WPC(@ 2BVXZ3|P (TT)7PC2X XP\  P6QXP"5^2BQdd$BBdq2B28dddddddddd88qqqYzoBNzoozzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`l2BBBBPBddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYzYzYzYdddddPdBdBBBdNdoNNF2ZdBYddddd7>d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddHP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MXPS1M 50299HPLA5SMX.WRSXj\  P6G;,,,!XP2$ *4 D43|P"5^(C<((((0(<CWU(<d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5^2BoddȦ8BBdr2B28ddddddddddBBrrrdzNdzoȐB8BtdBdoYoYBdo8Bo8odooYNBodddYO,Oh2BBBBPBdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYdddooPoNoNBNoddȐoNNF2ldBddddddd<d<BBoodBBddBoBddzzzzzzzzzzBBBBozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYdy.C8*X/C\  P6QP.y.G8*X<G4  pQ7PC2XXP\  P6QXP.7UC2XXU4  pQXW!0(Xh0\  P6QhP I(!X,(\  P6Q,P{,C8*X3VC*f9 xQX5PC2X3f_XP*f9 xQXXl%6RC2XRXR9 xyQX.W!3(X#h34  pQh"5^2Nodd8BBdr2B28ddddddddddBBrrrdNdzzozzzB8BrdBddYdYBdo88d8odddNN8oYdYNE,Er2BBBBPBdddddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddoooozYddddzYdzddddYYYYYdddooPdNdNBNdddoNNF2ddNdddddd5may obtain Section 259 arrangements from incumbent LECs. As discussed in greater detail  x[below, qualifying carriers are defined as carriers that lack economies of scale or scope and that  X- xrequest and obtain designation to receive universal service support pursuant to Section 214(e).T {OK-Ѝ 47 U.S.C.  259(d). See also Joint Board Recommendation on Universal Service at  155, et seq. (discussing eligibility criteria for carriers seeking universal service support).  xLSuch a definition would appear to apply to many small LECs. Does this observation support a  xconclusion that Congress primarily, or exclusively, intended Section 259 to benefit small carriers  x.in an effort to advance the universal service goals of the 1996 Act? Would such a conclusion  xsupport a Commission decision to construe the provisions of Section 259 so as to apply only to  xcases involving small LECs? Did Congress further intend Section 259 to apply only to  xarrangements between such qualifying carriers and their adjacent incumbent LECs? We seek comment on all these questions and issues.  X - ` x 13. ` ` It might be possible, however, to interpret the scope of Section 259 and its  x relationship to Section 251 in a very different way. Neither Section 251, on its face, nor the  xCommission's Orders in CC Docket No. 9698 would appear to prohibit qualifying carriers,  xMdefined pursuant to Section 259(d), from obtaining access to rightsofway, resale facilities,  X - xkinterconnection, and unbundled network elements pursuant to Section 251 (i.e., outside the  xframework of Section 259 with its apparent restrictions on competition). Could the Commission  xyconclude that Section 251 grants rights of access to rightsofway, resale, interconnection, and  x[access to unbundled network elements, on terms that also satisfy Section 259 criteria, as types  xor examples of "telecommunications facilities and functions"? Can and should the Commission  x\find that qualifying carriers must take such resale, interconnection, and unbundled network  xfacilities pursuant to Section 251? Should the Commission give qualifying carriers the option  xto obtain access alternatively pursuant to Section 251 or Section 259, or should the Commission  xMapply Section 259 only to elements of "public switched network infrastructure, technology,  X- xinformation, and telecommunications facilities and functions" that are not otherwise provided pursuant to Section 251?  X- ` `x 14. ` ` Besides promoting infrastructure development on behalf of qualifying carriers,  xrequiring qualifying carriers to take, for example, interconnection and unbundled network  xelements pursuant to Section 251(c) and instead of pursuant to Section 259 also might tend  XR- x-to promote competition in local exchange markets. As discussed above,FR"T {O% -ԍ  See infra Part III. B.F Section 259(b)(6) does  xnot require incumbent LECs to "engage in any infrastructure sharing agreement for any services  x-or access which are to be provided or offered to consumers by the qualifying carrier in such local  x{exchange carrier's telephone exchange area." No such limitation on the incumbent LEC's  xZobligations appears in Section 251, and, consequently, qualifying carriers would be free, pursuant  xto Section 251, to use interconnection and unbundled network elements whether or not they  X - xintended to compete in the providing incumbent LEC's telephone exchange area. T {O-'-ԍ See generally Local Competition First Report and Order at Sections IV., V., IX. We seek" F,N(N(ZZ"  xcomment on this approach to defining the overlap between Sections 251 and 259 and on the  x<consequences of such an approach for promoting the development of competition, particularly in rural markets.  X- ` Px15. ` ` Each element of public switched network infrastructure, technology, information,  xand telecommunications facilities and functions made available pursuant to Section 259 might  xvery well pose unique questions and issues for this proceeding. For example, does the sharing  xof technology require mandatory patent licensing to qualifying carriers so that these carriers can  x/develop equipment or software that is fully interoperative with proprietary systems (if any)  xdeployed by an incumbent LEC? In cases where licensed technology is the only means to gain  xaccess to facilities or functions subject to sharing requirements, we tentatively conclude that  xSection 259 requires mandatory licensing, subject to the payment of reasonable royalties, of any  xMsoftware or equipment necessary to gain access to the shared capability or resource by the qualifying carrier's equipment. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.  X - ` x16. ` ` We also seek comment on what types of information must be made available to  x?qualifying carriers by incumbent LECs pursuant to Section 259(a). Is marketing or other  xzproprietary business information subject to this requirement? Does the information sharing  xmandated by Section 259(a) imply any sort of joint network planning requirement? Does Section  x259(a) require incumbent LECs to make network information databases (other than those already  X4- xrequired to be made available pursuant to Section 251(c)(3)m4T {O-ԍ Local Competition First Report and Order at  452503.m) available to qualifying carriers?  x<If so, how? We seek comment on whether and how network information made available pursuant  xNto Section 259(a) might vary from that type of information to be disclosed under Section  x251(c)(5), which requires reasonable public notice of changes in the information necessary for  X-transmission and routing of services using the incumbent LECs' facilities or networks.jZT yO-ԍ #X\  P6G;/P#47 U.S.C.  251(c)(5).j  X- ` x17. ` ` Generally, we believe that the rules implementing Section 259(a) should be  xdefinitive enough so as to minimize disputes between or among the parties to Section 259  xiagreements. At the same time, we also believe that the rules should not be so restrictive that they  xinhibit the Commission's ability to act flexibly to resolve disputes that may arise. We seek  xcomment about how best to achieve these goals, particularly given our preference, as stated  xabove, that Section 259derived arrangements should be largely the product of negotiations among  X - xparties.N T {O"-ԍ See supra Part III. at  7.N We address infra specific issues relating to resolving disputes between parties to  X - xSection 259 agreements.G! |T {O8%-ԍ See infra Part III. B. G Here we note that Section 259(d) defines qualifying carriers based on  xdecisions made by this Commission and the states. Does this joint responsibility have"!,N(N(ZZZ"  ximplications for deciding who should resolve Section 259 disputes? We seek comment on these questions and issues.  