WPCSW 2MBVRKZ3|j 7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 5SiHPLAS5SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\p&FXP2 b93|j Body Text 2bilitH#XP\  P6QynXP#footnote referencefootnote reference 2'K Z]rX"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 5SiHPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\p&FX@ X-#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#  NORMAL2 vYpk? k a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# 2p G v tb  a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style Style yXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography :X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers :`S@ I.  X(# 2M  E  a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersL! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersUj` `  @ a. ` (# 2>a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers_o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 28Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 2Fa2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   2#f3a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:#)p#*A$+$Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g(*    Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g)  ` ` ` Right Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g*8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g+A@` ` `  ` ` ` 2<(,%-5&.&/'Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g,0     Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g-J` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g.S` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g/\` ` `  @hhh hhh 2+0n(1-)2)3*Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g0e` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g1n` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g2w` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g3F    ׃  2-4+57,6,7X-Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g4&!"  . Technical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g5&#$  . Technical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g6*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g7''(   2m08.9.:c/;/Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g8&)*   Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g94+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g:&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g;&/0  . 2l?<v 0=o=>=?i>MACNormal<;     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#Footnote=Íčfootnote tex#>'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#header?Ax 4 <D  #FxX  Pg9CXP# 2vD@?A~1@BiAC^Creference@;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1A&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2BI ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# heading 3CF` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# 2,HDODE EFGGgGfooter!D!!#d\  PCP#CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileEW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded DocumentFiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#FM7V,,6%TriangleoF4=(g4O7V ,*g4çFM7VEG/02OH^HI2,IJ2^KK2MDefault Para,6%Default Paragraph FontO7V -*g4çFM7VEH;1;2#Xx6X@QX@##d6X@Q@#toc 1M7V.,6%toc 1ToF4=(g4O7V .*g4çFM7VEI34!(#B` hp x (#toc 2M7V/,6%toc 2ToF4=(g4O7V /*g4çFM7VEJ56` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3M7V0,6%toc 3ToF4=(g4O7V 0*g4çFM7VEK78` !(# ` hp x (#2WL2OM2&RN2XTOVtoc 4M7V1,6%toc 4ToF4=(g4O7V 1*g4çFM7VEL9: !(# ` hp x (#toc 5M7V2,6%toc 5ToF4=(g4O7V 2*g4çFM7VEM;<h!(# ` hp x (#toc 6M7V3,6%toc 6ToF4=(g4O7V 3*g4çFM7VEN=>!(#` hp x (#toc 7M7V4,6%toc 7ToF4=(g4O7V 4*g4çFM7VEO?@2`P2FWQ2xYR2[S2]toc 8M7V5,6%toc 8ToF4=(g4O7V 5*g4çFM7VEPAB!(#` hp x (#toc 9M7V6,6%toc 9ToF4=(g4O7V 6*g4çFM7VEQCD!(#B` hp x (#index 17V7,6%index 1ToF4=(g4O7V 7*g4çFM7VEREF` !(# ` hp x (#index 27V8,6%index 2ToF4=(g4O7V 8*g4çFM7VESGH` !(#B` hp x (#2dT2@`UrbVJcWdtoa heading,6%toa heading4=(g4O7V 9*g4çFM7VETIJ!(# ` hp x (#caption7V:,6%captionToF4=(g4O7V :*g4çFM7VEUEK;L#Xx6X@QX@##d6X@Q@#_Equation Ca,6%_Equation Captiong4O7V ;*g4çFM7VEV;M;N#Xx6X@QX@##d6X@Q@#_Equation Caption_Equation CaptionW11#Xx6X@DQX@##d6X@DQ@#2:gX}eYeZ f[fa1Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FX$ a2Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FY/ a3Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FZ: a4Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%F[E 2Rj\lg]h^h_ia5Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%F\P   a6Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%F][   a7Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%F^f  a8Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%F_q 2l`ja!kbkcpKlHeading7=4@6FChapter Heading=('87=F4*'Ç.7=.E`3  *  ׃  Right Par5@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.Ea<@    Subheading@6FSubheading>_' =('87=F7*'Ç.7=.Eb.   2*Ç.7=G@6FDocument Style=('87=FG*'Ç.7=.Ec56` ` ` 2ndqlee^mfemg(n3*Ç.7=H@6FDocument Style=('87=FH*'Ç.7=.Ed7 8 . 4*Ç.7=I@6FDocument Style=('87=FI*'Ç.7=.Ee 9: 5*Ç.7=J@6FDocument Style=('87=FJ*'Ç.7=.Ef ;< 6*Ç.7=K@6FDocument Style=('87=FK*'Ç.7=.Eg*=>   2qhpni]ojokp7*Ç.7=L@6FDocument Style=('87=FL*'Ç.7=.Eh?@` ` ` 8*Ç.7=M@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.Ei8AB@   9*Ç.7=N@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.EjACD@` `  ` ` ` 10Ç.7=O@6FDocument Style=('87=FO*'Ç.7=.Ek0E F    2tlQqmqnroXs11Ç.7=P@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.ElJGH` ` @  ` `  12Ç.7=Q@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.EmSIJ` `  @  13Ç.7=R@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.En\KL` `  @hh# hhh 14Ç.7=S@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.EoeMN` `  hh#@( hh# 2!wpItqurusv15Ç.7=T@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.EpnOP` `  hh#(@- ( 16Ç.7=U@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.EqwQR` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 17Ç.7=V@6FDocument Style=('87=FV*'Ç.7=.ErFST *  ׃  18Ç.7=W@6FTechnical Document Style7=FW*'Ç.7=.Es&UV  . 2ytSwuwvtxw y19Ç.7=X@6FTechnical Document Style7=FX*'Ç.7=.Et&WX  . 20Ç.7=Y@6FTechnical Document Style7=FY*'Ç.7=.Eu*YZ    21Ç.7=Z@6FTechnical Document Style7=FZ*'Ç.7=.Ev'[\   22Ç.7=[@6FTechnical Document Style7=F[*'Ç.7=.Ew&]^   26|xyyzz{{{23Ç.7=\@6FTechnical Document Style7=F\*'Ç.7=.Ex4_$`     24Ç.7=]@6FTechnical Document Style7=F]*'Ç.7=.Ey&ab  . 25Ç.7=^@6FTechnical Document Style7=F^*'Ç.7=.Ez&cd  . Format Downl@6FFormat Downloaded Document=Fc*'Ç.7=.E{Ugh XX    X\ #d6X@7@#2τ|h|}"}~@Word222Null@6FWord222Null_' =('87=Fp*'Ç.7=.E|1{1|#/x PX##/x PX#HEADING 7t@6FJ>_' =('87=Ft*'Ç.7=.E}0p Zwp x (#DDDDDD#&n P&P# 4 hp x (##&n P&P# HEADING 6v@6Ff>_' =('87=Fv*'Ç.7=.E~0p Zwp x (#DDDDDD#&n P&P# 4 hp x (##&n P&P# HEADING 5w@6F>_' =('87=Fw*'Ç.7=.E0p Zwp x (#DDDDDD#&n P&P# 4 hp x (##&n P&P# 2Kw*HEADING 4x@6F>_' =('87=Fx*'Ç.7=.E0 Zwp x (#rr#&n P&P# 4 hp x (##&n P&P# NORMAL INDEN@6F>_' =('87=Fy*'Ç.7=.E'4 <DL!T$#&n P&P##&n P&P#enumlev1=z@6F>_' =('87=Fz*'Ç.7=.E$p  N hp x (#aa#&n P&P#4` hp x (##&n P &P#footnote ref@6Ffootnote reference'87=F{*'Ç.7=.ER#V\  P!UP#2c}эgpage number@6Fpage number_' =('87=F~*'Ç.7=.E226Ç.7=@6Ffootnote text =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E>4??USlist.7=@6Flist >_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E>??endnote refe@6Fendnote reference'87=F*'Ç.7=.ERR#Xj\  P"G;XP##c P#7P#2}1בline number@6Fline number_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.EOO#Xj\  P$G;XP##c P%7P#Highlight@6FMiddle Article Highlight7=F*'Ç.7=.E''#G }&Y##\9> (P'YP#Headline=@6FHeadline for newsletter87=F*'Ç.7=.E''#> }(Y##\9> (P)YP#2nd line Hea@6F2nd line headline'87=F*'Ç.7=.E''#b> }*Y##\9> (P+YP#2[Graphics hea@6FHeadlines for graphics87=F*'Ç.7=.E** #o> P},YP##\9> (P-YP# Graphics bod@6Fchart data _' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E** #Alo> P}.YXP##\9> (P/YP# Article head@6FHeadline for new article7=F*'Ç.7=.E*'#r"z0C# #\9> (P1YP# endnote text@6Fendnote text' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.EYO#X}xP27XP##I2P3QP#2F+ݘp27Ç.7=@6FDefault Paragraph Font87=F*'Ç.7=.Eww#X}xP87XP##&sxP97&P#HEADING 9@6F >_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E'34 <DL!T$#c P:7P##c P;7P#HEADING 8@6F >_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E'34 <DL!T$#c P<7P##c P=7P#28Ç.7=@6FDocument Style=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E` ` ` 2q1eel29Ç.7=@6FDocument Style=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E  . 30Ç.7=@6FDocument Style=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E  31Ç.7=@6FDocument Style=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E  32Ç.7=@6FDocument Style=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E*   2cp13Ξ33Ç.7=@6FDocument Style=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E` ` ` 34Ç.7=@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.E8@   35Ç.7=@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.EA@` `  ` ` ` 36Ç.7=@6FDocument Style=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E0    2[937Ç.7=@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.EJ` ` @  ` `  38Ç.7=@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.ES` `  @  39Ç.7=@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.E\` `  @hh# hhh 40Ç.7=@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 2eU&41Ç.7=@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.En` `  hh#(@- ( 42Ç.7=@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 43Ç.7=@6FDocument Style=('87=F*'Ç.7=.EF *  ׃  44Ç.7=@6FTechnical Document Style7=F*'Ç.7=.E&  . 2M45Ç.7=@6FTechnical Document Style7=F*'Ç.7=.E&  . 46Ç.7=@6FTechnical Document Style7=F*'Ç.7=.E*    47Ç.7=@6FTechnical Document Style7=F*'Ç.7=.E'   48Ç.7=@6FTechnical Document Style7=F*'Ç.7=.E&   2gèHͩ49Ç.7=@6FTechnical Document Style7=F*'Ç.7=.E4$     50Ç.7=@6FTechnical Document Style7=F*'Ç.7=.E&  . 51Ç.7=@6FTechnical Document Style7=F*'Ç.7=.E&  . 52Ç.7=@6F: >_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E'4 <DL!T$#&n P>&P##&n P?&P#2%/Q53Ç.7=@6Ffootnote reference'87=F*'Ç.7=.E>#V\  P@UP#54Ç.7=@6FDefault Paragraph Font87=F*'Ç.7=.E55Ç.7=@6Ffootnote text =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E* ??US56Ç.7=@6Fendnote reference'87=F*'Ç.7=.E>>#Xj\  PAG;XP##B\  PBUP#2RWd%-57Ç.7=@6F_Equation Caption'87=F*'Ç.7=.E;;#XX2PCQXP##I2PDQP#HIGHLIGHT 1@6FItalics and Bold('87=F*'Ç.7=.E DRAFT ON=@6FHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date*'Ç.7=.E X 8#x6X@E7X@#`] (#EDRAFTă `;(#@D3 1, 4D  ӷDRAFT OFF@6FTurn Draft Style off87=F*'Ç.7=.ED      2cccJcLETTER LAND@6FLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5F*'Ç.7=.E    '3   LEGAL LAND@6FLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5=F*'Ç.7=.E   'A   LETTER PORT@6FLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11=F*'Ç.7=.E  3'   LEGAL PORT@6FLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 147=F*'Ç.7=.E  A'   2nBd1jTITLE7=@6FTitle of a Document87=F*'Ç.7=.E* ăBLOCK QUOTE@6FSmall, single-spaced, indented*'Ç.7=.E HIGHLIGHT 2@6FLarge and Bold=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E HIGHLIGHT 3@6FLarge, Italicized and Underscored*'Ç.7=.E  2J1I<LETTERHEAD@6FLetterhead - date/margins7=F*'Ç.7=.E!  