[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 29, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 77950-77954]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28531]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 51

[CC Docket Nos. 01-338; CC Docket No. 96-98; CC Docket No. 98-147; FCC 
04-248]


Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent 
Local Exchange Carriers; Implementation of the Local Competition 
Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Deployment of 
Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) modifies certain of the unbundling obligations associated 
with fiber-to-the-curb (FTTC) architectures pursuant to section 251 of 
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act). Specifically, the 
Commission concludes that FTTC loops will be subject to the same, 
limited unbundling obligations governing fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) 
loops. The Commission further clarifies that incumbent LECs need not 
build time division multiplexing (TDM) capability into new packet-based 
networks or into existing packet-based networks that never had TDM 
capability. In addition, the Order also clarifies that where an 
incumbent LEC has deployed new FTTH or FTTC loops using packet-based 
equipment, and they nevertheless need to hand off a signal to some 
customers in TDM format in order

[[Page 77951]]

to be compatible with an end user's customer premises equipment, this 
``TDM handoff'' does not change the scope of unbundling relief.

DATES: Effective January 28, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcus Maher, Attorney-Advisor, 
Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-
1580, or via the Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order 
on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 01-338, CC Docket No. 96-98, and CC 
Docket No. 98-147; FCC 04-248, adopted October 14, 2004, and released 
October 18, 2004. The full text of this document may be purchased from 
the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, 
telephone 1-800-378-3160, or via e-mail http://www.bcpiweb.com. It is 
also available on the Commission's website at http://www.fcc.gov. The 
complete text of this Order on Reconsideration is available for 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 
CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Further information may also be obtained 
by calling the Wireline Competition Bureau's TTY number: (202) 418-
0484.

Synopsis of the Order on Reconsideration

    1. In the Triennial Review Order, 68 FR 52276, September 2, 2003, 
the Commission adopted rules pursuant to section 251 of the 1996 Act, 
requiring incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) to make elements of 
their local network available to competitors on an unbundled basis. The 
Triennial Review Order imposed only limited unbundling obligations with 
respect to incumbent LECs' broadband loops. In USTA v. FCC, 359 F.3d 
554 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (USTA II), the D.C. Circuit recently upheld these 
rules. The Commission granted the greatest unbundling relief for dark 
or lit fiber loops serving mass market customers that extend to the 
customer's premises (known as fiber-to-the-home or FTTH loops) in new 
build or ``greenfield'' situations. For those loops, the Commission 
determined that no unbundling is required. However, where a FTTH loop 
is deployed in overbuild, or ``brownfield,'' situations, the Commission 
determined that incumbent LECs must either provide unbundled access to 
a 64 kbps transmission path over the fiber loop or unbundled access to 
a spare copper loop.
    2. In this Order, the Commission concludes that it is appropriate 
to apply the FTTH rules to FTTC loops, as well. With respect to new 
FTTC deployments (``greenfield'' deployments), the Commission finds 
that competitive LECs face similar barriers to deployment as incumbent 
LECs. In the Triennial Review Order, the Commission found that entry 
barriers for FTTH deployments were largely the same for incumbent and 
competitive carriers. The Commission finds that this conclusion remains 
valid regardless of the loop technology deployed, and thus equally 
applies to greenfield deployments of FTTC loops. However, the 
Commission also finds that just as overbuild FTTH deployments ``merit[] 
slightly different treatment than greenfield FTTH deployments,'' so, 
too, do overbuild FTTC deployments. Thus, in the overbuild context, the 
Commission finds that competitive LECs face impairment to a limited 
extent, and requires that competitive LECs should have continued access 
to either a copper loop or a 64 kbps transmission path in those 
situations.
    3. Second, the Commission utilizes its discretion under the section 
251(d)(2) ``at a minimum'' authority to consider the statutory goals of 
section 706 which requires the Commission to encourage the deployment 
of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans. The 
Commission concludes that subjecting FTTC loops to the same unbundling 
framework adopted for FTTH loops furthers the goals of section 706. The 
Commission finds that the record in this case demonstrates that further 
reducing the unbundling obligations associated with FTTC loops would 
eliminate disincentives to invest in broadband facilities and, 
therefore, furthers section 706's goals. The Commission, therefore, 
reconsiders its determination in the Triennial Review Order that FTTC 
loops should be characterized as hybrid loop architecture for the 
purpose of the unbundling regulations, and revises its broadband loop 
unbundling rules to regulate FTTC loops in the same manner as adopted 
for FTTH loops in the Triennial Review Order.
    4. This Order tailors unbundling relief by defining a FTTC loop as 
a fiber transmission facility connecting to copper distribution plant 
that is not more than 500 feet from the customer's premises, and 
further specifying that the fiber transmission facility in a FTTC loop 
must connect to copper distribution plant at a serving area interface 
from which every other copper distribution subloop also is not more 
than 500 feet from the respective customer's premises.
    5. Petitions by BellSouth and SureWest also sought clarification 
whether the Commission's existing unbundling rules require incumbent 
LECs to build time division multiplexing (TDM) capabilities into 
networks at the request of competitive LECs. Consequently, this Order 
clarifies that incumbent LECs are not required to add TDM capabilities 
into new packet-based networks or into existing packet-based networks 
that never had TDM capability. In addition, the Order also clarifies 
that where an incumbent LEC has deployed new FTTH or FTTC loops using 
packet-based equipment, and they nevertheless need to hand off a signal 
to some customers in TDM format in order to be compatible with an end 
user's customer premises equipment, this ``TDM handoff'' does not 
change the scope of unbundling relief.

Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    6. This document does not contain new or modified information 
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain 
any new or modified ``information collection burden for small business 
concerns with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4).

Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    7. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated in the NPRM. 67 FR 1947, January 15, 2002. The Commission 
sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including 
comment on the IRFA. In the Triennial Review Order, the Commission 
issued a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) addressing 
comments submitted with regard to the IRFA. This present Order 
addresses issues raised by two petitions for reconsideration of the 
Triennial Review Order. Specifically, the Order modifies the unbundling 
rules governing fiber-to-the-curb (FTTC) loops in response to a 
petition from BellSouth. The Order also clarifies existing rules 
regarding network modifications in response to petitions from BellSouth 
and SureWest. This present Supplemental FRFA (Supplemental FRFA) 
conforms to the RFA.

[[Page 77952]]

    8. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules. In response to 
BellSouth's petition for reconsideration of the Triennial Review Order, 
this Order promotes investment in broadband facilities through the 
implementation of the unbundling requirements of section 251 of the 
Act. Specifically, the Order concludes that the fiber-to-the-home 
(FTTH) rules, which relieve the incumbent LECs from certain unbundling 
obligations, will also apply to FTTC loops. Specifically, a FTTC loop 
is a fiber transmission facility connecting to copper distribution 
plant that is not more than 500 feet from the customer's premises. The 
Commission further specifies that the fiber transmission facility in a 
FTTC loop must connect to copper distribution plant at a serving area 
interface from which every other copper distribution subloop also is 
not more than 500 feet from the respective customer's premises. In the 
Triennial Review Order released last year, the Commission concluded 
that the broadband capabilities of FTTH loops would be relieved from 
unbundling under section 251 of the Act. Today's action builds on the 
broadband principles of the Triennial Review Order by further extending 
the unbundling relief to FTTC loops. In this Order, the Commission 
concludes that, as with FTTH, competitors are not impaired without 
access to FTTC loops in new build (``greenfield'') situations. While 
requesting carriers may face limited impairment in overbuild 
(``brownfield'') situations, that is addressed by requiring unbundled 
access to a 64 kbps channel or unbundled access to spare copper 
facilities. Based on this analysis of impairment and the section 706 
balancing of investment incentives against the costs of unbundling for 
FTTC, the Commission concludes that FTTC loops should have the same 
unbundling relief as FTTH loops.
    9. Petitions by BellSouth and SureWest also sought clarification 
whether the Commission's existing unbundling rules require incumbent 
LECs to build time division multiplexing (TDM) capabilities into 
networks at the request of competitive LECs. Consequently, this Order 
clarifies that incumbent LECs are not required to add TDM capabilities 
into new packetized transmission facilities. In addition, the Order 
also clarifies that where an incumbent LEC has deployed FTTH or FTTC 
loops using packet-based equipment, and they nevertheless need to hand 
off a signal to some customers in TDM format in order to be compatible 
with an end user's customer premises equipment, this ``TDM handoff'' 
does not change the scope of unbundling relief.
    10. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public. The subject 
petitions for reconsideration were not submitted in response to the 
previous FRFA, and did not address the FRFA.
    11. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To 
Which the Proposed Rules Would Apply. The RFA directs agencies to 
provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of, the 
number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted 
herein. The RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having 
the same meaning as the terms ``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. A ``small business 
concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is 
not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any 
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration 
(SBA).
    12. In this section, we further describe and estimate the number of 
small entity licensees and regulatees that may be affected by the 
revised rule adopted in this Order. The most reliable source of 
information regarding the total numbers of certain common carrier and 
related providers nationwide, as well as the number of commercial 
wireless entities, appears to be the data that the Commission publishes 
in its Trends in Telephone Service report. The SBA has developed small 
business size standards for wireline small businesses within the 
commercial census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under 