X- ` x18. ` ` The express language of Section 259(a), on its face, grants the Commission sole  X- x[authority to create rules to implement this section."T {O-ԍ #X\  P6G;/P#47 U.S.C.  259(a) ("The Commission shall prescribe . . . ." (emphasis added )). We tentatively conclude that Section 259  xZby its express terms pertains to both interstate and intrastate communications. Further, it appears  x>and we tentatively conclude that Section 259 contemplates only limited roles for the states,  xnamely, pursuant to the filing provisions in Section 259(b)(7) and pursuant to the Section 214(e)  xdesignation power referenced in Section 259(d)(2). We seek comment on each of these tentative  xconclusions. To ensure a complete record, we also seek comment on whether we have authority  X - xxto preempt state regulation under Louisiana Public Service Commission v. FCC, in the event that  X -Section 259 does not apply to intrastate services, contrary to our tentative conclusion.t# ZT {O-ԍ See Louisiana Public Service Commission v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355 (1986).t  X - ` x19. ` ` Finally, we note that, while Section 259(a) refers to carriers that have "requested  X - xyand obtained designation . . ."Q$ T yO_-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  259(a) (emphasis added).Q as Section 214(e)eligible carriers, Section 214(e) also provides  X - xthat a state commission may designate a carrier as eligible on its own motion without a request.j% |T yO-#C\  P6Q/P#э 47 U.S.C.  214(e)(2).j  xLIn addition, the states, with respect to intrastate services, and the Commission, with respect to  x[interstate services, shall designate a carrier as an eligible carrier to provide service in unserved  Xf- xareas.t&f T {O#-#C\  P6Q/P#э See 47 U.S.C.  214(e)(3).t In light of this provision, we seek comment on whether we can and should adopt  xregulations to impose Section 259(a) requirements on incumbent LECs where the state has  xdesignated a qualifying carrier as an eligible carrier pursuant to Section 214(e) without the carrier having requested designation.  X- B. xTerms and Conditions Required By Section 259(b)  X- ` x20. ` ` Section 259(b)(1) provides that the Commission shall not adopt regulations that  xwould "require a local exchange carrier to which this section applies to take any action that is  X- xeconomically unreasonable or that is contrary to the public interest."E'T yO"-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  259(b)(1). E We seek comment on  xwhat the standard should be for determining whether an action is economically unreasonable or  xznot in the public interest. In determining what is economically unreasonable, we tentatively  xconclude that no incumbent LEC should be required to develop, purchase, or install network  xiinfrastructure, technology, facilities or functions solely on the basis of a request from a qualifying  xcarrier to share such elements when such incumbent LEC has not otherwise built or acquired and"$ . ',N(N(ZZ"  xdoes not intend to build or acquire such elements. We seek comment on this tentative  xconclusion. We also seek comment on whether an action could be considered economically  xKunreasonable even if the requesting qualifying carrier agrees to pay the costs associated with the  xrequest. We tentatively conclude that for a sharing request to be considered "economically  xunreasonable," the terms proposed by the qualifying carrier must be such that the providing  xincumbent LEC would incur costs that it could not recover. We seek comment on the  ximplications of such a conclusion, including whether such recovery should allow the providing  xincumbent LEC a return on investment, and, how such a return should be calculated. We further  xLseek comment on whether a providing incumbent LEC may withdraw from a sharing agreement  xif it later determines that such agreement is no longer economically reasonable. We recognize  xthat such a conclusion may result in service disruptions for customers and seek comment on whether such disruptions would be contrary to the public interest.  X - ` x21. ` ` Section 259(b)(2) allows the Commission to "permit, but . . . not require, the joint  x-ownership or operation of public switched network infrastructure and services by or among such  X - x@local exchange carrier and a qualifying carrier."D( T yO -ԍ 47 U.S.C.  259(b)(2). D Joint ownership of shared network  xNinfrastructure with a qualifying carrier would thus appear to be one method by which an  xincumbent LEC may meet many, if not all, of its sharing obligations under Section 259, assuming  x>the qualifying carrier agrees. We seek comment on this observation. As a corollary to this  xstatutory provision, we believe that incumbent LECs and qualifying carriers should be able to  xshare the risk of development and/or purchase and installation of network infrastructure. We  x!believe that, in the absence of evidence that there are serious problems in making these  x-arrangements, we should let the participating carriers develop terms and conditions through their  xzown negotiations. Where a qualifying carrier makes a request to share infrastructure jointly  xowned by an incumbent LEC and one or more qualifying carriers, we propose to treat the joint  xowners as the providing incumbent LEC for the purposes of our infrastructure sharing regulations.  xWe seek comment on this proposal. We also seek comment about the implications of sharing  xand, in particular, joint ownership for those carriers subject to the Commission's cost accounting  X|- x<rules.F)|XT yO-Ѝ 47 U.S.C. Part 32.F Would such operations necessitate changes to Part 32 of the Commission's rules? While  xLwe recognize that sharing and, in particular joint ownership, pursuant to Section 259 may have  XN- ximplications for the treatment of jurisdictional separations under the Commission's rules,F*NT yO -Ѝ 47 U.S.C. Part 36.F we  xnote that any changes to Part 36 of the Commission's rules would need to be addressed by a  xFederalState Joint Board and are outside the scope of the current proceeding. We note that we  xwill be instituting a separate proceeding in the near future to consider jurisdictional separations  xin light of the 1996 Act and technological changes. We believe that any implications of Section  x259 for the treatment of jurisdictional separations would be better addressed in such a proceeding.  xWe also seek comment on whether joint ownership of technology, information, and  xtelecommunications facilities and functions, specifically listed in Section 259(a) but not included"! x*,N(N(ZZ "  xin Section 259(b)(2), is permitted. In addition, we seek comment on methods for infrastructure  xsharing other than joint ownership that should be deemed to satisfy the requirements of Section 259.  X- ` x22. ` ` Section 259(b)(3) provides that neither the Commission nor any state shall treat  xincumbent LECs as "common carrier[s] for hire or as offering common carrier services with  x[respect to any infrastructure, technology, information, facilities, or functions made available to  X_- xa qualifying carrier in accordance with regulations issued pursuant to this section."C+_T yO-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  259(b)(3).C We seek  xcomment on whether and the extent to which Section 259(b)(3) imposes limits on the obligations  X1- x/of incumbent LECs to qualifying carriers (e.g., tariffing requirements, obligations to expand  xcapacity to meet the demands of qualifying carriers). Pursuant to Section 259(b)(3), Section 259  xsharing agreements are not common carrier offerings and thus are not subject to the  xnondiscrimination requirement applied to common carriers in other sections of Title II. We seek  xcomment, however, on whether the requirement that infrastructure sharing be made available "to  X - x-any qualifying carrier" reflects an inherent nondiscrimination principle.Q, XT yO-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  259(a) (emphasis added).Q We thus seek comment  xon whether we can and should require incumbent LECs to make such arrangements available to  xsimilarly situated qualifying carriers on the same terms. In the absence of such a requirement,  xqualifying carriers could potentially receive unequal treatment from a providing incumbent LEC  xand this disparity could unjustly and unreasonably affect the ability of the qualifying carriers to compete with each other.  