X  3'   * 3' Ѓ   INVOICE FEE@6FFee Amount for Math InvoiceF*'Ç.7=.E F, $0  MEMORANDUM@6FMemo Page Format('87=F*'Ç.7=.E   * M E M O R A N D U M ă y<N dddy INVOICE EXP@6FExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice*'Ç.7=.E!" ,p, $02<|[9[INVOICE TOT@6FTotals Invoice for Math Macro*'Ç.7=.E#$ p,p, $0INVOICE HEAD@6FHeading Portion of Math Invoice*'Ç.7=.E%&   p,X 9 I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#x6X@F7X@# XX  *$HHީ  ӧ   XX  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)Ҳ#x6X@G7X@# XX  *$HHީSMALL7=@6FSmall Typestyle=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E'(FINE.7=@6FFine Typestyle=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E)*2[![|[2LARGE7=@6FLarge Typestyle=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E+,EXTRA LARGE@6FExtra Large Typestyle87=F*'Ç.7=.E-.VERY LARGE@6FVery Large Typestyle87=F*'Ç.7=.E/0ENVELOPE=@6FStandard Business Envelope with Header'Ç.7=.E.12 V,  X  , 8 I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#x6X@H7X@#    `   2 6s"Style 14=@6FSwiss 8 Pt Without Margins=F*'Ç.7=.E'3'4#Co> PIQP##)a [ PJQ)P#Style 12=@6FDutch Italics 11.5'87=F*'Ç.7=.E'5'6#)^ `> XiKQ)X##)a [ PLQ)P#Style 11=@6FInitial Codes for Advanced II*'Ç.7=.Eʔ 78#)a [ PMQ)P# dn  #  [ b, oT9 ! I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PNQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiOQ)X#`e%(Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PPQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiQQ)X#Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   xw I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PRQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiSQ)X#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  w#)a [ PTQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiUQ)X#   Page ``e%)Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 37=@6FDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs*'Ç.7=.E9:#)a [ PVQ)P# n  ## b, oT9 !2ftStyle 47=@6FSwiss 8 Point with Margins=F*'Ç.7=.EG;<#Co> PWQP# dd  #  Style 17=@6FDutch Roman 11.5 Font87=F*'Ç.7=.E7=>#)a [ PXQ)P# dn Style 27=@6FDutch Italic 11.5'87=F*'Ç.7=.E'?@#)^ `> XiYQ)X#Style 57=@6FDutch Bold 18 Point87=F*'Ç.7=.E'A'B#T~> pZQTp##)a [ P[Q)P#2L  FStyle 77=@6FSwiss 11.5>_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E'C'D#)ao> P\Q)P##)a [ P]Q)P#Style 67=@6FDutch Roman 14 Point87=F*'Ç.7=.E'E'F#w [ P^QP##)a [ P_Q)P#Style 10=@6FInitial Codes for Advanced=F*'Ç.7=.EV GH#)a [ P`Q)P# dn   #  [ b, oT9 ! I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PaQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XibQ)X#`e%)Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   u I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PcQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XidQ)X#Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   u I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PeQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XifQ)X#  2 &  =Style 87=@6FInitial Codes for BeginningF*'Ç.7=.EV IJ#)a [ PiQ)P# dn  ## b, oT9  [  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PjQ)P# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XikQ)X#`^e%)Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   v I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PlQ)P# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XimQ)X#Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   v I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PnQ)P# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XioQ)X#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage   I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PpQ)P# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XiqQ)X#   Page ``e%)Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 97=@6FInitial Codes for Intermediate*'Ç.7=.ET KL#)a [ PrQ)P# dn  ## b, oT9 Њ [  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PsQ)P# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XitQ)X#`e%'Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   z I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PuQ)P# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XivQ)X#Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   z I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PwQ)P# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XixQ)X#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`e%APage   I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PyQ)P# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XizQ)X#   Page ``e%)Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Update7=@6FInitial Codes for Update Module*'Ç.7=.Ee MN#)a [ P{Q)P# dn  ##  [ b, oT9 ! I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ P|Q)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi}Q)X#`Ye%%Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   } I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ P~Q)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiQ)X#Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   }58Ç.7=@6FFormat Downloaded Document=F*'Ç.7=.EUOP XX    #\ #d6X@7@#2dqqrBld/Und7=@6FBold and Underline Text87=F*'Ç.7=.EQR  a1Agenda.E+'*Ç.Agenda Items=('87=FGD!*'7=*'%STD*  a2Agenda.E+'*Ç.Agenda Items=('87=FGD!*'7=*'UVa3Agenda.E+'*Ç.Agenda Items=('87=FGD!*'7=*'WX2qqqqha4Agenda.E+'*Ç.Agenda Items=('87=FGD!*'7=*'YZa5Agenda.E+'*Ç.Agenda Items=('87=FGD!*'7=*'[\a6Agenda.E+'*Ç.Agenda Items=('87=FGD!*'7=*']^a7Agenda.E+'*Ç.Agenda Items=('87=FGD!*'7=*'_`2Mq |a8Agenda.E+'*Ç.Agenda Items=('87=FGD!*'7=*'aba159.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'8st@   a259.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'Auv@` `  ` ` ` a359.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'Jwx` ` @  ` `  2i ,a459.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'Syz` `  @  a559.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'\{|` `  @hh# hhh a659.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'e}~` `  hh#@( hh# a759.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'n` `  hh#(@- ( 2=# l!!"a859.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp a160.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'8@   a260.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'A@` `  ` ` ` a360.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'J` ` @  ` `  2Y&o#$$%a460.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'S` `  @  a560.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'\` `  @hh# hhh a660.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'e` `  hh#@( hh# a760.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'n` `  hh#(@- ( 2(&p\''_(a860.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 1t >.x(Dt—Document Style >f.RK+P—!t >f—+b56` ` ` a129f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+P8@   a229f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PA@` `  ` ` ` 2+-))*7+a329f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PJ` ` @  ` `  a429f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PS` `  @  a529f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+P\` `  @hh# hhh a629f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pe` `  hh#@( hh# 2/),,-x^/a729f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pn` `  hh#(@- ( a829f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp NORMAL INDENT ' 4 <DL!T$#&n P&P##&n P&P#footnote textfootnote text US??2@400Z1K1endnote referenceendnote reference44#XO\  PUXP##B\  PUP#a11I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')8ij@   a21I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Akl@` `  ` ` ` "i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd2;`r4K4K7Kh9CourierTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicTimes New Roman Bold Italic"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDddddddK{@KB"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d"""(#p 1  Xe,XwII.OVERVIEW AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY p"(#z5  XN,XX` ` A.` ` Overview ` p>"(#p 5  X7,XX` ` B.` ` Executive Summary ` p>"(#p 8  X ,XwIII.BACKGROUND p>"(#p 9  X,XX` ` A.` ` Advanced Services Technologies ` p>"(#p 9  X,XX` ` B.` ` Statutory Framework ` p!(#g 13  X ,XX` ` C.` ` Procedural History ` p!(#g 15  X",XwIV.FIRST REPORT AND ORDER p"(#l 18  X#,XX` ` A.` ` Measures to Encourage Competitive LEC Deployment of Advanced Services ` p"(#l 18  XQ%,XX` ` X ,` ` 1. ,Overview p"(#l 18  X:&,XX` ` X ,` ` 2. ,Collocation Requirements p"(#l 19  X#',XX` ` X ,Xg ,a.gBackground p"(#l 19  X (,XX` ` X ,Xg ,b.gAdoption of National Standards p"(#l 22  X(,XX` ` X ,Xg ,c.gCollocation Equipment p"(#l 25"(,))ZZ&"Ԍ X,XX` ` X ,Xg ,d.gAlternative Collocation Arrangements p"(#l 37  X,XX` ` X ,Xg ,e.gSecurity p"(#l 46  X,XX` ` X ,Xg ,f.gSpace Preparation Cost Allocation p"(#l 50  X,XX` ` X ,Xg ,g.gProvisioning Intervals p"(#l 52  X,XX` ` X ,Xg ,h.gSpace Exhaustion p"(#l 56  X,XX` ` B.` ` Spectrum Compatibility ` p"(#l 61  Xv,XX` ` X ,` ` 1. ,Existing Power Spectral Density Masks p"(#l 65  X_,XX` ` X ,` ` 2. ,Spectrum Management p"(#l 70  X1,XwV.Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking p"(#l 78  X ,XX` ` A.` ` Spectrum Compatibility LongTerm Standards and Practices ` p"(#l 78  X ,XX` ` B.` ` Line Sharing ` p"(#l 92  X ,XX` ` C.` ` Procedural Matters ` p!(#c 108  X ,XwVI.Ordering Clauses p!(#c 118  XwAPPENDIX A LIST OF COMMENTERS  APPENDIX B FINAL RULES APPENDIX C REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS  X4,  X,I.XINTRODUCTION(#  X,  X,1.` ` One of the fundamental goals of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996  X,Act)#]\  PCɒP#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#o\  PCynXP#$ {OQ,ԍTelecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104104, 110 Stat. 56, codified at 47 U.S.C.  151 et  {O,seq. Hereinafter, all citations to the 1996 Act will be to the 1996 Act as it is codified in the United States Code. The 1996 Act amended the Communications Act of 1934. We will refer to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, as the "Communications Act" or as the "Act." is to promote innovation and investment by all participants in the telecommunications  X,marketplace, in order to stimulate competition for all services, including advanced services.   {O&,ԍ JOINT Joint Statement of Managers, S. Conf. Rep. No. 104230, 104th Cong. 2d Sess. 1 (1996) (Joint  {O,Explanatory Statement). See also Letter from Larry Irving, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, United States Department of Commerce, to William Kennard, Chairman, Federal Communications  {O,Commission, CC Docket No. 98-147, at 2 (filed Jan. 11, 1999) (NTIA January 11, 1999 Ex Parte) (stating that the 1996 Act embodies the belief that competition is the engine of infrastructure investment in the deployment of advanced services.) For purposes of this order, we use the term "advanced services" to mean high speed, switched, broadband, wireline telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics or video telecommunications using any technology. The term "broadband" is generally used to convey sufficient capacity or "bandwidth" to transport large amounts of information. As technology evolves, the concept of "broadband" will evolve with it: we may consider today's "broadband" services to be "narrowband" services when tomorrow's technologies appear. Today's broadband services include services based on digital subscriber line technology (commonly referred to as xDSL), including ADSL (asymmetric digital subscriber line), HDSL (highspeed digital subscriber line), UDSL (universal digital subscriber line), VDSL (veryhigh speed digital subscriber line), and RADSL (rateadaptive digital subscriber"T',-(-(&" line), and services based on packetswitched technology. xDSL technology is further described below at paras. DSLDESCBEG9שDSLDESCEND12.  " ,-(-(ZZ" In this order, we take important steps towards implementing Congress' goals with respect to  X,advanced services.   yO,ԍAlthough advanced services can also be deployed using other technologies over satellite, cable, and wireless systems, we limit the discussion here to wireline services. We use the term "wireline" in this order to refer to facilities that have traditionally been deployed by telephone companies. This is distinct from the coaxial and other cable facilities that have traditionally been deployed by cable companies.  X,2.` ` The market for advanced telecommunications is a nascent one. Today, both incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) and new entrants are at the early stages of developing and deploying innovative new technologies to meet the everincreasing demand for highspeed, highcapacity advanced services. Because it is in the early stages of development, the advanced services market is ripe for competition to develop in a robust fashion. In order to encourage competition among carriers to develop and deploy new advanced services, it is critical that the marketplace for these services be conducive to investment, innovation, and meeting the needs of consumers.  X ,3.` ` To this end, we are committed to removing barriers to competition so that competing providers are able to compete effectively with incumbent LECs and their affiliates  X ,in the provision of advanced services.$   yOw,ԍIn a companion proceeding conducted pursuant to section 706 of the 1996 Act, we issued a Report to Congress that addresses the issue of whether the deployment of advanced services via all different mediums of telecommunication, such as wireline, wireless, cable, and satellite technologies, is both timely and reasonable.  {M,Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of  {O_,the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket 98146, Report, FCC 995 (rel. Feb. 2, 1999) (Section 706  {O),Report to Congress); see also Pub.L. 104104, Title VII,  706 (b), Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 153, reproduced in the notes under 47 U.S.C.  157. In this First Report and Order, we adopt rules that pertain only to the deployment of advanced services by means of wireline telecommunications.$ We are also committed to ensuring that incumbent LECs are able to make their decisions to invest in, and deploy, advanced telecommunications services based on market demand and their own strategic business plans, rather than on regulatory requirements. We intend to take deregulatory steps towards meeting this goal in a subsequent order.  X4,4.` ` In this order, we adopt several measures that we believe will promote competition in the advanced services markets. We fully expect that these measures will create incentives for providers of advanced services to innovate and to develop and deploy new technologies and services on a more efficient and expeditious basis. As a result, consumers will ultimately benefit through lower prices and increased choices in advanced services.  X, ",-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X,vII.XOVERVIEW AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY(#  X,A.` ` Overview  X,   X,5.` ` Increasingly, electronic communications are becoming digital and are  X,vtransmitted by means of "packet switching."$ {O,ԍSee, e.g., Section 706 Report to Congress at paras. 2025. Packet switching technologies segment information into small pieces, called packets, assigning each packet identifying characteristics as well as a destination address. The packets traverse the network, often following many different physical paths, until they  {O` ,arrive at their destination and are reassembled. See Newton's Telecom Dictionary, 14th Ed. 1998, at 527. Packetswitched transmission of information promises a revolution in information, communications services, and entertainment by offering businesses, residential users, schools and libraries, and other end users of information the ability to access and send large amounts of information very quickly across the street or across the globe. Moreover, for wireline carriers, digital subscriber line technologies are making it possible for ordinary citizens to access various networks, such as the Internet, corporate networks, and governmental networks, at high speeds through the existing copper telephone lines that connect their residences or businesses to the incumbent LEC's central office. The existing infrastructure is being used in new ways that make available to average  X ,citizens a variety of new services and vast improvements to existing services.m  {O#,ԍSee, e.g., Section 706 Report to Congress at para. 12.m The ability of all Americans to access these highspeed, packetswitched networks will likely spur our growth and development as a nation.  Xb,6.` ` We adopt, in this order, additional measures to further facilitate the development of competition in the advanced services market. First, we strengthen our collocation rules to reduce the costs and delays faced by competitors that seek to collocate equipment in an incumbent LEC's central office. For example, we require incumbent LECs to make available to requesting competitive LECs shared cage and cageless collocation arrangements. Moreover, when collocation space is exhausted at a particular LEC location, we require incumbent LECs to permit collocation in adjacent controlled environmental vaults or similar structures to the extent technically feasible. Second, we adopt certain spectrum compatibility rules and adopt a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further NPRM) to explore issues related to developing longterm standards and practices for spectrum compatibility and management. Finally, in the Further NPRM, we consider whether we should require LECs to allow competitors to offer advanced services to end users over the same line on which the LEC is offering voice service.  X ,7.` ` We intend to address, in a future order, other specific forms of regulatory relief that may be needed to stimulate investment and deployment of advanced services by incumbents or new entrants, or whether other changes to the Commission's local competition rules may facilitate deployment of advanced services by competing carriers. For example, in  X ,the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we had proposed an option under which incumbent" F,-(-(ZZ2" LECs would be free to establish separate affiliates to provide advanced services that would not be subject to section 251(c) obligations if those affiliates were structured in a fashion so  X,as not to be deemed a successor or assign of the incumbent. {OK,ԍDeployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98 yO,147, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 98188, at paras. 92115 (rel.  {O,August 7, 1998) (Advanced Services Order and NPRM). In that NPRM we made specific proposals on how  {O,separate an affiliate would need to be so that it would not be deemed an incumbent LEC. Id. at paras. 92115. We also sought comment on whether limited LATA boundary modifications or other targeted interLATA relief  {O9,for Bell Operating Companies would be appropriate in certain circumstances. Id. at paras. 190196. We also sought comment on the applicability of section 251(c)(4) resale obligations to advanced services to the extent such  X,services are exchange access services.SH {O ,ԍId. at paras. 187189.SOTHERISSUESEND In addition, the NPRM proposed limited modifications  X,of LATA boundaries. We also had set forth proposals in the Advanced Services Order and  Xx,NPRM relating to incumbent LEC loop unbundling obligations.M x {O,ԍId. at paras. 151177.M We are deferring action on those issues and proposals.  X5, B.` ` Executive Summary  X ,  X ,8.` ` In the Order, we take the following steps:  X ,Collocation  X ,  X ,XIncumbent LECs must make available to requesting competitive LECs shared cage and cageless collocation arrangements. Moreover, when collocation is exhausted at a particular LEC location, incumbent LECs must permit collocation in adjacent controlled environmental vaults or similar structures to the extent technically feasible. (#  X8,XA collocation method used by one incumbent LEC or mandated by a state commission is presumptively technically feasible for any other incumbent LEC. (#  X,XIncumbent LECs may adopt reasonable security measures to protect their central office equipment. (#  X,XIncumbent LECs may not require competitive LEC equipment to meet more stringent  X,safety requirements than those the incumbent LEC imposes on its own equipment.(#  Xi,XIncumbent LECs must permit competitors to collocate all equipment used for interconnection and/or access to unbundled network elements (UNEs), even if it"Rl ,-(-(ZZ+" includes a "switching" or enhanced services function, and incumbent LECs cannot require that the switching or enhanced services functionality of equipment be disengaged.(#   X,XIncumbent LECs must permit a competitive LEC to tour the entire central office in which that competitive LEC has been denied collocation space. Incumbent LECs must provide a list of all offices in which there is no more space. Incumbent LECs must remove obsolete, unused equipment, in order to facilitate the creation of additional collocation space within a central office.