this category, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Below, using the above size standards and others, we discuss the total 
estimated numbers of small businesses that might be affected by our 
actions.
    13. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers 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 local exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of 
operation because any such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. We 
have therefore included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this 
RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect 
on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
    14. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA has developed a 
small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, 
which consists of all such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. 
According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 2,225 firms in 
this category, total, that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 
2,201 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 
24 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this 
size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
    15. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor 
the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 
incumbent local exchange services. The appropriate size standard under 
SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under 
that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. According to Commission data, 1,337 carriers have reported 
that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent local exchange 
services. Of these 1,337 carriers, an estimated 1,032 have 1,500 or 
fewer employees and 305 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, 
the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local 
exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by our 
proposed action.
    16. Cable and Other Program Distribution. In addition, the SBA has 
developed a small business size standard for Cable and Other Program 
Distribution, which includes all such companies generating $12.5 
million or less in annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 
1997, there were a total of 1,311 firms in this category, total, that 
had operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,180 firms had annual 
receipts of under $10 million, and an additional 52 firms had receipts 
of $10 million or more but less than $25 million. Consequently, we 
estimate that the majority of providers in this service category are 
small businesses that may be affected by the proposed rules and 
policies.
    17. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities: In this Order, we conclude 
that FTTC loops will be subject to the same unbundling obligations as 
FTTH loops. This rule modification will relieve the providers of such 
broadband loops from unbundling obligations under section 251 of the 
Act. This relieved a section

[[Page 77953]]

251 unbundling requirement currently placed on such providers.
    18. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered: The RFA requires an 
agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered 
in developing its approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and 
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.''
    19. In this Order, we conclude that FTTC loops should be governed 
by the FTTH loop rules. The Order considered, and rejected, the 
alternative of retaining the existing unbundling obligations for FTTC. 
The Order reached this conclusion by applying principles established in 
the Triennial Review Order to more precisely calibrate the Commission's 
policy for broadband loops. In response to petitions for 
reconsideration requesting that the Commission look more closely at the 
unbundling requirements for FTTC loops, the Order considers potential 
impairment faced by requesting carriers and weighs section 706's 
broadband deployment goals, and concludes that the record demonstrates 
that FTTC loops should have the same unbundling relief as FTTH loops. 
Although this rule will deny unbundling to competitive carriers seeking 
to serve customers served by FTTC loops, the Commission concluded that 
requesting carriers face no impairment in greenfield situations and 
only limited impairment in brownfield situations, which is addressed 
through access to a 64 kbps channel or a spare copper facility. 
Further, such unbundling relief was necessary to remove disincentives 
for incumbent LECs to deploy FTTC facilities. Alternatives considered, 
including the denial of such unbundling relief to FTTC, were not 
adopted because they do not accomplish the Commission's objectives in 
this proceeding of promoting broadband deployment.
    20. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the 
Order, including this Supplemental FRFA, in a report to be sent to 
Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the 
Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this Supplemental 
FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Order 
and Supplemental FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in 
the Federal Register.