X!- ` Px23. ` ` Section 259(b)(4) requires the Commission to adopt regulations to ensure that the  xproviding incumbent LEC makes the "infrastructure, technology, information, facilities, or  x<functions available to a qualifying carrier on just and reasonable terms and conditions that permit  xsuch qualifying carrier to fully benefit from the economies of scale and scope of such [providing  xincumbent] local exchange carrier, as determined in accordance with guidelines prescribed by the  X- xCommission in regulations issued pursuant to this section."C-T yOG-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  259(b)(4).C We seek comment on how to  x{ensure that qualifying carriers benefit fully from the economies of scale and scope of the  xproviding incumbent LEC. Specifically, we ask whether "fully benefit" from economies of scale  xand scope necessarily implicates questions about pricing. Are there any "terms and conditions"  x=other than price that could affect whether and how a qualifying carrier can "fully benefit" from  xthe economies of scale and scope of the providing incumbent LEC? Does Section 259 confer  x^on the Commission authority to promulgate rules or guidelines to govern the price of  x"infrastructure, technology, information, facilities or functions" made available by providing incumbent LECs? We seek comment on all these questions.  X - ` x24. ` ` We seek comment on whether the Commission should establish other terms and  xconditions for infrastructure sharing agreements or whether the parties themselves and the state"! x-,N(N(ZZ "  xcommissions are better suited to establish such provisions. We note that national standards might  xreduce costs for incumbent LECs and qualifying carriers by reducing or eliminating inconsistent  xstate regulations and simplifying record keeping and other administrative burdens. National  xprinciples could arguably increase the predictability of what terms might be considered "just and  xreasonable," and thereby facilitate negotiations and the resolution of disputes. We also seek  x<comment on the potential consequences of not adopting national guidelines. For example, would  xa lack of consistent terms and conditions, even in contiguous service areas, create barriers to  xjinfrastructure sharing? We seek comment on these issues and, in general, on the best ways to  xjensure just and reasonable terms for infrastructure sharing, and ways to ensure that qualifying carriers fully benefit from the economies of scale and scope of the providing incumbent LEC.  X - ` x25. ` ` Section 259(b)(5) requires the Commission to establish conditions that promote  X - xicooperation between incumbent LECs to which this section applies and qualifying carriers.C. T yOe -ԍ 47 U.S.C.  259(b)(5).C The  xCommission seeks comment on whether a good faith negotiation standard, established by either  xthe Commission or the states, is required to promote cooperation between incumbent LECs and  xyqualifying carriers. We tentatively conclude that, because agreements pursuant to Section 259  xwill be between noncompeting carriers, detailed national rules may not be necessary to promote  xcooperation. Consistent with that expectation, we propose not to create any new procedures to  xOresolve disputes that may arise involving Section 259, but to rely instead on informal  xconsultations between the parties and the Commission and, if necessary, existing declaratory  x ruling procedures and the formal complaint process, including settlement negotiations and alternative dispute resolution. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.  X- ` x26. ` ` Section 259(b)(6) states that our regulations must not require infrastructure sharing  x "for services or access which are to be provided or offered to consumers by the qualifying  X- xjcarrier" in the providing incumbent LEC's telephone exchange area.C/XT yO-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  259(b)(6).C We tentatively conclude  xjthat this provision encompasses any telecommunications or information service offered by the  xproviding incumbent LEC directly to consumers, or any access service offered to other providers  xiwhich in turn offer services to consumers. In addition, we tentatively conclude that an incumbent  x<LEC should not be required to share services or access, pursuant to Section 259(b)(6), that would  xbe used by the qualifying carrier to compete in the incumbent LEC's telephone exchange service  x>area. As noted above, we anticipate that such services or access would be available to the  X -qualifying carrier under Section 251.F0 T {O"-ԍ See supra Part III. A.F We seek comment on these conclusions.  X- ` x27. ` ` Because Section 259(b)(6) does not mandate infrastructure sharing between  xcompeting carriers, we tentatively conclude that a providing incumbent LEC may terminate an  xagreement in the event it discovers that the qualifying carrier is offering or providing service or  xjaccess in the providing incumbent LEC's service area. We also tentatively conclude, however,"! z0,N(N(ZZ "  xthat the providing incumbent LEC has the burden of proving that the qualifying carrier is  x.providing or offering services or access obtained pursuant to Section 259 to consumers in the  xMproviding incumbent LEC's telephone exchange area. We seek comment on these tentative  xMconclusions and on how disputes concerning whether a qualified carrier has engaged in an  xinfrastructure sharing agreement "for any services or access which are to be provided or offered  xto consumers by the qualifying carrier" in the providing incumbent LEC's telephone exchange  xyarea should be adjudicated by this Commission. Should such disputes be handled pursuant to  X_- xSection 208 authority?=1_T yO-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  208.= We also recognize that end users may be harmed if an infrastructure  xsharing agreement is terminated without notice. We seek comment on whether sixty days is  xreasonable notice for a providing incumbent LEC to provide a qualifying carrier if a providing  xLincumbent LEC seeks to terminate an infrastructure sharing arrangement for cause pursuant to  xSection 259(b)(6). We seek comment on whether sixty days notice by a providing incumbent  x.LEC will enable a qualifying carrier to provide sufficient notice to its customers. We also seek  x=comment on whether a providing incumbent LEC should be required to notify the Commission  xbefore terminating infrastructure sharing arrangements. We also seek comment on whether the  x^term "services or access" in Section 259(b)(6) applies to all "public switched network  xZinfrastructure technology, information, and telecommunications facilities and functions" available  xpursuant to Section 259(a), or whether Section 259(b)(6) limits an incumbent LEC's right to deny agreements to only a limited set of provisions, namely, "services or access."  X4- ` x28. ` ` Section 259(b)(7) requires that incumbent LECs file with the Commission or state  xfor public inspection any tariffs, contracts or other arrangements showing the conditions under  xwhich the incumbent LEC is making available public switched network infrastructure and  X- xfunctions.C2XT yO-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  259(b)(7).C The Local Competition First Report and Order concluded that the 1996 Act requires  xall interconnection agreements, "including any interconnection agreement negotiated before the  x0date of enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996," to be submitted to the state  xkcommission for approval pursuant to Section 252(e). This requirement includes agreements  X- xbetween noncompeting carriers.3T {O.