(#  X ,XThe collocation rules set forth in the Order serve as minimum standards, and permit any state to adopt additional requirements.(#  X ,  X ,Spectrum Compatibility  X ,XWe adopt certain spectrum compatibility and management rules to allow competitive providers to deploy innovative advanced services technology in a timely manner. Specifically, any loop technology that complies with existing industry standards, has been successfully deployed by any carrier without significantly degrading the performance of other services, or has been approved by this Commission, any state commission, or an industry standards body is presumed acceptable for deployment. A LEC may not deny a carrier's request to deploy technology that is presumed acceptable for deployment, unless the LEC demonstrates to the state commission that deployment of the particular technology within the LEC network will significantly degrade the performance of other services.(#  X,XWe also seek comment in the Further NPRM on measures that would facilitate timely development of longterm industry standards and practices on spectrum compatibility and management to facilitate deployment of new and innovative loop technologies.(#  XN,Line Sharing  X ,XIn the Further NPRM, we tentatively conclude line sharing is technically feasible, and we seek comment on the operational, pricing, and policy ramifications to determine whether or not to mandate line sharing nationally.(#  X,  X ,III.XBACKGROUND(#  X",A.` ` Advanced Services Technologies(#`  X#,  Xh$,9.DSLDESCBEG` ` While the existing telephone network in the United States, with a line running into virtually every home and business, has provided superior voice telephony, until recently it was not thought suitable for the provision of interactive video or high speed data communications. First, the copper telephone wire running the "last mile" to each home, the"#' ,-(-(ZZ$" "local loop," was generally thought to be capable of carrying only a relatively modest stream of information. Second, the public telephone network is circuitswitched, that is, it maintains an endtoend channel of communication for the entire duration of the call. Although this is a useful means of transmitting ordinary voice telephony, it is not efficient for transmitting data and other types of information.  Xv, 10.` ` xDSL technology, coupled with packetswitched networks, addresses both of these constraints. With xDSL technology, two modems are attached to each telephone loop: one at the subscriber's premises and the other at the telephone company's central office. The use of xDSL modems allows transmission of data over the copper loop at vastly higher speeds  X ,than can be achieved with analog data transmission.g   yO ,ԍAn ordinary voice channel, in the United States, generally allows transmission of digital information at the rate of up to 56,000 bits per second. By contrast, the most widely deployed xDSL service (known as ADSL)  {O# ,allows data to be transmitted to the home or residence at up to several million bits per second, depending on loop length, loop design, and the technology deployed. Provision of xDSL service is subject to a variety of important technical constraints. One is the length of the subscriber loop: ADSL, the most widely deployed xDSLbased service, generally requires loops of less than 18,000 feet using current technology. Another is the quality of the loop, which must be free of excessive bridged taps, loading coils, and other devices commonly used to aid in the provision of analog voice and data transmission, but which interfere with the provision of xDSL services. "Conditioning" loops to remove those impediments, or constructing fiberbased digital loop carrier systems to overcome loop length difficulties, can be expensive. g Moreover, combining xDSL technology with packet switching permits more efficient use of the network because information generated by multiple users can be sent over a telecommunications facility that in a circuitswitched environment may be dedicated to only one customer for the duration of a call. In addition, the customer can potentially make ordinary voice calls over the public switched network at the same time as he or she is using the same line for highspeed data  X,transmission.  Xb  yO,ԍWe note that, at the present time, not all existing xDSL deployments are taking advantage of that capability; some carriers offer only highspeed data services without the voice component over the xDSLequipped loop.   Xb, 11.` ` In circumstances in which the xDSLequipped line carries both POTS ("plain old telephone service") and data channels, the carrier must separate those two streams when they reach the telephone company's central office. This is generally done by a device known as a digital subscriber line access multiplexer, or DSLAM. The DSLAM and central office xDSL modem send the customer's POTS traffic to the public, circuitswitched telephone network. The DSLAM sends the customer's data traffic (combined with that of other xDSL users) to a packetswitched data network. Thus, the data traffic, after traversing the local loop, avoids the circuitswitched telephone network altogether.  X, 12.DSLDESCEND` ` Once on the packetswitched network, the data traffic is routed to the location selected by the customer, for example, a corporate local area network or an Internet service"| ,-(-(ZZR" provider. That location may itself be a gateway to a new packetswitched network or set of networks, like the Internet.  X,  B.` ` Statutory Framework  X,  X, 13.` ` In the 1996 Act, Congress established a "procompetitive, deregulatory national policy framework" for telecommunications, opening all telecommunications markets to competition so as to make advanced telecommunications and information technologies and  XH,services available to all Americans. H {O , I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)ЍJoint Explanatory Statement, supra n. JOINT2 . At the core of the Act's marketopening provisions is  X1,section 251.D 1Z yO< ,ԍ47 U.S.C.  251.D In section 251, Congress sought to open local telecommunications markets to competition by, among other things, reducing economic and operational advantages possessed by incumbents.   X , 14.` ` Section 251 requires incumbent LECs to share their networks in a manner that enables competitors to choose among three methods of entry the construction of new networks, the use of unbundled elements of the incumbent's network, and resale of the incumbent's retail services. Section 251(a) requires all "telecommunications carriers" to "interconnect directly or indirectly with the facilities and equipment of other  Xb,telecommunications carriers."c^b {O,ԍ47 U.S.C.  251(a); see also Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the  {O,Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 9698, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15594 at  {O,para. 184 (1996) (Local Competition First Report and Order).c Section 251(c)(3) requires incumbent LECs to provide  XK,nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements.K {O ,ԍ47 U.S.C.  251(c)(3); see also Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15640, para. 278. In addition, section 251(c)(6) imposes an obligation on incumbent LECs "to provide, on rates, terms and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory, for physical collocation of equipment necessary for  X,interconnection or access to unbundled network elements. . . ."Lj  yO!,ԍ 47 U.S.C.  251(c)(6).L Finally, for competitors that seek to compete by reselling the incumbent LEC's services, section 251(c)(4) requires incumbent LECs to offer for resale at wholesale rates "any telecommunications service that  X,the carrier provides at retail to subscribers who are not telecommunications carriers."J  yOl#,ԍ47 U.S.C.  251(c)(4).J  X, " ,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X,XC.` ` Procedural History(#  X,  X,15.OTHERISSUESBEG` ` On August 7, 1998, we released the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, in response to six petitions suggesting action we should take to speed the deployment by wireline  X,carriers of advanced services.8  {O,ԍCommission Seeks Comment on Bell Atlantic Petition for Relief from Barriers to Deployment of  {O,Advanced Telecommunications Services,CC Docket No. 9811, Public Notice, 12 FCC Rcd 2495 (1998); Alliance for Public Technology Petitions the Commission for Issuance of a Notice of Inquiry and a Notice of proposed  {O{,Rulemaking to Implement Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act, RM 9844, Public Notice, 13 FCC Rcd  {OE ,5126 (1998); Commission Seeks Comment on U S West Petition for Relief from Barriers to Deployment of  {O ,Advanced Telecommunications Services, CC Docket No. 9826, Public Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 4739 (1998);  {M ,Commission Seeks Comment on Ameritech Petition for Relief from Barriers to Deployment of Advanced  {O ,Telecommunications Services, CC Docket No. 9832, Public Notice, 13 FCC Rcd 4741 (1998); Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on Association for Local Telecommunication Services Petition for Declaratory Ruling  {O3 ,Regarding Section 706, CC Docket No. 9878, Public Notice, DA 981019 (rel. May 28, 1998); Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on SBC Petition for Relief from Regulation Pursuant to Section 706 of the  {O,Telecommunications Act and 47 U.S.C. 160 for ADSL Infrastructure and Service, CC Docket No. 9891, Public Notice, DA 981111 (rel. June 11, 1998). In that order, we concluded, inter alia, that the procompetitive provisions of the 1996 Act are technologyneutral and thus apply equally to advanced services and to circuitswitched voice services. We therefore concluded that  Xc,incumbent LECs are subject to section 251(c) in their provision of advanced services.yc  {O,ԍAdvanced Services Order and NPRM at paras. 11, 18, 57.y Specifically, we found that incumbent LECs are subject to the interconnection obligations of section 251(a) and 251(c)(2) with respect to both their circuitswitched and packetswitched  X ,networks.U Z  {O),ԍId. at paras. 11, 4649.U We also clarified that the facilities and equipment used by the incumbent LECs to provide advanced services are network elements and generally subject to the obligations in  X ,section 251(c)(3).[  {O,ԍSee id. at paras. 5058.[ In response to the petitions of Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, SBC and U S WEST requesting us to forbear from applying the requirements of section 251(c), or section 271, or both with respect to their provision of advanced services, we concluded that we lacked  X ,the statutory authority to do so and therefore denied those petitions.: ~ {O,ԍSee id. at paras. 