[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 175 (Friday, September 8, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54433-54439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-22889]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 51

[CC Docket No. 98-147; FCC 00-297]


Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced 
Telecommunications Capability

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document strengthens the collocation requirements placed 
upon incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) pursuant to section 
251(c)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. The Order on 
Reconsideration adopts national standards that incumbent LECs must meet 
in processing physical collocation applications and provisioning 
physical collocation arrangements. The Order on Reconsideration also 
resolves issues and adopts requirements regarding adjunct collocation, 
space denial standards, safe-time work practices, and other 
collocation-related areas.

DATES: Effective October 10, 2000, except for Secs. 51.321(f), 
51.323(b) and 51.323(l)(1), which contain information collection 
requirements that have not been approved by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a document in the Federal 
Register announcing the effective date of those sections.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Kehoe, Special Counsel, or 
Julie Patterson, Attorney Advisor, Common Carrier Bureau, Policy and 
Program Planning Division, 202-418-1580. Further information also may 
be obtained by calling the Common Carrier Bureau's TTY number: 202-418-
0484. For additional information concerning the information collections 
in this Order on Reconsideration, contact Judy Boley at 202-418-0214 or 
via the Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order 
on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 98-147, FCC 00-297, adopted on 
August 9, 2000, and released August 10, 2000. The complete text of this 
Order on Reconsideration is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, 
Courtyard Level, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., and also 
may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Services (ITS), CY-B400, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C.

Synopsis of the Second Report and Order

    1. The Commission adopts the Order on Reconsideration to further 
strengthen its 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. Those 
rules implement section 251(c)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, which 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 non-
discriminatory.
    2. We conclude in this Order on Reconsideration that national 
collocation standards are necessary to ensure that incumbent LECs 
comply with the statutory obligation set forth in section 251(c)(6). We 
require that, except to the extent a state sets its own standards or 
the requesting carrier and the incumbent LEC have mutually agreed to 
alternative standards, an incumbent LEC must notify the requesting 
telecommunications carrier as to whether a collocation application has 
been accepted or denied within ten calendar days after receiving the 
application. We also require that if the incumbent LEC deems a 
collocation application unacceptable, it must advise the competitive 
LEC of any deficiencies within this ten calendar day period. We require 
that an incumbent LEC must provide sufficient detail so that the 
requesting carrier has a reasonable opportunity to cure each 
deficiency. We specify that to retain its place in the incumbent LEC's 
collocation queue, the competitive LEC must cure any deficiencies in 
its collocation application and resubmit the application within ten 
calendar days after being advised of them. We also

[[Page 54434]]