-ԍ See Local Competition First Report and Order at  165171. This portion of the order has not been  {O-stayed by the Court of Appeals. See supra n.7. We tentatively conclude that the filing requirement in Section  X~- x259(b)(7) refers only to agreements reached pursuant to Section 259, because qualifying carriers  xobtaining interconnection or access to unbundled elements pursuant to Section 251 or pursuant  xto agreements entered into prior to the enactment of the 1996 Act are under an obligation to file  xagreements with the state commission. We further tentatively conclude that incumbent LECs  xshould be required to file all tariffs, contracts, or other arrangements reached pursuant to Section  x=259 with the appropriate state commission. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.  x.We also seek comment on whether an incumbent LEC must file agreements showing the rates,  xterms, and conditions under which such carrier is making available technology, information, and" D3,N(N(ZZ"  xtelecommunications facilities and functions listed in Section 259(a) or whether Section 259(b)(7) is limited only to public switched network infrastructure and functions.  X- C. xRequirements of Section 259(c)  X- ` x29. ` ` Section 259(c) states that "a local exchange carrier to which this section applies  x-that has entered into an infrastructure sharing agreement under this section shall provide to each  x<party to such an agreement timely information on the planned deployment of telecommunications  xservices and equipment, including any software or upgrades of software integral to the use or  X1- xoperation of such telecommunications equipment."g41T yO -ԍ#X\  P6G;/P# 47 U.S.C.  259(c).g This requirement is similar to the network  xdisclosure requirement of Section 251(c)(5) which requires incumbent LECs to "provide  xreasonable public notice of changes" that may affect the use of the incumbent LECs' facilities or  X - x.networks.5^ XT {O-#C\  P6Q/P#э 47 U.S.C.  251(c)(5); see also Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the  {O-Telecommunications Act of 1996, Second Report and Order, CC Docket No. 9698, FCC 96333 (rel. Aug. 8,  {O-1996) ("Local Competition Second Report and Order").  The Commission has interpreted Section 251(c) to require notice of such changes  x=that might affect the ability of parties, who have obtained interconnection pursuant to Section  X - x251, to provide service.6 ~T {O-#C\  P6Q/P#э See Local Competition Second Report and Order at  171. We tentatively conclude that Congress intended Section 259(c) to  x\provide similar notice to qualifying carriers of changes in the incumbent LECs' network that  xmight affect qualifying carriers' ability to fully benefit from Section 259 agreements. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.  XK- ` x30. ` ` Overall, we believe that harmonizing the disclosure requirements under Sections  x259 and 251 also would promote the goal shared by Congress and the Commission to reduce  xduplicative administrative requirements. Similarly, we note that several other provisions,  X- xincluding Sections 273(c)(1)C7T yO-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  273(c)(1).C and 273(c)(4)C8T yOW-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  273(c)(4).C, and the Commission rules at 47 C.F.R.  X- xz64.702(d)(2) ("the all carrier rule")90 T yO -Ѝ The term "all carrier rule" refers to the Commission's network disclosure rule contained in 47 C.F.R.   {O!-64.702, as interpreted in the Second Computer Inquiry. See Amendment of Section 64.702 of the Commission's  {Ob"-Rules and Regulations (Second Computer Inquiry), Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 84  {O,#-FCC 2d 50, 8283 (1980), further recon., 88 FCC 2d 512 (1981), aff'd sub nom. Computer and Communications  {O#-Indus. Ass'n v. FCC, 693 F.2d 198 (D.C. Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 938 (1983). and 47 C.F.R. 68.110(b), require companies to disclose  xinformation about their networks. We ask parties to address any potential overlap or conflict  xbetween Section 259(c) and existing network disclosure requirements. Is it possible or desirable"9,N(N(ZZ"  x{to harmonize Section 259(c) with these other network disclosure requirements? We seek comment on such an approach.  X- ` x31. ` ` We tentatively conclude that the obligations to provide "timely information" under  X- xSection 259(c) should apply to incumbent LECs providing infrastructure to qualifying carriers.@:T yO-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  259(c).@  xxWe seek comment on this tentative conclusion. We note that Section 259(c) applies to incumbent  xLECs that have entered into an "infrastructure sharing agreement" and we tentatively conclude  x<that the phrase "infrastructure sharing agreement" as used in Section 259(c) should be construed  xindependently of any determination of the meaning of "public switched network infrastructure"  xin Section 259(b)(2). Specifically, for the purposes of Section 259(c), we believe that  x"infrastructure sharing agreement" should be applied to include agreements not only for public  xswitched network infrastructure, but also for "technology, information, and telecommunications  X - xfacilities and functions."J; XT {O-ԍ See 47 U.S.C.  259(a).J We believe that "infrastructure sharing agreement," per Section 259(c),  xyrefers to the title of Section 259, "Infrastructure Sharing," and that subsection (c) was intended  x[to apply to the gamut of agreements obtainable under Section 259(a) and (b). Accordingly, we  x\tentatively conclude that Section 259(c) applies to sharing agreements for "public switched  xKnetwork infrastructure, technology, information, and telecommunications facilities and functions" pursuant to Section 259(a) and (b). We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.  XK- ` x32. ` ` We seek comment on what kind of actions would trigger Section 259(c)  xjobligations. We note that the section requires incumbent LECs to provide information on "the  X- xplanned deployment of telecommunications services and equipment."@<T yO-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  259(c).@ We invite comment on  xwhat would constitute "planned deployment." Does "planned deployment" refer to a "make/buy"  xjdecision at which point the incumbent LEC decides to manufacture itself, or to procure from an  xunaffiliated entity, products that affect telecommunications services or equipment or does it refer  xLto some other point in the developmental process? Should there be some exception for market trials of new services or equipment?  X|- ` _x 33. ` ` While Section 259(a) contemplates agreements to share "public switched network  xKinfrastructure, technology, information, and telecommunications facilities and functions," Section  x259(c) requires incumbent LECs to provide information about the planned deployment of  xi"telecommunications services and equipment, including software or upgrades of software integral  x/to the use or operation of such telecommunications equipment." We seek comment on the  xrelationship of Section 259(a) to Section 259(c) and also to the definitions of  X- x"telecommunications services and equipment" in Section 3 of the 1934 Act, as amended.n=zT yO&-#C\  P6Q/P#э 47 U.S.C.  153(45), (46).n  xAdditionally, we seek comment on whether there might be any type of planned deployments that" =,N(N(ZZ;"  x\would require incumbent LECs to notify qualifying carriers under Section 259 but might not require public notice under Section 251(c)(5).  X- ` }x!34. ` ` We also seek comment on the type of "information" on planned deployments that  X- xincumbent LECs must provide to parties to Section 259 agreements.