adopted in this Order. 46. 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). 47. 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. 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. 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. 48. 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. 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. 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. 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. 49. 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." This information includes "cost data . . . necessary for the requesting carrier to determine whether the rates offered by the incumbent LEC are reasonable." 50. An incumbent LEC also may require a competitive LEC to forecast its physical collocation demands. 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. A. Adjacent Collocation 51. 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." 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. 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." In GTE v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit affirmed these requirements. 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. The court also stated that our adjacent collocation "rule clearly furthers the purpose underlying section 251(c)(6)" and is "eminently reasonable." 52. 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. 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. 53. 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). 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." 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. 54. 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). 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. 55. 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. 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. 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. 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." 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. 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. 56. 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. 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." 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. 57. 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. 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. 58. 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. 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. 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. A. Reserving Space for Future Use 1. Background 59. 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." 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. 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. 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. 60. In its petition, Sprint asks that we limit incumbent LEC and competitive LEC reservations of potential collocation space to one year. 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. 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. Incumbent LECs also maintain that existing safeguards adequately protect against hoarding of space, that effective network growth and service deployment requires considerably longer than a one-year planning horizon, and that the Commission should not restrict the state commissions' discretion in resolving collocation space disputes. 1. Discussion 61. 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. 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. However, as competitive LECs point out, excessive space reservations can create artificial space exhaustion that would prevent the timely deployment of advanced services. 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. 62. 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. 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. In addition, the Texas Commission prohibits incumbent LECs from reserving a disproportionate amount of conditioned space. 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. 63. 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. 64. As indicated previously, 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. A. Other Issues 1. Safety Standards 65. 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. 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. 66. 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. 67. 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. 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. 68. 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. 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. 1. Access to Collocation Space 69. 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. 70. 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. 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. 71. 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. We do not preclude an incumbent LEC from applying reasonable and nondiscriminatory "safe-time" work practices to itself and collocators. 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. 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. 1. Floor Plans 72. 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. 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. 73. 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. 1. Nonstandard Equipment 74. 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. 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. 1. Space Availability Reports 75. 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. 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. 1. Spectrum Management Disputes 76. 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. 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." Sprint requests that we clarify that incumbent LECs are in all instances the initial point of contact for service degradation disputes among competitive LECs. Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, and SBC contend that incumbent LECs should not have to act as clearinghouses for those disputes. 77. In our Advanced Services Third Report and Order, 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. 1. Takings 78. 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. 79. 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, Sprint proposals that we reject, or Sprint proposals that, as a consequence of the D.C. Circuit's decision, we could only act on after further deliberation. 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. 80. Moreover, U S WEST fails to provide evidence that our collocation rules are facially unconstitutional. In Gulf Power v. United States, 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. 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. LXXXI. Second further notice of proposed rulemaking in cc docket no. 98- 147 A. Overview 82. 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. 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. A. Meaning of "Necessary" under Section 251(c)(6) 1. Equipment a) Background 83. 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." 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. Consistent with this interpretation, the Commission concluded that competitive LECs may collocate transmission equipment, including optical terminating equipment and multiplexers, on incumbent LEC premises. 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. 84. 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. 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. 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. 85. 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." 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.'" 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). a) Discussion 86. 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.'" 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." 87. 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." 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.'" 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). 88. 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. 89. In its opinion, the D.C. Circuit stated that section 251(c)(6) "seeks to ensure competition in areas of advanced technology in telecommunications." 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. 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. 90. 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. 91. 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. We ask whether any standard we might adopt in this area should distinguish between telecommunications and non- telecommunications functions. 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. 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. 92. 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. 93. 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). 94. We recognize that carriers often provide service from remote terminals through digital loop carrier systems. 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. 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. 95. 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 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). 96. We ask, in addition, whether any proposed definition of "necessary" would "unnecessar[ily] tak[e]" incumbent LEC property. 1. Cross Connections between Collocators a) Background 97. 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." Section 251(a)(1) requires each telecommunications carrier "to interconnect directly or indirectly with the facilities and equipment of other telecommunications carriers . . . ." 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 . . . ." 