require that, if the requesting carrier informs an incumbent LEC that 
physical collocation should proceed within seven calendar days after 
receiving the incumbent LEC's price quotation, the incumbent LEC must 
comply with the 90 calendar day provisioning interval set forth below, 
or any alternative interval set by a state commission or agreed to by 
the requesting carrier and the incumbent LEC.
    3. We require, in addition, that if the competitive LEC fails to 
meet this deadline, the provisioning interval will begin on the date 
the requesting carrier informs the incumbent LEC that physical 
collocation should proceed. We specify that an incumbent LEC must 
complete any technically feasible physical collocation arrangement, 
whether caged or cageless, no later than 90 calendar days after 
receiving an acceptable collocation application, where space, whether 
conditioned or unconditioned, is available in the incumbent LEC 
premises and the state commission does not set a different interval or 
the incumbent and requesting carrier have not agreed to a different 
interval. We specify that complete provisioning of a collocation 
arrangement, an incumbent LEC must finish construction in accordance 
with the requesting carrier's application and turn functioning space 
over to the requesting carrier.
    4. We state that incumbent LECs and competitive LECs must comply 
with renegotiation clauses in their interconnection agreements in 
negotiating specific provisions to implement changes in our collocation 
rules, including the application processing deadline and 90 calendar 
day physical collocation interval we adopt above. We further conclude 
that, within October 10, 2000 this Order on Reconsideration, the 
incumbent LEC must file with the state commission proposed amendments 
to any tariff or statement of generally available terms and conditions 
(SGAT) that does not comply with the national standards. These 
amendments must provide for application processing intervals and 
physical collocation intervals no longer than the national standards 
except to the extent a state sets its own standard. We require that, 
for SGATs, the national standards shall take effect within 60 days 
after the amendment's filing except to the extent the state commission 
specifies other application processing or provisioning intervals for a 
particular type of collocation arrangement, such as cageless 
collocation. We also require that, where a tariff must be amended to 
reflect the national standards, those standards shall take effect at 
the earliest time permissible under applicable state requirements.
    5. Absent the incumbent LEC's and requesting carrier's mutual 
consent, the ten calendar day deadline for responding to a collocation 
application and the 90 calendar day provisioning deadline will serve as 
maximum intervals, to the extent a state does not set its own 
deadlines. We require that an incumbent LEC must provide any 
information the state commission requires Where an incumbent LEC seeks 
a departure from either deadline, the incumbent also must provide any 
additional information the state commission requires to resolve whether 
an incumbent LEC should be allowed to depart from the ten day deadline 
for telling the requesting carrier whether a collocation application is 
acceptable or the 90 calendar day provisioning deadline.
    6. We conclude that to the extent the state commission permits, the 
incumbent LEC may require a competitive LEC to pay reasonable 
application fees or portions of the total collocation charges prior to 
processing a collocation application or provisioning a collocation 
agreement. We specify that a competitive LEC's exercise of any right it 
has to dispute those fees or charges, or any of the rates, terms, or 
conditions under which an incumbent LEC seeks to provide collocation, 
shall not relieve the incumbent LEC of its obligation to comply with 
each of the time limits set forth in this section. We state that an 
incumbent LEC may require a competitive LEC to forecast its physical 
collocation demands. We also specify that, absent state action 
conditioning compliance with application processing and provisioning 
intervals upon forecasts, a competitive LEC's failure to submit timely 
forecasts will not relieve the incumbent LEC of its obligation to 
comply with deadlines described above.
    7. We confirm that, when space is exhausted in a particular 
structure, the incumbent LEC must permit a competitive LEC to collocate 
in a controlled environmental vault or similar structure that the 
competitive LEC or a third party constructs adjacent to an incumbent 
LEC structure. We amend Sec. 51.5 of our rules to make clear that 
``premises'' includes all buildings and similar structures owned, 
leased, or otherwise controlled by the incumbent LEC that house its 
network facilities, all structures that house incumbent LEC facilities 
on public rights-of-way, and all land owned, leased, or otherwise 
controlled by an incumbent LEC that is adjacent to these structures.
    8. We conclude that an incumbent must make available collocation in 
adjacent controlled environmental vaults or similar structures, to the 
extent technically feasible, at premises where physical collocation 
space is legitimately exhausted, even if virtual collocation space is 
not exhausted. We specify that if collocation space becomes available 
in a previously exhausted incumbent LEC structure, the incumbent LEC 
must not require a competitive LEC to move, or preclude an competitive 
LEC from moving, a collocation arrangement into that structure. Where 
technically feasible, an incumbent LEC must make physical collocation 
available in any incumbent LEC structure that houses network facilities 
and has space available for collocation. Such structures include, to 
the extent technically feasible, central offices, controlled 
environmental vaults, controlled environmental huts, cabinets, 
pedestals, and other remote terminals.
    9. In the Advanced Services First Report and Order, 63 FR 45133, 
August 24, 1998, we required that an incumbent LEC that denies 
collocation of a competitor's equipment based on safety standards must, 
within five business days after the denial, provide the requesting 
carrier with an affidavit attesting that all equipment that the 
incumbent LEC locates at the premises in question meets or exceeds the 
safety standard that, according to the incumbent LEC, the competitor's 
equipment does not meet. In this Order, we require that the affidavit 
set forth in detail: the exact safety requirement that the requesting 
carrier's equipment does not satisfy; the incumbent LEC's basis for 
concluding that the requesting carrier's equipment does not meet this 
safety requirement; and the incumbent LEC's basis for concluding why 
collocation of equipment not meeting this safety requirement would 
compromise network safety.
    10. We require that an incumbent LEC allow the carrier requesting 
collocation reasonable access to its selected collocation space while 
the incumbent LEC prepares that space for collocation. While we do not 
preclude an incumbent LEC from applying reasonable and 
nondiscriminatory ``safe-time'' work practices to itself and 
collocators, we specify requirements for when such a practice will be 
considered reasonable and nondiscriminatory.
    11. In the Local Competition First Report and Order, 61 FR 45476, 
August 29, 1996, the Commission required any incumbent LEC that denies 
a request for physical collocation to provide the state commission with 
detailed floor plans or diagrams of its premises. In this Order, we 
require that each incumbent LEC provide the state commission with all