@>T yO-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  259(c).@ We believe that, in order  xto ensure the effectiveness of the sharing agreements, a certain minimum level of information  xymay be necessary to assist qualifying carriers in adjusting to deployments of new services and  xequipment. We request comment on whether the Commission should require that an incumbent  xLEC provide to the qualifying carrier the following information: 1) the date changes are to occur;  x-2) the location at which changes will occur; 3) the type of changes; 4) the reasonably foreseeable  xMimpact of those changes, including pricing implications; and 5) a contact person to provide  xsupplemental information. Would these requirements provide a sufficient level of specificity to  xallow carriers to make informed and timely adjustments to planned deployments? Does Section  X - x259(c), by requiring incumbent LECs to provide "information on planned deployments"E? XT {O-ԍ Id. (emphasis added).E rather  X -than mere "notice"{@ T {O[-#C\  P6Q/P#э See, e.g., 47 U.S.C.  251(c)(5).{ of planned deployments, contemplate some more specific type of guidance?  X- ` x"35. ` ` We seek comment on what constitutes "timely" information. Should the  xlCommission establish a timetable for providing information, as the Commission did in its  Xd- ximplementation of Section 251(c)(5)?Ad|T {O-#C\  P6Q/P#э Local Competition Second Report and Order at  214, et seq.ğ If so, what would be an appropriate timetable? In  xaddition, we note that Section 259 requires notification of parties to Section 259 agreements, but  x.does not appear to require notice to the general public. We seek comment on the implications  x>of such a distinction. We tentatively conclude that the public notice provisions of Section  x[251(c)(5) do not suffice to meet the requirement of Section 259(c) that incumbent LECs provide  xnotice to the parties to Section 259 agreements? We also seek comment on how the information  xNon planned deployments should be communicated to parties. Should we require written notification to affected parties?  X- ` x#36. ` ` We also seek comment on the need for safeguards to ensure that competitively xsensitive, proprietary, or trade secret information of the incumbent LEC is not compromised. We  xseek comment on the use of nondisclosure agreements between parties to infrastructure sharing  xagreements as a means of protecting this type of information. Finally, we seek comment on what  xenforcement mechanisms, if any, should be employed to ensure compliance with the Section  x259(c) requirements. Would the Commission's existing enforcement authority be adequate to ensure compliance?  X- D.xQualifying Carriers under Section 259(d) "A,N(N(ZZ;"Ԍx  X- ` x$37. ` ` Section 259(d)(1) defines a qualifying carrier as one that "lacks economies of scale  xor scope, as determined in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Commission pursuant  X- x>to this section."CBT yO4-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  259(d)(1).C "Economies of scale" exist where a lower unit cost of production can be  xachieved by a production process that is designed to produce a larger total quantity of a particular  X- xproduct or service._C\XT yO-Ѝ Economies of scale exist where relatively large producers can supply their products at a lower average  {O^ -cost per unit than relatively small producers. See F.M. Scherer and David Ross, Industrial Market Structure and  {O( -Economic Performance 97 (1990)._ Similarly, "economies of scope" exist where two or more products or  Xv- xservices can be produced at a lower total cost if they are produced jointly rather than separately.Dv|T yO -#X\  P6G;/P#э Economies of scope exist where it is less costly for a single firm to produce a bundle of goods or services together than it is for two or more firms, each specializing in distinct product lines, to produce them separately.  {O3-See, e.g., John C. Panzar and Robert D. Willig, Economies of Scope, 71 American Economic Review of Papers  {O-and Proceedings 268 (1981); William J. Baumol, John C. Panzar, and Robert D. Willig, Contestable Markets and  {O-the Theory of Industry Structure 7179 (1982); Daniel F. Spulber, Regulation and Markets 114115 (1989).  x-We request comment generally on how to determine whether a qualifying carrier lacks economies  XH- xof scale or scope. Are there classes of carriers that would, per se, qualify as lacking economies  xMof scale or scope? We noted above that Congress might have intended Section 259 for the  x[benefit of smaller carriers. Should our Section 259(d)(1) inquiry assume a relationship between  x[carrier size, however defined, and a determination that the carrier either has or lacks economies  xof scale or scope? We could, for example, create a presumption that a telecommunications  xcarrier "lacks economies of scale or scope" if its operations are within the limitations on service  x[area and access lines set forth in the definition of "rural telephone company" in Section (3)(37)  X - x\of the Act.LE 2 T {O-ԍ See 47 U.S.C.  153(37). L Should the Commission determine whether carriers lack economies of scale or  xLscope at the holding company level or at some other level? We note the apparently expansive  xscope of Section 259(a) which includes public switched infrastructure, technology, information,  Xd- xand telecommunications facilities and functions.@Fd T yO-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  259(a).@ Could a carrier lack economies of scale or  xiscope and, thus, qualify for infrastructure sharing pursuant to Section 259, for only some facilities  xor services available under Section 259(a), but have economies of scope or scale with respect to  xother facilities or services? Could certain incumbent LECs lack economies of scale or scope,  xand, thus, meet the Section 259(d)(1) definition of qualifying carrier and, nevertheless, also be  X- xrequired to provide "public switched network infrastructure, technology, information, and  xtelecommunications facilities and functions" to other qualifying carriers? We tentatively conclude  xthat a factor to be considered in whether an otherwise qualifying carrier lacks economies of scale  x/or scope is the cost of the investment that the carrier would incur to acquire on its own the  xrequested infrastructure, relative to the cost that it would incur to obtain the requested"T F,N(N(ZZQ"  xMinfrastructure from the incumbent LEC. We seek comment on all these issues and tentative conclusions.  X- ` nx%38. ` ` Section 259(d)(2) adds the additional requirement that a "qualifying carrier" is one  xthat "offers telephone exchange service, exchange access, and any other service that is included  xjin universal service, to all consumers without preference throughout the service area for which  Xv- xsuch carrier has been designated as an eligible telecommunications carrier under Section 214(e).GvT yO-#C\  P6Q/P##C\  P6Q/P#э 47 U.S.C.  259(d)(2).  xA FederalState Joint Board on universal service has recently recommended that the Commission  xjadopt the statutory criteria set out in Section 214(e)(1) as its rule for determining which carriers  X1- xare eligible to receive universal service support.H1XT {O: -#C\  P6Q/P#Ѝ 47 U.S.C.  254. See also Joint Board Recommendation on Universal Service at  155, et seq. In addition, the Joint Board recommended that  xjcarriers be required to provide the following services or functionalities in order to be eligible to  x=receive universal service support: voice grade access to the public switched network with the  xability to place and receive calls; touch tone or dual tone multifrequency signaling or its  xfunctional equivalent; singleparty service; access to emergency services; access to operator  X - xZservices; access to interexchange services; and access to directory assistance.I T {OY-#C\  P6Q/P#э 47 U.S.C.  214(e)(1)(A); See Joint Board Recommendation on Universal Service at  45, et seq. The Joint Board  x0further recommended that eligible carriers offer lifeline assistance to eligible lowincome  xconsumers and provide access to toll blocking and limitation services for qualifying low income  Xy- xconsumers, to the extent eligible carriers are capable of providing such services.ZJy|T {O-#C\  P6Q/P#э Id.Z The  xLCommission, pursuant to Section 254(a)(2), must complete a proceeding to implement the Joint  XK- xBoard's recommendations on or before May 8, 1997.jKKT yO -#C\  P6Q/P#э 47 U.S.C.  254(a)(2).j Consequently, the Commission need not consider or construe Section 259(d)(2) in this rulemaking.  