Ordering Clauses

    21. It is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in 
sections 2, 4(i)-4(j), 10(d), 201, 251, 303(r), and 706 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 152, 154(i)-4(j), 
160(d), 201, 251, 303(r), 706 this Order on Reconsideration is adopted, 
and that part 51 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR part 51, is amended 
as set forth in Appendix B of the Order. The requirements of this Order 
shall become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal 
Register.
    22. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained 
in sections 2, 4(i)-4(j), 10(d), 201, 251, 303(r), and 706 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 152, 154(i)-4(j), 
160(d), 201, 251, 303(r), and 706, the petitions for reconsideration 
filed by BellSouth and SureWest are granted in part.
    23. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Order, including the Supplemental Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 51

    Interconnection, Unbundling Requirements.

    Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Rule Changes

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

PART 51--INTERCONNECTION

0
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read:

    Authority: Sections 1-5, 7, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 225-27, 251-54, 
256, 271, 303(r), 332, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 
151-55, 157, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 225-27, 251-54, 256, 271, 303(r), 
332, 47 U.S.C. 157 note, unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Section 51.319 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  51.319  Specific unbundling requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Fiber loops. (i) Definitions. (A) Fiber-to-the-home loops. A 
fiber-to-the-home loop is a local loop consisting entirely of fiber 
optic cable, whether dark or lit, serving an end user's customer 
premises or, in the case of predominantly residential multiple dwelling 
units (MDUs), a fiber optic cable, whether dark or lit, that extends to 
the multiunit premises' minimum point of entry (MPOE).
    (B) Fiber-to-the-curb loops. A fiber-to-the-curb loop is a local 
loop consisting of fiber optic cable connecting to a copper 
distribution plant that is not more than 500 feet from the customer's 
premises or, in the case of predominantly residential MDUs, not more 
than 500 feet from the MDU's MPOE. The fiber optic cable in a fiber-to-
the-curb loop must connect to a copper distribution plant at a serving 
area interface from which every other copper distribution subloop also 
is not more than 500 feet from the respective customer's premises.
    (ii) New builds. An incumbent LEC is not required to provide 
nondiscriminatory access to a fiber-to-the-home loop or a fiber-to-the-
curb loop on an unbundled basis when the incumbent LEC deploys such a 
loop to an end user's customer premises that previously has not been 
served by any loop facility.
    (iii) Overbuilds. An incumbent LEC is not required to provide 
nondiscriminatory access to a fiber-to-the-home loop or a fiber-to-the-
curb loop on an unbundled basis when the incumbent LEC has deployed 
such a loop parallel to, or in replacement of, an existing copper loop 
facility, except that:
    (A) The incumbent LEC must maintain the existing copper loop 
connected to the particular customer premises after deploying the 
fiber-to-the-home loop or the fiber-to-the-curb loop and provide 
nondiscriminatory access to that copper loop on an unbundled basis 
unless the incumbent LEC retires the copper loops pursuant to paragraph 
(a)(3)(iv) of this section.
    (B) An incumbent LEC that maintains the existing copper loops 
pursuant to paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A) of this section need not incur any 
expenses to ensure that the existing copper loop remains capable of 
transmitting signals prior to receiving a request for access pursuant 
to that paragraph, in which case the incumbent LEC shall restore the 
copper loop to serviceable condition upon request.
    (C) An incumbent LEC that retires the copper loop pursuant to 
paragraph (a)(3)(iv) of this section shall provide nondiscriminatory 
access to a 64 kilobits per second transmission path capable of voice 
grade service over the