[[Page 54435]]

information necessary for the state commission to evaluate the 
reasonableness of the incumbent LEC's and its affiliates' reservations 
of space for future growth. We require that this information shall 
include any information the state commission may require to implement 
its specific space reservation policies, including which space, if any, 
the incumbent or any of its affiliates have reserved for future use. We 
also require that the incumbent shall provide the state commission with 
a detailed description of the specific future uses for which the space 
has been reserved. We require further that an incumbent LEC shall 
permit any requesting telecommunications carrier to inspect any floor 
plans or diagrams that the incumbent LEC provides a state commission, 
subject to any nondisclosure protections the state commission deems 
appropriate.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    12. The actions contained in this Order on Reconsideration have 
been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 
found to impose new or modified reporting requirements on the public.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)

    13. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Advanced 
Services Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 63 FR 45140, August 
24, 1998, in CC Docket 98-147. The Commission sought written public 
comment on the proposals in the Notice, including comment on the IRFA. 
We received no comments specifically directed toward the IRFA. In 
addition, we incorporated the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(FRFA) into the Advanced Services First Report and Order and received 
no petitions for reconsideration specifically directed toward the FRFA. 
This Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (SFRFA) 
conforms to the RFA.

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

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

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

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

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

    16. In the IRFA to the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we adopted 
the analysis and definitions set forth in determining the small 
entities affected by this Order for purposes of this SFRFA. The RFA 
directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an 
estimate of the number of entities that will be affected by the rules. 
The RFA generally defines ``small entity'' as having the same meaning 
as the term ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' 
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the 
Small Business Act, unless the Commission has developed one or more 
definitions that are appropriate to its activities. Under the Small 
Business Act, a ``small business concern'' is one that: (i) Is 
independently owned and operated; (ii) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (iii) meets any additional criteria established by the 
Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA has defined a small 
business for Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories 4812 
(Radiotelephone) to be small entities when they have no more than 1,500 
employees. We first discuss the number of small telephone companies 
falling within these SIC categories, then attempt to refine further 
those estimates to correspond with the categories of telephone 
companies that are commonly used under our rules.
    17. The most reliable source of information regarding the total 
numbers of common carrier and related providers nationwide, as well as 
the numbers of commercial wireless entities, appears to be data the 
Commission publishes annually in its Carrier Locator report, derived 
from filings made in connection with the Telecommunications Relay 
Service (TRS). According to data in the most recent report, there are 
4,144 interstate carriers. These carriers include, inter alia, LECs, 
wireline carriers and service providers, interexchange carriers, 
competitive access providers, operators services providers, pay 
telephone operators, providers of telephone toll service, providers of 
telephone exchange service, and resellers.
    18. We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA 
analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the RFA is one 
that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard 
(e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer 
employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' The 
SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small 
incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any 
such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. We have therefore included 
small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that 
this RFA action has no effect on FCC analyses and determinations in 
other, non-RFA contexts.
    19. Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected. The United States 
Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) reports that, at the end of 1992, 
there were 3,497 firms engaged in providing telephone services, as 
defined therein, for at least one year. These firms include a variety 
of different categories of carriers, including LECs, interexchange 
carriers, competitive access providers, cellular carriers, mobile 
service carriers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, 
PCS providers, covered SMR providers, and resellers. It seems certain 
that some of those 4,144 telephone service firms may not qualify as 
small entities or small incumbent LECs because they are not 
``independently owned and operated.'' For example, a PCS provider that 
is affiliated with an interexchange carrier having more than 1,500 
employees