X- IV. PROCEDURAL ISSUES  X-  X< A.xEx Parte Presentations  X- ` Bx&39. ` ` This is a nonrestricted noticeandcomment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte  xypresentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided that they are  X- xdisclosed as provided in the Commission's rules.iLT {O#-ԍ See generally 47 C.F.R.  1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206. i Written submissions, however, will be limited  Xh-as discussed below.lMh0 T {OI&-#C\  P6Q/P#э See infra Part IV. D.l "Q M,N(N(ZZ?"Ԍ X- B.xInitial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis  X- ` x'40. ` ` As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C.   x603, the Commission has prepared the following Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)  xof the expected significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules proposed  xin the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Implementation of Infrastructure Sharing Provisions in  Xv- xthe Telecommunications Act of 1996 (NPRM or Infrastructure Sharing NPRM). Written public  xcomments are requested on this IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the  XJ- xsame filing deadlines set for comments on the other issues in the NPRM but they must have a  xseparate and distinct heading designating them as responses to this IRFA. The Secretary shall  X - xKsend a copy of this Infrastructure Sharing NPRM including the IRFA, set out below, to the Chief  xjCounsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with Section 603(a)  X -of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.<N T yOk -ԍ 5 U.S.C.  603.<  X - ` x(41. ` ` Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules: The Commission is issuing this  X - x\NPRM to implement the infrastructure sharing provisions in Section 259 of the 1934 Act, as  xadded by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Section 259 directs the Commission, within one  xyear after the date of enactment of the 1996 Act, to prescribe regulations that require incumbent  xkLECs to make certain "public switched network infrastructure, technology, information, and  x-telecommunications facilities and functions" available to any qualifying carrier in the service area  xKin which the qualifying carrier has requested and obtained designation as an eligible carrier under  X'-Section 214(e).O'XT {O0-#C\  P6Q/P#э 47 U.S.C.  259. See also 47 U.S.C.  214(e)(1).  X- ` nx)42. ` ` Legal Basis for the Proposed Rules: The legal basis for action as proposed in the  X- xNPRM is Sections 15, 201205, 218, and 259 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151155, 201205, 218, and 259.  X- ` nx*43. ` ` Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to which the Proposed  X- x<Rules will apply: For the purposes of this analysis, we examined the relevant definition of "small  x\entity" or "small business" and applied this definition to identify those entities that may be  X`- xxaffected by the rules proposed in this NPRM. The RFA defines a "small business" to be the same  xNas a "small business concern" under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632, unless the  X4- xCommission has developed one or more definitions that are appropriate to its activities.P4T {O"-#C\  P6Q/P#Ѝ See 5 U.S.C.  601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of "small business concern" in 5 U.S.C.  632). Under  xthe Small Business Act, a "small business concern" is one that: (1) is independently owned and  xoperated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria"DP,N(N(ZZ<"  X- xestablished by the Small Business Administration (SBA).QT {Oy-#C\  P6Q/P#Ѝ 15 U.S.C.  632.  See, e.g., Brown Transport Truckload, Inc. v. Southern Wipers, Inc., 176 B.R. 82, 89 (N.D. Ga. 1994). Moreover, the SBA has defined a  x>small business for Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories 4812 (Radiotelephone  xCommunications) and 4813 (Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone) to be small  X-entities when they have fewer than 1,500 employees.hR"T yO-#C\  P6Q/P#э 13 C.F.R.  121.201.h  X- ` Qx+44. ` ` Section 259 of the 1934 Act, as added by the 1996 Act, establishes a variety of  Xv- xinfrastructure sharing obligations.dSvT yO -#C\  P6Q/P#э 47 U.S.C.  259.d Many of the obligations proposed in the Infrastructure  Xa- xSharing NPRM would apply solely to providing incumbent LECs.~TaBT {OT-#C\  P6Q/P#э See, e.g., 47 U.S.C.  259(a).~ Also potentially affected by  xjthese proposed rules are the class of carriers designated as "qualifying carriers" under Section  X5- x>259.lU5T yO-#C\  P6Q/P#э 47 U.S.C.  259(a), (d).l Qualifying carriers will likely include small local exchange carriers and many of these carriers are likely to be small business concerns for the purposes of RFA analysis.  X - ` x,45. ` ` Consistent with our prior practice, we shall continue to exclude small incumbent  xLECs from the definition of "small entity" and "small business concerns" for the purpose of this  xIRFA. We believe that incumbent LECs do not qualify as small businesses because they are  X - xydominant in their field of operation.pV d T {O-#C\  P6Q/P#э See 5 U.S.C.  605(b).p However, out of an abundance of caution and prudence,  xin this IRFA we shall include a discussion of the number of small incumbent LECs affected by  xthese proposed rules to remove any possible issue of RFA compliance. Therefore, we shall use  xthe distinct term "small incumbent LECs" to refer to any incumbent LECs that conceivably might  xbe defined by the SBA at a subsequent date as "small business concerns" despite our conclusions that they are dominant in their fields of operation. We seek comment on the conclusions above.  X - ` `x-46. ` ` We are first required to estimate the number of small incumbent LECs that may  xbe affected by the proposed decisions and rules. Although neither the Commission nor the SBA  xhas developed a definition of small providers of local exchange services, we have two  ximethodologies available to us for making these estimates. The closest applicable definition under  xkSBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless)  x<companies (SIC 4813) (Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone). The Census Bureau  xyreports that there were 2,321 such telephone companies in operation for at least one year at the" V,N(N(ZZP"  X- xend of 1992.0WT {Oy-#C\  P6Q/P#э United States Department of Census, Bureau of the Census, 1992 Census of Transportation,  {OC-Communications, and Utilities: Establishment and Firm Size, at Firm Size 1123 (1995) ("1992 Census").0 According to the SBA's definition, a nonradiotelephone company qualifies as a  X- x"small entity" when it employs fewer than 1,500 persons.X$T yO-#C\  P6Q/P#э 13 C.F.R.  121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 4812. Of the 2,321 nonradiotelephone  x.companies listed by the Census Bureau, 2,295 companies (or, all but 26) were reported to have  x.fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, at least 2,295 nonradiotelephone companies might qualify  x/as small incumbent LECs or small entities based on these employment statistics. However,  xbecause it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated,  x<this figure necessarily overstates the actual number of nonradiotelephone companies that would  xqualify as "small business concerns" under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate  x=using this methodology that there are fewer than 2,295 small entity telephone communications  xcompanies (other than radiotelephone companies) that may be affected by the proposed decisions and rules and we seek comment on this conclusion.  