6982. Section 271 conditions the provision of inregion, interLATA services by BOCs on compliance with certain requirements, including compliance with a competitive checklist. The critical marketopening requirements of section 251 are incorporated into this competitive checklist. Thus, through section 271, Congress requires BOCs to demonstrate that they have opened their local markets to competition before they are authorized to enter the inregion long distance market.:  X},16.OTHERISSUESEND` ` In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we proposed, in relevant part, to strengthen collocation requirements to foster timely, costeffective, competitive deployment of"h 0,-(-(ZZ"  X,advanced services.W {Oy,ԍSee id. at paras. 118150.W We also proposed to establish spectrum compatibility and management guidelines so that multiple carriers could deploy advanced technologies on common facilities.  X,17.` ` On January 25, 1999, the Supreme Court released an opinion in AT&T Corp. v.  X,Iowa Utilities BoardbZ {O,ԍIowa Utilities Board, 119 S.Ct. 721 (1999).b in which it addressed the Commission's rule setting forth those network elements that incumbent LECs must make available to competitors. The Court held that the Commission did not adequately consider the standards of section 251(d)(2) in determining which network elements must be unbundled pursuant to section 251(c)(3). The Court stated that the Commission's rule setting forth the network elements that incumbent LECs must make available to requesting carriers should be vacated, and it remanded the matter for further  X ,proceedings.E  {O,ԍId. at 73336.E We are currently reviewing the section 251(d)(2) standard consistent with the  X ,Supreme Court opinion in Iowa Utilities Board, and will seek further comment on the issue of whether network elements used in the provision of advanced services should be unbundled.  X ,  X ,IV.FIRST REPORT AND ORDER  X ,   X, A.` ` Measures to Encourage Competitive LEC Deployment of Advanced  X,Services (#`  Xh,  XQ,` ` 1. ,Overview  X#,18.` ` In this section we adopt additional measures that we expect will further facilitate competitive deployment of advanced services. In order to enable competitive LECs to compete effectively with incumbents in the advanced services marketplace, we establish additional standards and rules that will strengthen our collocation requirements, thereby reducing costs and delays associated with competitors collocating in an incumbent LEC's central office. We also adopt certain spectrum compatibility and management rules to allow competitive providers to deploy innovative advanced services technology in a timely manner. We acknowledge that the rules we adopt in this Order focus on the provision of advanced services, but we emphasize that the actions we take today pursuant to the Act apply to all telecommunications services, whether traditional voice services or advanced services. "= ~,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X,   ` ` 2. ,Collocation Requirements  X,  X, X` `  ,a.gBackground(#  X,  X,19.COLLO-BEGIN` ` In 1992, in the Expanded Interconnection proceeding,7 {O,ԍExpanded Interconnection with Local Telephone Company Facilities, CC Docket No. 91141,  {O,Amendment of the Part 69 Allocation of General Support Facility Costs, CC Docket No. 92222, Report and  {O,Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 7 FCC Rcd 7369 (1992), vacated in part and remanded, Bell Atlantic  {O{,v. FCC, 24 F.3d 1441 (1994); First Reconsideration, 8 FCC Rcd 127 (1993); Second Reconsideration, 8 FCC  {OE ,Rcd 7341 (1993); Second Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 7374 (1993); Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC  {O ,Rcd 5154 (1994), remanded, Pacific Bell v. FCC, 81 F.3d 1147 (1996). the Commission adopted rules pursuant to section 201 of the Act that required certain incumbent LECs to offer  Xx, physical and virtual collocationxL7 yOu ,ԍIn a physical collocation arrangement, a competitor leases space at a LEC's premises for its equipment.  {O=,The competing provider has physical access to this space to install, maintain, and repair its equipment. See  {O,Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15784, n.1361; Expanded Interconnection with Local  {O,Telephone Company Facilities, First Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 7369, 7391 at para. 42 (1992) (Special  {O,Access Order). In a virtual collocation arrangement, the competitor designates the equipment to be placed at the incumbent LEC's premises. The competing provider, however, does not have physical access to the incumbent's premises. Instead, the equipment is under the physical control of the incumbent LEC, and the incumbent is  {O,responsible for installing, maintaining, and repairing the competing provider's equipment. See Local Competition  {O,First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15785, para. 559; Virtual Collocation Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5154, 5158 at para. 7 (1994). for parties seeking to locate interstate special access and  Xa,switched transport transmission facilities at LEC premises.s a7 yO,ЍInterstate access is a service traditionally provided by local telephone companies and enables interexchange carriers and other customers to originate and terminate interstate telephone traffic. Special access is a form of interstate access that uses dedicated transmission lines between two points, without switching the traffic on those lines. Switched transport is another form of interstate access comprising the transmission of traffic between interexchange carriers' (or other customers') points of presence and local telephone companies'  {O,end offices, where the traffic is switched and routed to end users. Local Competition First Report and Order, 11  {O,FCC Rcd at 15784, n.1359. In the Expanded Interconnection proceeding, the Commission adopted rules governing, among other things, space allocation and exhaustion, types of equipment that could be collocated, and LEC premises where parties could collocate equipment. In 1994, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that the Commission lacked the authority under section 201 of the Act to  {O,require physical collocation and remanded all other issues to the Commission. Bell Atlantic v. FCC, 24 F.3d 1441 (D.C. Cir. 1994). On remand, the Commission adopted rules, which remain in place today, for both special  {Oh ,access and switched transport that required LECs to provide either virtual or physical collocation. Virtual  {O2!,Collocation Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5154.s  X3,20.` ` Section 251(c)(6) of the 1996 Act requires incumbent LECs to "provide, on rates terms and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory, for physical collocation of equipment necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements at the premises of the local exchange carrier, except that the carrier may provide for virtual collocation if the local exchange carrier demonstrates to the State commission that" ,))ZZ "  X,physical collocation is not practical for technical reasons or because of space limitations."J yOy,ԍ47 U.S.C.  251(c)(6).J In  X,the Local Competition First Report and Order, the Commission adopted specific rules to  X,implement the collocation requirements of section 251(c)(6).(X {O,ԍ47 C.F.R.  51.321, 51.323; see Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15782 {O,15811, paras. 555617. These rules were specifically upheld by the Eighth Circuit in Iowa Utilities Board v.  {Oq,FCC, 120 F.3d 753, 818 (8th Cir. 1997), affirmed in part and reversed in part sub nom, AT&T Corp. v. Iowa  {O;,Utilities Board, 119 S.Ct. 721 (1999). In the Advanced Services  X,Order and NPRM, we tentatively concluded that we should adopt additional collocation rules, as urged by ALTS, to ensure that competing providers have access to the physical collocation  X,space they need in order to offer advanced services.nH {O ,ԍSee Advanced Services Order and NPRM at paras. 118150.n  Xe,21.` ` Consumer demand for advanced services is increasing exponentially, and competitive LECs and incumbent LECs alike are rushing to meet that demand. Competitive LECs rely on the incumbents to provision collocation space for the equipment needed to provide advanced services, and these new entrants cannot meet consumer demand for  X ,advanced services absent reasonable and nondiscriminatory collocation arrangements.   {O,ԍSee, e.g., Covad Comments at 20 (". . . the current cost of physical collocation is the single largest onetime, single source cost Covad has . . ."); e.spire Comments at 21 ("The unavailability and exorbitant expense of physical collocation in [incumbent] LEC central offices is a substantial barrier to [competitive] LEC efforts to deploy advanced telecommunications capability"); Qwest Comments at 5051 ("Widespread geographic deployment of advanced services will require additional measures by the Commission to require [incumbent] LECs to allow cost effective collocation"); MCI Worldcom Comments at 58 (". . . upfront costs charged by the [incumbent] LECs, [incumbent] LEC claims of space limitations, and the [incumbent] LECs' refusal to consider alternatives other than virtual collocation . . . are critical factors resulting in excessive delays for the deployment of traditional and advanced local services"). For example, any xDSLbased services provided over unbundled local loops would require location of a DSLAM within a reasonable distance of the customer's premises, usually less than 18,000 feet. As such, competitive LECs generally must collocate their DSLAMs in the incumbent LEC's premises where the customer's unbundled loop terminates. Absent viable collocation arrangements, the customer will not have a choice of LECs from which to purchase advanced services. As discussed in greater detail below, we now adopt several collocation measures that we consider critical steps in encouraging the competitive provision of advanced services. ":  ,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X, X` `  ,b.gAdoption of National Standards(#  X,  X,X X` `  ,g(1)hhBackground (#`  X,22.` ` In the Local Competition First Report and Order, the Commission adopted  X,minimum requirements for nondiscriminatory collocation arrangements.! {O,ԍLocal Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 1578215811, paras. 