[[Page 54436]]

would not meet the definition of a small business. It seems reasonable 
to conclude, therefore, that fewer than 4,144 telephone service firms 
are small entity telephone service firms or small incumbent LECs that 
may be affected by the decisions and rules adopted in this Order.
    20. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers. SBA has developed a 
definition of small entities for telephone communications companies 
other than radiotelephone companies. The Census Bureau reports that, 
there were 2,321 such telephone companies in operation for at least one 
year at the end of 1992. According to SBA's definition, a small 
business telephone company other than a radiotelephone company is one 
employing no more than 1,500 persons. All but 26 of the 2,231 non-
radiotelephone companies listed by the Census Bureau were reported to 
have fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, even if all 26 of those 
companies had more than 1,500 employees, there would still be 2,295 
non-radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small entities or 
small incumbent LECs. Although it seems certain that some of these 
carriers are not independently owned and operated, we are unable at 
this time to estimate with greater precision the number of wireline 
carriers and service providers that would qualify as small business 
concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there 
are fewer than 2,295 small entity telephone communications companies 
other than radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the 
decisions and rules adopted in this Order.
    21. Local Exchange Carriers. The Commission has not developed a 
special size definition of small LECs or competitive LECs. The closest 
applicable definition for these types of carriers under SBA rules is, 
again, that used for telephone communications companies other than 
radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The most reliable source of 
information regarding the number of these carriers nationwide of which 
we are aware appears to be the data that we collect annually in 
connection with the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS). According 
to our most recent data, there are 1,348 incumbent LECs, 212 
competitive LECs, and 442 resellers. Although it seems certain that 
some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, or 
have more than 1,500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate 
with greater precision the number of these carriers that would qualify 
as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we 
estimate that there are no more than 1,348 small entity incumbent LECs, 
212 competitive LECs, and 442 resellers that may be affected by the 
decisions and rules adopted in this Order.