X - ` x.47. ` ` Our alternative method for estimation utilizes the data that we collect annually in  x=connection with the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS). This data provides us with the  xNmost reliable source of information of which we are aware regarding the number of LECs  xxnationwide. According to our most recent data, 1,347 companies reported that they were engaged  X- xMin the provision of local exchange services.Y^T {O-#C\  P6Q/P#Ѝ Federal Communications Commission, CCB, Industry Analysis Division, Telecommunications Industry  {O-Revenue: TRS Fund Worksheet Data, Tbl. 21 (Average Total Telecommunications Revenue Reported by Class of  {O-Carrier) (Feb. 1996) ("TRS Worksheet"). Although it seems certain that some of these  xcarriers are not independently owned and operated (prong 1 of the SBA definition of small  Xb- x<business concerns as set out supra), or have more than 1,500 employees (prong 3), we are unable  xat this time to estimate with greater precision the number of incumbent LECs that would qualify  xas small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are  xfewer than 1,347 small LECs (including small incumbent LECs) that may be affected by the  X-actions proposed in this NPRM.  X- ` x/48. ` ` The proposals in this NPRM apply not only to the providing incumbent LECs that  xare required to enter into infrastructure sharing agreements pursuant to Section 259, but also to  xlqualifying carriers. Qualifying carriers are telecommunications carriers that meet the two  xrequirements set out in Section 259(d). Because Section 259(d)(1) limits qualifying carriers to  xthose carriers that "lack economies of scale or scope," it is likely that there will be small business  Xk- xconcerns affected by the rules proposed in this NPRM. We note, however, that the definition of  x"qualifying carriers" is dependent on the Commission's decisions in the universal service  X?- xproceeding.sZ^?T {O%-#C\  P6Q/P#э 47 U.S.C.  259(d)(2). See FederalState Joint Board on Universal Service, Notice of Proposed  {O&-Rulemaking and Order Establishing Joint Board, CC Docket No. 9645, FCC 9693 (re. Mar. 8, 1996)  {O^'-("Universal Service NPRM").s Until the Commission issues an order pursuant to the Universal Service NPRM that"? Z,N(N(ZZ"  x[addresses Section 214(e) eligibility issues, it is not feasible to define the number of "qualifying  X-carriers" that may be "small business concerns."c[ZT {Ob-Ѝ See Universal Service NPRM; see also Joint Board Recommendation on Universal Service (recommending eligibility criteria for carriers seeking universal service support). We note that the Commission must complete a proceeding to implement the Joint Board's recommendations on or before May 8, 1997.c  X- ` x049. ` ` Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and other Compliance  X- xyRequirements: As discussed in Part III. A., incumbent LECs may be required to make available  xNto defined qualifying carriers "such public switched network infrastructure, technology,  xinformation, and telecommunications facilities and functions as may be requested by such  Xc- x[qualifying carrier[s]."g\cT yO -#C\  P6Q/P#э 47 U.S.C.  259(a).g We believe that compliance with such requests may require the use of  xlegal, engineering, technical, operational, and administrative skills. In addition, incumbent LECs  xare required to file with the Commission or state for public inspection any tariffs, contracts or  xother arrangements showing the conditions under which an incumbent LEC is making available  X - xpublic switched infrastructure and functions.] zT {O2-#C\  P6Q/P#э 47 U.S.C.  259(b)(7); see supra Part III. B. Should a small incumbent LEC be subject to this  x=requirement, we anticipate that it will require use of legal and administrative skills. The statute  x\also requires incumbent LECs to provide "timely information on the planned deployment of  X - xtelecommunications services and equipment" to any parties to infrastructure sharing agreements.^ T {O-#C\  P6Q/P#э 47 U.S.C.  259(c); see supra Part III. C.  xShould a small incumbent LEC be subject to this requirement, we anticipate that it will require  xuse of engineering, technical, operational, and administrative skills. We seek comment on the  x=impact of these proposals on small entities. We seek comment on whether the entities subject  xto Section 259 will otherwise have the personnel or other resources to meet Section 259  XO- xrequirements as a result of their efforts to comply with other provisions of the 1996 Act, i.e., Section 251.  X - ` x150. ` ` Significant Alternatives to Proposed Rules which Minimize Significant Economic  X- xImpact on Small Entities and Accomplish Stated Objectives: We anticipate that the impact of this  xproceeding should be beneficial to small businesses since they may be able to share infrastructure  xwith larger incumbent LECs, in certain circumstances, enabling small carriers to provide  xtelecommunication services or information services that they otherwise might not be able to  X- xprovide without building or buying their own facilities.g_T yO"-#C\  P6Q/P#э 47 U.S.C.  259(a).g The Infrastructure Sharing NPRM  x-contains a detailed set of questions to allow commenters to assist the Commission in interpreting  xSection 259, including the following significant provisions of Section 259 that may impact small entities. "C. _,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ X- ` px251. ` ` Section 259(a) requires the Commission to adopt regulations to ensure that  xlincumbent LECs make available, to defined qualifying carriers, "public switched network  X- x\infrastructure, technology, information, and telecommunications facilities and functions."`T {OK-#C\  P6Q/P#э 47 U.S.C.  259(a); see supra Part III. A.  xQualifying carriers are defined in Section 259(d) as carriers that lack economies of scale or scope  xand that request and obtain designation to receive universal service support pursuant to Section  x214(e). As a result of this limitation on the carriers that qualify for Section 259 sharing  xarrangements, we ask whether, in fact, the purpose of Section 259 is to benefit small carriers.  xLIn addition, we ask whether there is a relationship between carrier size, however defined, and a  xjdetermination that the carrier either has or lacks economies of scale or scope. Additionally, we  xask whether certain incumbent LECs could lack economies of scale or scope, and, thus, meet the  X - x.Section 259(d)(1) definition of qualifying carrier and, nevertheless, also be required to provide  x "public switched network infrastructure, technology, information, and telecommunications facilities and functions" to other qualifying carriers.  X - ` x352. ` ` In addition, the statute directs the Commission to refrain from requiring actions  X - xby incumbent LECs that are economically unreasonable or contrary to the public interest.ja ZT yO-#C\  P6Q/P#э 47 U.S.C.  259(b)(1).j The  xCommission may permit, but may not require, joint ownership of infrastructure, and must provide  x|that incumbent LECs are not treated as common carriers by virtue of their Section 259  Xd- x\obligations.jbdT yO-#C\  P6Q/P#э 47 U.S.C.  259(b)(2).j In this NPRM, we seek comment on how to implement the above provisions.  