555617. The relevant collocation requirements are summarized in the following sections dealing with specific collocation issues. The Commission adopted rules for, among other things, space allocation and exhaustion, types of equipment  Xa,that could be collocated, and LEC premises where parties could collocate equipment.:"a" {O4 ,ԍId.: The Commission also  concluded that state commissions should have the flexibility to adopt additional collocation requirements that are otherwise consistent with the Act and the  X ,Commission's regulations.h#  {O,ԍId. at para. 558. See AT&T Comments at 72.h In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we sought comment on the extent to which we should establish additional national rules for collocation pursuant to sections 201 and 251 in order to remove barriers to entry and speed the deployment of  X ,advanced services.e$ F {O,ԍAdvanced Services Order and NPRM at para. 123.e  X ,` `  ,` g (2)hhDiscussion (#  X},23.` ` We adopt our tentative conclusion to establish additional national rules for  Xf,collocation.%f {O,ԍSee Covad Comments at 5 ("Fundamental (indeed, axiomatic) to the provision of competitive, broadband  yO,services 'to all Americans' is the ability for entrants to obtain physical collocation arrangements in every central office") (emphasis in the original); Allegiance Comments at 2 ("Adoption of national standards would encourage the deployment of advanced services by increasing predictability and certainty, and by facilitating entry by competitors operating in several states"); Qwest Comments at 51; NY PUC Comments at 910; KMC Comments  yO,at 13; ICG Comments at 16; Texas PUC Comments at 7; NEXTLINK Comments at 12.  We emphasize that the collocation measures we adopt in this order apply to all telecommunications services, including advanced services and traditional voice services. The standards and rules we implement in this proceeding will serve as minimum requirements. We note that state commissions commenting in this proceeding generally support our proposal  X ,to adopt additional national rules.& R  {O #,ԍSee Minn. DPS Comments at 17; Texas PUC Comments at 7; Ill. Commerce Comm. Comments at 8. We conclude that states will continue to have the  X,flexibility to respond to specific issues by imposing additional requirements.4'Z {O%,ԍSee, e.g., NY PUC Comments at 910 ("any rules adopted by the Commission should not interfere with additional state approved options"); Ill. C.C. Comments at 8 (supporting national standards with "recognition of state authority over these items").4 For example," ',-(-(ZZ" although we do not adopt at this time specific provisioning intervals for collocation space preparation, we appreciate the efforts of the Texas Public Utilities Commission and other  X,states that have worked hard to ensure that collocation is provisioned in a timely manner.M( yOK,ԍTexas PUC Comments at 1112.M State commissions play a crucial role in furthering the goals of our collocation rules by enacting rules of their own that, in conjunction with federal rules, ensure that collocation is available in a timely manner and on reasonable terms and conditions. In addition, as we noted in the NPRM, competitive LECs can pursue remedies for violations of our collocation  X_,requirements before the Commission and the appropriate state commissions.|)\_X {Oh ,ԍAdvanced Services Order and NPRM at para. 125. See Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to be Followed When Formal Complaints are Filed  {O ,Against Common Carriers, CC Docket No. 96238, Second Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd. 17018. (1998).|  X1,24.` ` We do not agree with the comments of certain incumbent LECs that national rules are unnecessary because there are no remaining collocation issues that require federal  X ,involvement.s*" | {O0,ԍSee, e.g., U S WEST Comments at 36 (proposed Commission action on collocation "aims to fix a problem that is not broken"); SBC Reply at 19 ("Inflexible nationwide collocation rules are simply not feasible."); GTE Reply at 53 (national rules are "impractical"); Ameritech Comments at 33; Bell Atlantic Reply at 5051.s As discussed more fully below, there are numerous problems that remain with provisioning of collocation space, and we believe that there are concrete steps we can take, in conjunction with the ongoing work of state commissions, to further the procompetitive goals of the 1996 Act.  X ,  X,X` `  ,c.gCollocation Equipment(#  Xb,` `  ,Xg(1)hhBackground (#  X4,25.` ` Section 251(c)(6) requires incumbent LECs to allow collocation of "equipment  X,necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements . . . ."J+f  yO4,ԍ47 U.S.C.  251(c)(6).J In the Local  X,Competition First Report and Order, the Commission concluded that section 251(c)(6) requires collocation of equipment used for: (1) interconnection for "the transmission and routing of telephone exchange service and exchange access" pursuant to section 251(c)(2); and (2) access to unbundled network elements for "the provision of a telecommunications service"  X,pursuant to section 251(c)(3).,  {OU$,ԍLocal Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15795, para. 581. See AT&T Comments at 74. The Commission interpreted section 251(c)(6) as requiring"P ,,-(-(ZZ" incumbent LECs to permit competitors to collocate equipment that is "used and useful" for  X,either interconnection or access to unbundled network elements.- {Ob,ԍLocal Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15794, para. 579.  X,26.` ` The Commission concluded in the Local Competition First Report and Order that new entrants may collocate transmission equipment, including optical terminating  X,equipment and multiplexers, on incumbent LEC premises.O.Z {O,ԍId. at 15794, para. 580.O The Commission further concluded, at the time, that incumbent LECs need not permit the collocation of other types of  Xa,equipment, including switching equipment and equipment used to provide enhanced services._/a {O ,ԍId. at 15795, para. 581; 47 U.S.C.  51.323(c). The Commission noted that switching equipment generally performs functions other than providing interconnection or access to unbundled network elements.  {O ,Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15795, n.1417. The Commission indicated that it might reexamine the issue of collocation of switching equipment if it appeared that "such action would further  {O",achievement of the 1996 Act's procompetitive goals." Id. at 15795, para. 581._ With respect to switching equipment, however, the Commission recognized that "modern technology has tended to blur the line between switching equipment and multiplexing  X ,equipment."0  {Oo,ԍId. at 15795, para. 581. See Covad Comments at 22; AT&T Comments at 74; Sprint Comments at 11. This trend in manufacturing has benefited service providers and their customers by reducing costs, promoting efficient network design, and expanding the range of possible  X ,service offerings.1 4  {O,ԍSee Covad Comments at 22; AT&T Comments at 74; Sprint Comments at 11. As a consequence of this integration, certain equipment that competing carriers need to collocate to provide advanced services efficiently may also perform switching  X ,functions.|2  {O7,ԍSee Covad Comments at 22; AT&T Comments at 74; Sprint Comments at 11.| Because incumbent LECs are currently not required by our rules to permit collocation of switching equipment, competing providers argue that incumbent LECs have delayed competitive entry by contesting, on a casebycase basis, the functionality of a particular piece of equipment (which may perform switching functions in addition to its other  Xd,functions) and whether it may be collocated.3dX  {Om,ԍSee Covad Comments at 22; AT&T Comments at 74; Sprint Comments at 11. See also US Xchange Comments at 7; Qwest Comments at 54. "M3,-(-(ZZ;"Ԍ X,x ` `  ,` g(2)hhDiscussion (#  X,27. SWITCH ` ` Equipment with switching and enhanced services functionality. In the  X,Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we tentatively concluded that incumbent LECs should not be permitted to impede competing carriers from offering advanced services by imposing  X,unnecessary restrictions on xthe type of equipment that competing carriers may collocate.4 {O,ԍAdvanced Services Order and NPRM at para. 129. See Covad Comments at 22; AT&T Comments at 73; MCI Worldcom Comments at 60; Sprint Comments at 11. We sought comment on whether we should require incumbent LECs to allow new entrants to collocate any equipment that is used for interconnection and access to unbundled network  XJ,elements, even if such equipment also includes a switching functionality.e5J" {O ,ԍAdvanced Services Order and NPRM at para. 129.e Specifically, we asked if collocation of equipment that performs both switching and other functions would encourage competitive LECs to use integrated equipment that otherwise might not be allowed  X ,in incumbent LEC premises.A6  {Oj,ԍId. A  X ,28.` ` We agree with commenters that our existing rules, correctly read, require incumbent LECs to permit collocation of all equipment that is necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements, regardless of whether such equipment includes a switching functionality, provides enhanced services capabilities, or offers other  X{,functionalities.7"{F {Or,ԍSee NTIA Jan. 11, 1999 Ex Parte at 19 ("any attempt to distinguish, for collocation purposes, between switching equipment and interconnection equipment will be unsustainable given the trend in manufacturing to integrate multiple functions into telecommunications equipment"); AT&T Comments at 77; Intermedia Comments at 32; Sprint Comments at 12. Our rules obligate incumbent LECs to "permit the collocation of any type of  Xd,equipment used for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements."98d0  {OE,ԍ47 C.F.R.  51.323(b). In Iowa Utilities Board, the Supreme Court found that the Commission's rules identifying which network elements must be unbundled should be vacated. The Commission will soon initiated a proceeding to address the issues raised in the Supreme Court's opinion and identify unbundled network elements. In the interim, incumbent LECs have agreed to continue providing unbundled network elements that they had been providing pursuant to interconnection agreements before the Supreme Court's opinion. In requiring incumbent LECs to permit collocation of equipment necessary for access to unbundled network elements, we expect incumbents to continue providing collocation for equipment necessary to access the network elements they have committed to continue providing. When the Commission concludes its proceeding and again identifies network elements, incumbents must permit collocation of equipment necessary for access to those unbundled network elements, consistent with the rules expressed herein.9 Stated differently, an incumbent LEC may not refuse to permit collocation of any