Description of Projected Reporting, Record Keeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    22. In this Order, we take a number of steps that may affect small 
entities that either provide or obtain collocation pursuant to section 
251(c)(6) of the Communications Act. The requirements we adopt will 
require small incumbent LECs to improve their collocation provisioning 
processes and otherwise change their collocation practices. As Congress 
contemplated in enacting section 251(c)(6), however, our collocation 
requirements benefit small competitive LECs in their efforts to compete 
against incumbent LECs in the provision of telecommunications services, 
including advanced services. We believe that, on balance, the benefits 
to small competitive LECs of our actions in this Order far outweigh any 
burdens the Order places on small incumbent LECs.
    23. Specifically, the national standards for physical collocation 
intervals that we adopt in this Order will decrease the costs and 
delays small competitive LECs encounter in seeking to collocate at 
incumbent LEC premises. In particular, the provisioning interval 
requirements we adopt (paragraphs 12-16 of this Supplemental FRFA), 
should enable competitive LECs that are small entities to bring 
services to potential customers more quickly than previously and thus 
increase their ability to compete against larger firms. Similarly, the 
adjunct collocation requirements (paragraphs 17 and 18), space denial 
standards (paragraphs 19 & 21), and safe-time work practice standards 
(paragraph 20), adopted in the Order should benefit competitive LECs 
that are small entities helping them obtain the collocation space they 
need to compete and otherwise helping them streamline their 
collocation-related operations.
    24. We require that, except to the extent a state sets its own 
standards or the requesting carrier and the incumbent LEC have mutually 
agreed to alternative standards, an incumbent LEC must notify the 
requesting telecommunications carrier as to whether a collocation 
application has been accepted or denied within ten calendar days after 
receiving the application. We also require that if the incumbent LEC 
deems a collocation application unacceptable, it must advise the 
competitive LEC of any deficiencies within this ten calendar day 
period. We require that an incumbent LEC must provide sufficient detail 
so that the requesting carrier has a reasonable opportunity to cure 
each deficiency. We specify that to retain its place in the incumbent 
LEC's collocation queue, the competitive LEC must cure any deficiencies 
in its collocation application and resubmit the application within ten 
calendar days after being advised of them. We also require that, if the 
requesting carrier informs an incumbent LEC that physical collocation 
should proceed within seven calendar days after receiving the incumbent 
LEC's price quotation, the incumbent LEC must comply with the 90 
calendar day provisioning interval set forth below, or any alternative 
interval set by a state commission or agreed to by the requesting 
carrier and the incumbent LEC.
    25. We require, in addition, that if the competitive LEC fails to 
meet this deadline, the provisioning interval will begin on the date 
the requesting carrier informs the incumbent LEC that physical 
collocation should proceed. We specify that an incumbent LEC must 
complete any technically feasible physical collocation arrangement, 
whether caged or cageless, no later than 90 calendar days after 
receiving an acceptable collocation application, where space, whether 
conditioned or unconditioned, is available in the incumbent LEC 
premises and the state commission does not set a different interval or 
the incumbent and requesting carrier have not agreed to a different 
interval. We specify that complete provisioning of a collocation 
arrangement, an incumbent LEC must finish construction in accordance 
with the requesting carrier's application and turn functioning space 
over to the requesting carrier.
    26. We state that incumbent LECs and competitive LECs must comply 
with renegotiation clauses in their interconnection agreements in 
negotiating specific provisions to implement changes in our collocation 
rules, including the application processing deadline and 90 calendar 
day physical collocation interval we adopt above. We further conclude 
that, within October 10, 2000 this Order on Reconsideration, the 
incumbent LEC must file with the state commission proposed amendments 
to any tariff or statement of generally available terms and conditions 
(SGAT) that does not comply with the national standards. These 
amendments must provide for application processing intervals and 
physical collocation intervals no longer than the national standards 
except to the extent a state sets its own standard.

[[Page 54437]]