xSection 259(b)(4) further directs the Commission to establish guidelines implementing  xinfrastructure sharing on just and reasonable terms where qualifying carriers "fully benefit" from  xthe economies of scale and scope enjoyed by incumbents, and to act so as to promote cooperation  X - xbetween LECs.jc zT yO5-#C\  P6Q/P#э 47 U.S.C.  259(b)(4).j In construing Section 259(b)(4), we ask whether Section 259 conveys to the  xCommission the power to establish pricing rules or guidelines for public switched network  xZinfrastructure, technology, information, and telecommunications facilities and functions. We also  X-ask questions about how such pricing authority could be implemented.md T {O-#C\  P6Q/P#э See supra Part III. B.m  X- ` x453. ` ` Section 259(c) requires local exchange carriers that have entered into infrastructure  x2sharing agreements to provide "timely information on the planned deployment of  Xi- xtelecommunications services and equipment . . . ."geiT yO$-#C\  P6Q/P#э 47 U.S.C.  259(c).g In the NPRM, we seek comment on how"i, e,N(N(ZZ"  xthe Commission both can implement Section 259(c) and promote the goal shared by Congress  X-and the Commission of reducing duplicative administrative requirements.mfT {Ob-#C\  P6Q/P#э See supra Part III. C.m  X- ` x554. ` ` Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules:  X- xThe NPRM tentatively concludes that the implementation of Section 259 should be  x>complementary to the implementation of other sections of the 1996 Act and asks questions  Xz- xdesigned to explore that complementary relationship. The NPRM, for example, addresses the  xrelationship between the infrastructure sharing requirements in Section 259 and the competitive  XN-access requirements in Sections 251 and 252.mgNZT {OY -#C\  P6Q/P#э See supra Part III. A.m  X - C.xInitial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis  X - ` x655. ` ` This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contains either a proposed or modified  x[information collection. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite  xthe general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to  X - xcomment on the information collections contained in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, as  xrequired by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 10413. Public and agency  X- xcomments are due at the same time as other comments on this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking;  Xn- xzOMB comments are due 60 days from the date of the publication of this Notice of Proposed  XY- xRulemaking in the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed  xNcollection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the  xCommission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of  xthe Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the  xinformation collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on  xrespondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.  X- D.xComment Filing Procedures  Xu- ` x756. ` ` General. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419  xof the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415, 1.419, interested parties shall file comments not  x?later than December 20, 1996, and reply comments not later than January 3, 1997. To file  xformally in this proceeding, you must file an original and twelve copies of all comments, reply  xZcomments, and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy  x/of your comments, you must file an original and 16 copies. Comments and reply comments  xshould be sent to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,  xRoom 222, Washington, D.C. 20554, with copies to: Thomas J. Beers, Common Carrier Bureau,  x[Industry Analysis Division, 2033 M Street, N.W., Room 500, Washington, D.C. 20554; Scott K.  xBergmann, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, 2033 M Street, N.W., Room""g,N(N(ZZ!"  x500, Washington, D.C. 20554; and, Kalpak Gude, Common Carrier Bureau, Policy and Program  xzPlanning Division, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 544, Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties should  x>file one copy of any documents filed in this docket with the Commission's copy contractor,  xzInternational Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C.  xM20037. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular  xbusiness hours in the FCC Reference Center, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 239, Washington, D.C. 20554.  XH- ` x857. ` ` Other requirements. In order to facilitate review of comments and reply comments,  xboth by parties and Commission staff, we require that comments be no longer than thirty (30)  xpages and reply comments be no longer than twenty (20) pages, including exhibits, appendices,  x[and affidavits of expert witnesses. Empirical economic studies, copies of relevant state orders,  xjand proposed rules will not be counted against these page limits. These page limits will not be  xwaived and will be strictly enforced. Comments and reply comments must include a short and  xyconcise summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading although a summary that  xzdoes not exceed three pages will not count towards the 30 page limit for comments or the 20  xpage limit for reply comments. The summary may be paginated from the rest of the pleading  X{- x(e.g., "i. ii"). Comments and reply comments must also comply with Section 1.49 and all other  Xf- xapplicable sections of the Commission's rules.yhfT {O-#C\  P6Q/P#э See 47 C.F.R.  1.49.y We also direct all interested parties to include  x[the name of the filing party and the date of the filing on each page of their comments and reply comments.  X - ` Px958. ` ` Parties are also asked to submit comments and reply comments on diskette. Such  x|diskette submissions would be in addition to and not a substitute for the formal filing  xrequirements addressed above. Parties submitting diskettes should submit them to: Scott K.  xBergmann, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, 2033 M Street, N.W., Room  x500, Washington, D.C. 20554. Such diskettes should be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in an  xIBM compatible format using WordPerfect 5.1 for Windows software. The diskette should be  xsubmitted in "read only" mode. The diskette should be clearly labeled with the party's name,  x-proceeding, type of pleading (comment or reply comments) and date of submission. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter.  X$- ` 3x:59. ` ` Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information  xcollections are due December 20, 1996, and reply comments are due January 3, 1997. Written  xcomments must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed  x\and/or modified information collections on or before 60 days after date of publication in the  xFederal Register. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on  xLthe information collections contained herein should be submitted to Dorothy Conway, Federal  xMCommunications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, or  xvia the Internet to dconway@fcc.gov and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20503 or via the Internet to fain_t@al.eop.gov. "l$Zh,N(N(ZZF#"Ԍ X-     X- VI. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  X- ` x;60. ` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 15, 201205, 218 and  x/259 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151155, 201205, 218 and 259, a NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING is hereby ADOPTED.  Xa- ` x<61. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Secretary shall send a copy of this NOTICE  xOF PROPOSED RULEMAKING, including the regulatory flexibility certification, to the Chief  x<Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a)  X -of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.  601 et seq. (1981). x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhWilliam F. Caton x` `  hhActing Secretary