equipment that is "used or useful" for either interconnection or access to unbundled network elements,"68,-(-(ZZ"  X,regardless of other functionalities inherent in such equipment.9 {Oy,ԍLocal Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15794, para. 579 (interpreting "necessary" as that term is used in 47 U.S.C.  251(c)(6) as meaning equipment that is "used" or "useful" and not, as  {O ,commenters had suggested, "indispensable"). We note that in its recent decision in Iowa Utilities Board the Supreme Court reviewed the Commission's interpretation of the word "necessary" in the context of unbundled network elements. The Supreme Court held that the Commission had not adequately given effect to the standard found in section 251(d)(2) that, in deciding which elements must be unbundled, the Commission consider  {O-,whether "access to such network elements as are proprietary in nature is necessary." Iowa Utilities Board, 119 S.Ct. at 734. The Commission's implementation of the requirement in section 251(c)(6) that incumbent LECs  {O,permit collocation of "equipment necessary for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements," 47 U.S.C. 251(c)(6) (emphasis added), was not challenged before the Supreme Court and the Commission's rules remain in effect. Rather, our rules require incumbent LECs to permit collocation of any equipment required by the statute unless they first "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  X,unbundled network elements."T:0  yO,ԍ47 C.F.R.  51.323 (b), (c).T We further agree with commenters that this rule requires incumbent LECs to permit competitors to collocate such equipment as DSLAMs, routers,  Xv,ATM multiplexers, and remote switching modules.;v  {O,ԍSee Intermedia Comments at 32; KMC Comments at 14; xDSL Networks Comments at 1213; Sprint Comments at 11. Nor may incumbent LECs place any limitations on the ability of competitors to use all the features, functions, and capabilities of collocated equipment, including, but not limited to, switching and routing features and functions.  X ,29.` ` We consider this clarification of our existing rules to be particularly important given the rapid pace of technological change in the telecommunications equipment marketplace. Several commenters contend that incumbent LECs are refusing to permit collocation of advanced services equipment that, while used or useful for interconnection or  X ,access to unbundled network elements, also contains, for example, a switching functionality.<  {Or,ԍSee MCI Worldcom Comments at 61; Covad Comments at 20; Qwest Comments at 54. For example, we note that remote switching modules, which terminate circuits and perform multiplexing and switching functions, do not function as standalone switches, but rather  Xb,provide integrated functionalities in a single piece of equipment.=(b {O!,ԍSee AT&T Comments at 75; Intermedia Comments at 32. SBC notes that it currently permits  {O",collocation of remote switching modules in its central offices. SBC Comments at 16. See also MCI v. Bell  {OS#,Atlantic, No. 973076, slip op. at 1720 (D.D.C. Feb. 15, 1999) (finding, inter alia, collocation of remote  {O$,switching modules consistent with the Act and Local Competition First Report and Order).  By clarifying that incumbent LECs must permit such equipment to be collocated on their premises, we take an important step towards elimination of obstacles to competition. In order to compete effectively in the advanced services marketplace, competitive telecommunications providers"=,-(-(ZZ" must be permitted to collocate integrated equipment that lowers costs and increases the services they can offer their customers.  X,30.` ` We continue to decline, however, to require incumbent LECs to permit the collocation of equipment that is not necessary for either access to UNEs or for  X,interconnection, such as equipment used exclusively for switching or for enhanced services.> {O,ԍSee Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15795 (declining to impose a requirement that stand alone switches or enhanced services equipment be collocated). Although we may explore requiring such collocation in the future, we do not find sufficient support in the record at this time for such a requirement. We reiterate that incumbent LECs are obligated, pursuant to section 251(c)(6), to permit competitors to collocate multifunctional equipment, even equipment that includes switching or enhanced services functionalities, if such equipment is necessary for access to UNEs or for interconnection with the incumbent LEC's network.  X ,31.SWITCHEND` ` We do not agree with the contention of certain commenters that the statute does  X ,not authorize the Commission to impose such a requirement.B?Z " {O,ԍSee, e.g., Bell Atlantic Reply at 49 ("whether included in multifunctional equipment or standalone devices, the Commission simply may not lawfully require collocation of equipment or other functions that are not used for the limited purposes specified in the Act").B This contention is premised on the assumption that requiring incumbent LECs to permit collocation of equipment with a switching or enhanced services functionality, as long as that equipment is used or useful for interconnection with the incumbent's network or access to unbundled network elements,  Xb,would constitute an unlawful taking. As the Commission stated in the Local Competition  XM,First Report and Order, section 251(c)(6) "expressly requires incumbent LECs to provide physical collocation, absent space or technical limitations," and thus physical collocation is  X!,not, the Commission concluded, an unlawful taking.@!D {O,ԍLocal Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15811, para. 616 (emphasis in the original). Because the statute authorized the Commission to require incumbent LECs to permit physical collocation, the only takingsrelated issue in ordering physical collocation, the Commission concluded, was just  X,compensation.PA {Oc,ԍId. at 15811, para. 617. P Even assuming, arguendo, that our revised collocation rules constitute a taking, they do not constitute an unlawful taking, because such action would clearly be for a public purpose, pursuant to express statutory authorization, and our implementation provides  X,for just compensation.(BZh  {O#,ԍSee Bell Atlantic Companies v. FCC, 24 F.3d 1441 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (holding that, if agency action constitutes an otherwise lawful taking, courts still require express, or necessarily implied, statutory authority for the agency action).( We conclude that to interpret section 251(c)(6) as denying competitive carriers the ability to collocate multifunctional equipment in incumbent LEC central offices would place competitors at an unreasonable competitive disadvantage. Given"k B,-(-(ZZ" the technological trend towards integrated telecommunications equipment, requiring competitive LECs to purchase singlefunction equipment would relegate competitors to less  X,efficient equipment and create unnecessary roadblocks to competitive entry.Cz {OK,ԍSee Nortel Comments at 4 (disabling switching functions in integrated equipment serves to "preclude costeffective deployment of advanced services and force higher costs onto carriers and ultimately onto consumers"); MCI Worldcom Comments at 61; Covad Comments at 20 (clarification will allow competitors to "build more efficient and faulttolerant networks capable of innovative evolution at much lower costs"); Qwest Comments at 54 ("Allowing competitors to use integrated equipment that performs multiple functions will promote efficient network design and reduce costs to consumers"); US Xchange Comments at 7 (such rules will allow competitors to "take advantage of more efficient integrated equipment"); Texas PUC Comments at 8. Section 251(c)(6) mandates incumbent LECs permit competing carriers to collocate any equipment that is either used or useful for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements, regardless of any other functionalities that may be offered by that equipment. Equipment that  Xv,meets the used or useful test falls squarely within the parameters of section 251(c)(6).Dv  {O1,ԍLocal Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15794, para. 579.  XH,32.` ` CrossConnects. In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we noted ALTS' contention that some incumbent LECs do not allow competitive LECs to interconnect their  X ,collocated equipment with that of other collocating carriers.eE  {Oi,ԍAdvanced Services Order and NPRM at para. 133.e We observed that, pursuant to our current rules, an incumbent LEC is required to allow competing carriers to establish crossconnects to the collocated equipment of other competing carriers at the incumbent's  X ,premises.F .  {O,ԍId. See 47 C.F.R.  51.323(h); Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 1580102, paras. 59495. The Commission did not, however, expressly require incumbent LECs to permit  X ,competitors to construct their own connecting transmission facilities.<G  {O,ԍId. < We sought comment on any additional steps we might take so that competitive LECs are able to establish crossconnects to the equipment of other collocated competitive LECs.  Xd, 33.