We require that, for SGAT, the national standards shall take effect 
within 60 days after the amendment's filing except to the extent the 
state commission specifies other application processing or provisioning 
intervals for a particular type of collocation arrangement, such as 
cageless collocation. We also require that, where a tariff must be 
amended to reflect the national standards, those standards shall take 
effect at the earliest time permissible under applicable state 
requirements.
    27. Absent the incumbent LEC's and requesting carrier's mutual 
consent, the ten calendar day deadline for responding to a collocation 
application and the 90 calendar day provisioning deadline will serve as 
maximum intervals, to the extent a state does not set its own 
deadlines. We require that an incumbent LEC must provide any 
information the state commission requires. Where an incumbent LEC seeks 
a departure from either deadline, the incumbent also must provide any 
additional information the state commission requires to resolve whether 
an incumbent LEC should be allowed to depart from the ten day deadline 
for telling the requesting carrier whether a collocation application is 
acceptable on the 90 calendar day provisioning deadline.
    28. We conclude that to the extent the state commission permits, 
the incumbent LEC may require a competitive LEC to pay reasonable 
application fees or portions of the total collocation charges prior to 
processing a collocation application or provisioning a collocation 
agreement. We specify that a competitive LEC's exercise of any right it 
has to dispute those fees or charges, or any of the rates, terms, or 
conditions under which an incumbent LEC seeks to provide collocation, 
shall not relieve the incumbent LEC of its obligation to comply with 
each of the time limits set forth in this section. We state that an 
incumbent LEC may require a competitive LEC to forecast its physical 
collocation demands. We also specify that, absent state action 
conditioning compliance with application processing and provisioning 
intervals upon forecasts, a competitive LEC's failure to submit timely 
forecasts will not relieve the incumbent LEC of its obligation to 
comply with deadlines described above.
    29. We confirm that, when space is exhausted in a particular 
structure, the incumbent LEC must permit a competitive LEC to collocate 
in a controlled environmental vault or similar structure that the 
competitive LEC or a third party constructs adjacent to an incumbent 
LEC structure. We amend Sec. 51.5 of our rules to make clear that 
``premises'' includes all buildings and similar structures owned, 
leased, or otherwise controlled by the incumbent LEC that house its 
network facilities, all structures that house incumbent LEC facilities 
on public rights-of-way, and all land owned, leased, or otherwise 
controlled by an incumbent LEC that is adjacent to these structures.
    30. We conclude that an incumbent must make available collocation 
in adjacent controlled environmental vaults or similar structures, to 
the extent technically feasible, at premises where physical collocation 
space is legitimately exhausted, even if virtual collocation space is 
not exhausted. We specify that if collocation space becomes available 
in a previously exhausted incumbent LEC structure, the incumbent LEC 
must not require a competitive LEC to move, or preclude an competitive 
LEC from moving a collocation arrangement into that structure. Where 
technically feasible, an incumbent LEC must make physical collocation 
available in any incumbent LEC structure that houses network facilities 
and has space available for collocation. Such structures include, to 
the extent technically feasible, central offices, controlled 
environmental vaults, controlled environmental huts, cabinets, 
pedestals, and other remote terminals.
    31. In the Advanced Services First Report and Order, we required 
that an incumbent LEC that denies collocation of a competitor's 
equipment based on safety standards must, within five business days 
after the denial, provide the requesting carrier with an affidavit 
attesting that all equipment that the incumbent LEC locates at the 
premises in question meets or exceeds the safety standard that, 
according to the incumbent LEC, the competitor's equipment does not 
meet. In this Order, we require that the affidavit set forth in detail: 
the exact safety requirement that the requesting carrier's equipment 
does not satisfy; the incumbent LEC's basis for concluding that the 
requesting carrier's equipment does not meet this safety requirement; 
and the incumbent LEC's basis for concluding why collocation of 
equipment not meeting this safety requirement would compromise network 
safety.
    32. We require that an incumbent LEC allow the carrier requesting 
collocation reasonable access to its selected collocation space while 
the incumbent LEC prepares that space for collocation. While we do not 
preclude an incumbent LEC from applying reasonable and 
nondiscriminatory ``safe-time'' work practices to itself and 
collocators, we specify requirements for when such a practice will be 
considered reasonable and nondiscriminatory.
    33. In the Local Competition First Report and Order, the Commission 
required any incumbent LEC that denies a request for physical 
collocation to provide the state commission with detailed floor plans 
or diagrams of its premises. In this Order, we require that each 
incumbent LEC provide the state commission with all information 
necessary for the state commission to evaluate the reasonableness of 
the incumbent LEC's and its affiliates' reservations of space for 
future growth. We require that this information shall include any 
information the state commission may require to implement its specific 
space reservation policies, including which space, if any, the 
incumbent or any of its affiliates have reserved for future use. We 
also require that the incumbent shall provide the state commission with 
a detailed description of the specific future uses for which the space 
has been reserved. We require further that an incumbent LEC shall 
permit any requesting telecommunications carrier to inspect any floor 
plans or diagrams that the incumbent LEC provides a state commission, 
subject to any nondisclosure protections the state commission deems 
appropriate. As indicated, all these requirements will produce benefits 
to small competitive LECs that far outweigh any burdens the Order 
places on small incumbent LECs.