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 . . . ." 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." 98. 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. 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. 99. In GTE v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded the cross-connects rule adopted in the Advanced Services First Report and Order. 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." 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. a) Discussion 100. 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). 101. 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. 102. 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). 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. 103. 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. 104. 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. 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. A. Meaning of "Physical Collocation" under Section 251(c)(6) 1. Background 105. 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." 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. 106. 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." 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.'" 1. Discussion 107. 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. 108. 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. 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. 109. 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.'" 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. 110. 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. A. Minimum Space Requirements 111. 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. 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." 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. In GTE v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit affirmed that incumbent LECs must not impose unreasonable minimum space requirements on collocators. 112. 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. 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. 113. 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. 114. 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. A. Collocation at Remote Incumbent LEC Premises 115. In the UNE Remand Order, we required incumbent LECs to offer unbundled access to subloops, or portions of the local loop, where technically feasible. We defined subloops as "portions of the loop that can be accessed at terminals in the incumbent's outside plant." 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." 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. 116. 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. 117. 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. We request that incumbent LECs state how much space within each type of remote terminal will be available for physical collocation. 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. 118. 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. 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. 119. 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. 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. 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. 120. 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. 121. 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. 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). 122. 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. 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. 123. 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. 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. 124. We invite comment, in addition, on whether virtual collocation constitutes an acceptable substitute for physical collocation in remote locations. 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. 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. A. Line Sharing 125. 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. 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. 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. We invite comment on what changes to our collocation rules, if any, we should adopt to facilitate line sharing. A. Provisioning Intervals 126. In the attached Order, 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. 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. 127. 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. 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. A. Space Reservation Policies 128. As discussed in the attached Order, 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. As stated in the attached Order, we also believe that state commissions should have the primary responsibility for resolving space reservation disputes. 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. 129. 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. 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. CXXX. fifth further notice of proposed rulemaking in CC docket no. 96-98 A. Background 131. 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. 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. A. Access to Loops, Subloops and Interoffice Transport 1. Loops and Interoffice Transport 132. 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. 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." Thus, with the exception of DSLAMs, the loop includes attached electronics, including multiplexing equipment used to derive the loop transmission capacity. The Commission also required incumbent LECs to provide unbundled access to interoffice transport on a dedicated and shared basis. 133. 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) 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. An incumbent LEC is also required to provide dedicated transport, including DS1, DS3 and OC-n levels, along with the necessary attached electronics. 134. 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. 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. 135. 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)." 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. 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? 1. Subloops 136. 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. 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. 137. 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. 138. 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. 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. 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. In addition, we seek comment on how the various service levels should be priced, including how common costs should be allocated. 139. 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? 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. 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? 140. 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. We invite comment on manufacturers' plans to build NGDLC systems and other equipment to maximize the transmission capacity of the subloop. 141. 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? 1. Spare Copper 142. 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. 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). 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? 143. 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? 144. 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)? 1. Cross Connection 145. 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. The Commission further established a rebuttable presumption that the subloop can be unbundled at any accessible terminal in the outside loop plant. 146. 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? 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? 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)? 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. CXLVII. procedural matters A. Order on Reconsideration 1. Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 148. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 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. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in this NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. In addition, pursuant to the RFA, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was incorporated in the First Report and Order in CC Docket No. 98-147. Appendix C, part A sets forth the Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the present Order on Reconsideration. 1. Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 149. 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. 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. A. Notices of Proposed Rulemaking 1. Ex Parte Presentations 150. These matters shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceedings in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 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. Other rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in section 1.1206(b) as well. 1. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 151. 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. In addition, the Second Further Notice and the Fifth Further Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register. 1. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 152. 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. 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. 1. Comment Filing Procedures 153. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 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. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to . 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