[[Page 77954]]

fiber-to-the-home loop or fiber-to-the-curb loop on an unbundled basis.
    (iv) Retirement of copper loops or copper subloops. Prior to 
retiring any copper loop or copper subloop that has been replaced with 
a fiber-to-the-home loop or a fiber-to-the-curb loop, an incumbent LEC 
must comply with:
    (A) The network disclosure requirements set forth in section 
251(c)(5) of the Act and in Sec.  51.325 through Sec.  51.335; and
    (B) Any applicable state requirements.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 51.325 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  51.325  Notice of network changes: Public notice requirement.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Will result in the retirement of copper loops or copper 
subloops, and the replacement of such loops with fiber-to-the-home 
loops or fiber-to-the-curb loops, as those terms are defined in Sec.  
51.319(a)(3).
* * * * *

0
4. Section 51.331 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  51.331  Notice of network changes: Timing of notice.

* * * * *
    (c) Competing service providers may object to incumbent LEC notice 
of retirement of copper loops or copper subloops and replacement with 
fiber-to-the-home loops or fiber-to-the-curb loops in the manner set 
forth in Sec.  51.333(c).

0
5. Section 51.333 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) 
introductory text, and by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  51.333  Notice of Network Changes: Short term notice, objections 
thereto and objections to retirement of copper loops or copper 
subloops.

* * * * *
    (b) Implementation date. The Commission will release a public 
notice of filings of such short term notices or notices of replacement 
of copper loops or copper subloops with fiber-to-the-home loops or 
fiber-to-the-curb loops. The effective date of the network changes 
referenced in those filings shall be subject to the following 
requirements:
    (1) Short term notice. Short term notices shall be deemed final on 
the tenth business day after the release of the Commission's public 
notice, unless an objection is filed pursuant to paragraph (c) of this 
section.
    (2) Replacement of copper loops or copper subloops with fiber-to-
the-home loops or fiber-to-the-curb loops. Notices of replacement of 
copper loops or copper subloops with fiber-to-the-home loops or fiber-
to-the-curb loops shall be deemed approved on the 90th day after the 
release of the Commission's public notice of the filing, unless an 
objection is filed pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section. Incumbent 
LEC notice of intent to retire any copper loops or copper subloops and 
replace such loops or subloops with fiber-to-the-home loops or fiber-
to-the-curb loops shall be subject to the short term notice provisions 
of this section, but under no circumstances may an incumbent LEC 
provide less than 90 days notice of such a change.
    (c) Objection procedures for short term notice and notices of 
replacement of copper loops or copper subloops with fiber-to-the-home 
loops or fiber-to-the-curb loops. An objection to an incumbent LEC's 
short term notice or to its notice that it intends to retire copper 
loops or copper subloops and replace such loops or subloops with fiber-
to-the-home loops or fiber-to-the-curb loops may be filed by an 
information service provider or telecommunications service provider 
that directly interconnects with the incumbent LEC's network. Such 
objections must be filed with the Commission, and served on the 
incumbent LEC, no later than the ninth business day following the 
release of the Commission's public notice. All objections filed under 
this section must:
* * * * *
    (f) Resolution of objections to replacement of copper loops or 
copper subloops with fiber-to-the-home loops or fiber-to-the-curb 
loops. An objection to a notice that an incumbent LEC intends to retire 
any copper loops or copper subloops and replace such loops or subloops 
with fiber-to-the-home loops or fiber-to-the-curb loops shall be deemed 
denied 90 days after the date on which the Commission releases public 
notice of the incumbent LEC filing, unless the Commission rules 
otherwise within that time. Until the Commission has either ruled on an 
objection or the 90-day period for the Commission's consideration has 
expired, an incumbent LEC may not retire those copper loops or copper 
subloops at issue for replacement with fiber-to-the-home loops or 
fiber-to-the-curb loops.

[FR Doc. 04-28531 Filed 12-28-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P