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

    34. In this Order, we clarify and strengthen our collocation rules 
in implementation of section 251(c)(6) of the Communications Act. These 
actions will affect both telecommunications carriers that request 
collocation and the incumbent LECs that, under section 251(c)(6), must 
provide collocation. As indicated above, both groups of carriers 
include entities that, for purposes of this SFRFA, are classified as 
small entities.
    35. The record makes clear that, despite our actions in the 
Advanced Services First Report and Order, incumbent LECs have continued 
to impede requesting telecommunications carriers collocation efforts. 
Our actions in this Order should benefit requesting telecommunications 
carriers, many of which may be small entities, by reducing barriers 
they encounter in seeking to compete effectively in the provision of 
advanced services and other telecommunications services. These actions 
include requiring that, where a state does not set its own standard, an 
incumbent LEC must

[[Page 54438]]

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

Report to Congress

    37. The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this 
SFRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the SBREFA. See 5 
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of 
the Order, including the SFRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the SBA. A copy of the Order and the SFRFA (or summaries thereof) will 
also be published in the Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C. 604(b).

Procedural Matters

    38. Pursuant to sections 1-4, 201, 202, 251-254, 256, 271, and 
303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-
154, 201, 202, 251-254, 256, 271, and 303(r), that the Petition for 
Partial Reconsideration and/or Clarification filed June 1, 1999, by 
Sprint Corporation Is Granted to the extent indicated herein and 
otherwise Is Denied.
    39. Pursuant to sections 1-4, 201, 202, 251-254, 256, 271, and 
303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-
154, 201, 202, 251-254, 256, 271, and 303(r), that part 51 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR part 51, Is Amended, as set forth in Rule 
changes.
    40. Pursuant to sections 1-4, 201, 202, 251-254, 256, 271, and 
303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-
154, 201, 202, 251-254, 256, 271, and 303(r), that the requirements and 
rules adopted in this Order on Reconsideration not pertaining to new or 
modified reporting or recordkeeping requirements Shall Become Effective 
October 10, 2000.
    41. Pursuant to sections 1-4, 201, 202, 251-254, 256, 271, and 
303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-
154, 201, 202, 251-254, 256, 271, and 303(r), that the requirements and 
rules adopted in this Order on Reconsideration pertaining to new or 
modified reporting or recordkeeping requirements are subject to 
approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as prescribed by 
the Paperwork Reduction Act and Shall Become Effective upon 
announcement in the Federal Register of OMB approval.
    42. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, Shall Send a copy of this Order on Reconsideration 
and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 98-
147 and this Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket 
No. 96-98, including the Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 51

    Communications, Common carriers, Telecommunications, Collocation.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.

Rule Changes

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 51 as follows:

PART 51--INTERCONNECTION

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

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

    2. Section 51.5 is amended by revising the definition of 
``premises'' and by adding in alphabetical order a definition of 
``day'' to read as follows:


Sec. 51.5  Terms and definitions.

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

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


Sec. 51.321  Methods of obtaining interconnection and access to 
unbundled elements under section 251 of the Act.

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

    4. Section 51.323 is amended revising paragraphs (b) introductory 
text, (f)(4), and (k)(3), and adding paragraph (l) to read as follows:

[[Page 54439]]

Sec. 51.323  Standards for physical collocation and virtual 
collocation.

* * * * *
    (b) Whenever an incumbent LEC objects to collocation of equipment 
by a requesting telecommunications carrier for the purposes within the 
scope of section 251(c)(6) of the Act, the incumbent LEC shall prove to 
the state commission that the equipment will not be actually used by 
the telecommunications carrier for the purpose of obtaining 
interconnection or access to unbundled network elements. An incumbent 
LEC may not object to the collocation of equipment on the grounds that 
the equipment does not comply with safety or engineering standards that 
are more stringent than the safety or engineering standards that the 
incumbent LEC applies to its own equipment. An incumbent LEC may not 
object to the collocation of equipment on the ground that the equipment 
fails to comply with Network Equipment and Building Specifications 
performance standards or any other performance standards. An incumbent 
LEC that denies collocation of a competitor's equipment, citing safety 
standards, must provide to the competitive LEC within five business 
days of the denial a list of all equipment that the incumbent LEC 
locates at the premises in question, together with an affidavit 
attesting that all of that equipment meets or exceeds the safety 
standard that the incumbent LEC contends the competitor's equipment 
fails to meet. This affidavit must set forth in detail: the exact 
safety requirement that the requesting carrier's equipment does not 
satisfy; the incumbent LEC's basis for concluding that the requesting 
carrier's equipment does not meet this safety requirement; and the 
incumbent LEC's basis for concluding why collocation of equipment not 
meeting this safety requirement would compromise network safety. 
Equipment used for interconnection or access to unbundled network 
elements includes, but is not limited to:
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (4) An incumbent LEC may retain a limited amount of floor space for 
its own specific future uses, provided, however, that neither the 
incumbent LEC nor any of its affiliates may reserve space for future 
use on terms more favorable than those that apply to other 
telecommunications carriers seeking to reserve collocation space for 
their own future use;
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (3) Adjacent space collocation. An incumbent LEC must make 
available, where physical collocation space is legitimately exhausted 
in a particular incumbent LEC structure, collocation in adjacent 
controlled environmental vaults, controlled environmental huts, or 
similar structures located at the incumbent LEC premises to the extent 
technically feasible. The incumbent LEC must permit a requesting 
telecommunications carrier to construct or otherwise procure such an 
adjacent structure, subject only to reasonable safety and maintenance 
requirements. The incumbent must provide power and physical collocation 
services and facilities, subject to the same nondiscrimination 
requirements as applicable to any other physical collocation 
arrangement. The incumbent LEC must permit the requesting carrier to 
place its own equipment, including, but not limited to, copper cables, 
coaxial cables, fiber cables, and telecommunications equipment, in 
adjacent facilities constructed by the incumbent LEC, the requesting 
carrier, or a third-party. If physical collocation space becomes 
available in a previously exhausted incumbent LEC structure, the 
incumbent LEC must not require a carrier to move, or prohibit a 
competitive LEC from moving, a collocation arrangement into that 
structure. Instead, the incumbent LEC must continue to allow the 
carrier to collocate in any adjacent controlled environmental vault, 
controlled environmental vault, or similar structure that the carrier 
has constructed or otherwise procured.
    (l) An incumbent LEC must offer to provide and provide all forms of 
physical collocation (i.e., caged, cageless, shared, and adjacent) 
within the following deadlines, except to the extent a state sets its 
own deadlines or the incumbent LEC has demonstrated to the state 
commission that physical collocation is not practical for technical 
reasons or because of space limitations.
    (1) Within ten days after receiving an application for physical 
collocation, an incumbent LEC must inform the requesting carrier 
whether the application meets each of the incumbent LEC's established 
collocation standards. A requesting carrier that resubmits a revised 
application curing any deficiencies in an application for physical 
collocation within ten days after being informed of them retains its 
position within any collocation queue that the incumbent LEC maintains 
pursuant to paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
    (2) Except as stated in paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this 
section, an incumbent LEC must complete provisioning of a requested 
physical collocation arrangement within 90 days after receiving an 
application that meets the incumbent LEC's established collocation 
application standards.
    (3) An incumbent LEC need not meet the deadline set forth in 
paragraph (l)(2) of this section if, after receipt of any price 
quotation provided by the incumbent LEC, the telecommunications carrier 
requesting collocation does not notify the incumbent LEC that physical 
collocation should proceed.
    (4) If, within seven days of the requesting carrier's receipt of 
any price quotation provided by the incumbent LEC, the 
telecommunications carrier requesting collocation does not notify the 
incumbent LEC that physical collocation should proceed, then the 
incumbent LEC need not complete provisioning of a requested physical 
collocation arrangement until 90 days after receiving such notification 
from the requesting telecommunications carrier.

[FR Doc. 00-22889 Filed 9-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P