` ` We now revise our rules to require incumbent LECs to permit collocating carriers to construct their own crossconnect facilities between collocated equipment located on the incumbent's premises. No incumbent LECs objected specifically to permitting competitive LECs to provision their own crossconnect facilities. Although we previously did not require incumbent LECs to permit collocating carriers to construct their own crossconnect  X,facilities, we did not prevent incumbent LECs from doing so.MH yO$,ԍ47 C.F.R.  51.323(h)(1).M Several competitive LECs raise the issue of delay and cost associated with incumbent LEC provision of crossconnect facilities, which are often as simple as a transmission facility running from one collocation"H,-(-(ZZB"  X,rack to an adjacent rack.I {Oy,ԍSee e.spire Comments at 2526; ICG Comments at 1620; Intermedia Comments at 2728; Texas PUC Comments at 8; Allegiance Comments at 4. We see no reason for the incumbent LEC to refuse to permit the collocating carriers to crossconnect their equipment, subject only to the same reasonable  X,safety requirements that the incumbent LEC imposes on its own equipment.PJ" {O,ԍSee infra para. 36.P Even where competitive LEC equipment is collocated in the same room as the incumbent's equipment, we require the incumbent to permit the new entrant to construct its own crossconnect facilities, using either copper or optical facilities, subject only to the same reasonable safety  Xv,requirements the incumbent places on its own similar facilities.RKv {O ,ԍSee Level 3 Comments at 12.R Moreover, we agree with Intermedia that incumbent LECs may not require competitors to purchase any equipment or  XH,crossconnect capabilities solely from the incumbent itself at tariffed rates.ULHF {O?,ԍSee Intermedia Comments at 38.U  X ,!34.NEBS-BEGIN` ` Equipment Safety Requirements. In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we tentatively concluded that incumbent LECs may require that all equipment that a new entrant places on its premises meet safety requirements to avoid endangering other equipment  X ,and the incumbent LECs' networks.M"  {O`,ԍAdvanced Services Order and NPRM at para. 134. Incumbent LECs generally require that equipment collocated at their premises complies with Bellcore's Network Equipment and Building Specifications (NEBS). These specifications, which tend to increase the cost of equipment, include both safety requirements (NEBS Level 1), such as fire prevention specifications, and performance requirements (NEBS Levels 2 and 3). Certain performance and reliability requirements,  X ,however, may not be necessary to protect LEC equipment.NN  {O3,ԍId. at para. 135.N Such requirements may increase costs unnecessarily, which would lessen the ability of new entrants to serve certain markets and thereby harm competition. We tentatively concluded that, to the extent that incumbent LECs use equipment that does not satisfy the Bellcore Network Equipment and Building Specifications (NEBS) requirements, competitive LECs should be able to collocate the same or equivalent equipment. We further tentatively concluded that incumbent LECs should be  X6,required to list all approved equipment and all equipment they use.'O~6T  {O;!,ԍIn the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we suggested that equipment reliability standards may be better left to the mutual agreement of the competitive LEC, its customers, and its equipment providers. By requiring competitive LECs to satisfy NEBS performance requirements, on top of NEBS safety requirements, competitive LECs may be compelled to engage in unnecessary, costly, and lengthy testing which could delay  {O]$,competitive LECs' ability to provide advanced services. Advanced Services Order and NPRM at para. 135  {O'%,n.253. See e.spire Comments at 28 (allowing incumbent LECs to impose NEBS performance requirements imposes "unreasonable, costly and burdensome" requirements on competitive LECs).' "O,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X,"35.` ` We conclude that, subject to the limitations described herein, an incumbent LEC may impose safety standards that must be met by the equipment to be collocated in its central office. First, we agree with commenters that NEBS Level 1 safety requirements are  X,generally sufficient to protect competitive and incumbent LEC equipment from harm.P {O4,ԍSee MCI Worldcom Comments at 62 (competitive LECs "must be given a level of certainty with respect to acceptable equipment"); Sprint Comments at 13; AT&T Comments at 78. NEBS safety requirements, originally developed by the Bell Operating Companies' own research arm, are generally used by incumbent LECs for their own central office equipment, so we conclude that NEBS adequately address the safety concerns raised by incumbent LECs  X_,when competitors introduce their own equipment into incumbent LEC central offices.uQ_" {O2 ,ԍSee Advanced Services Order and NPRM at para. 134.u We reject SBC's argument that equipment safety and performance standards should vary from  X1,location to location and that no general rules of applicability should be imposed.QR1 {O,ԍSee SBC Comments at 1819.Q While we agree that equipment safety standards are important to protect incumbent LEC central offices, we also believe that as a matter of federal policy, there should be a common set of safety principles that carriers should meet, regardless of where they operate. We agree with those commenters that contend that NEBS requirements that address reliability of equipment, rather than safety, should not be used as grounds to deny collocation of competitive LEC  X ,equipment.S F {O,ԍSee Covad Comments at 25; AT&T Comments at 78; Sprint Comments at 13; Allegiance Comments at 4; DATA Reply at 22; Intermedia Comments at 37. Thus, an incumbent LEC may not refuse to permit collocation of equipment on  X,the grounds that it does not meet NEBS performance, rather than safety, requirements.hT {O,ԍSee supra n.79 and accompanying text.h  Xb,#36. NEBS-END ` ` Second, we conclude that, although an incumbent LEC may require competitive LEC equipment to satisfy NEBS safety standards, the incumbent may not impose safety requirements that are more stringent than the safety requirements it imposes on its own  X,equipment that it locates in its premises.U2  {O,ԍSee Covad Comments at 2425; Qwest Comments at 55; AT&T Comments at 78; DATA Reply at 22; Illinois C.C. Comments at 910; Sprint Comments at 13; KMC Comments at 15. Because incumbent LECs generally have been setting their own rules for the safety standards that collocating carriers must adhere to, we need to adopt measures that reduce incentives for discriminatory action. We agree with commenters' suggestion that an incumbent LEC that denies collocation of a competitor's equipment, citing safety standards, must provide to the competitive LEC within five business days a list of all equipment that the incumbent LEC locates within the premises in question, together with an affidavit attesting that all of that equipment meets or exceeds the safety" U,-(-(ZZ"  X,standard that the incumbent LEC contends the competitor's equipment fails to meet.V {Oy,ԍSee Covad Comments at 25 (only with such a procedure in place "will [competitive] LECs be able to know if they are receiving discriminatory treatment"); AT&T Comments at 78; Sprint Comments at 13. We find that absent such a requirement, incumbent LECs may otherwise unreasonably delay the ability of competitors to collocate equipment in a timely manner. For example, without this requirement, incumbents could unfairly exclude competitors' equipment for failing to meet safety standards that the incumbent's own equipment does not satisfy, or may unreasonably refuse to specify the exact safety requirements that competitors' equipment must satisfy.  Xv,3  X_,X` `  ,d.XgAlternative Collocation Arrangements(#  XH,  X1,` `  ,g (1)hhBackground  X ,$37.` ` In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we made several tentative conclusions and sought comment on issues raised by ALTS in its petition contending that the practices and policies that incumbent LECs employed in offering physical collocation impeded competition by imposing substantial costs and delays on competing carriers for space 3and  X ,construction of collocation cages.W " {O|,ԍAdvanced Services Order and NPRM at paras. 13644. See AT&T Comments at 79. Based on the record submitted in this proceeding, we now adopt several of our tentative conclusions related to the provisioning of collocation space in incumbent LEC premises.  XM,%38.` ` In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we tentatively concluded that we should require incumbent LECs to offer collocation arrangements to new entrants that minimize the space needed by each competing provider in order to promote the deployment of  X ,advanced services to all Americans.eX  {Oo,ԍAdvanced Services Order and NPRM at para. 137.e Such alternative collocation arrangements include: (1) the use of shared collocation cages, within which multiple competing providers' equipment could be either openly accessible or locked within a secure cabinet; (2) the option to request collocation cages of any size without any minimum requirement, so that competing providers will not use any more space than is reasonably necessary for their needs; and (3) physical  X,collocation that does not require the use of collocation cages ("cageless" collocation).gYF {O ,ԍSee Covad Comments at 26; AT&T Comments at 835.g  Xi,` `  ,g(2)hhDiscussion  X;,&39.` ` We now adopt our tentative conclusion that incumbent LECs must provide specific collocation arrangements, consistent with the rules we outline below, at reasonable rates, terms, and conditions as are set by state commissions in conformity with the Act and" Y,-(-(ZZ"  X,our rules.Z\ {Oy,ԍSee Illinois C.C. Comments at 10 (alternative collocation arrangements must recognize continuing state  {OC,flexibility to adopt additional standards). See also 47 U.S.C.  251(c)(6) (requiring incumbent LECs to provide collocation at "rates, terms and conditions that are just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory"). We agree with those commenters that argue requiring such alternative collocation arrangements will foster deployment of advanced services by facilitating entry into the market  X,by competing carriers.[ {Oo,ԍSee Covad Comments at 20 (additional alternative collocation arrangements "would greatly encourage the deployment of advanced services by competitive carriers like Covad in residential and rural areas"); KMC Comments at 13 (alternative collocation arrangements "increas[e] predictability and certainty" and "facilitat[e]  {O ,entry by competitors operating in several states"); NTIA Jan. 11, 1999 Ex Parte at 21 ("Creating multiple collocation alternatives will promote a more optimal allocation of central office space and will increase the likelihood that collocators can find suitable arrangements."). By requiring incumbent LECs to provide these alternative collocation arrangements, we seek to optimize the space available at incumbent LEC premises, thereby allowing more competitive LECs to collocate equipment and provide service. Moreover, we  X,noted in the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, and the record reflects, that more costeffective collocation solutions may encourage the deployment of advanced services to less  Xa,densely populated areas by reducing the cost of collocation for competitive LECs.9\Zah  {Oz,ԍAdvanced Services Order and NPRM at para. 138. See Covad Comments at 26 (large minimum space requirements and segregated collocation rooms increase costs and "ultimately presents a substantial barrier to entry in smaller towns and residential areas").9  X3,'40. NEWRULES ` ` We now adopt new rules requiring incumbent LECs to make certain collocation arrangements available to requesting carriers. In adopting new rules, we reject the arguments of incumbent LEC commenters that additional national collocation rules are not necessary. For example, BellSouth argues that, rather than adopt additional rules, the Commission should  X ,"allow the parties to discuss and resolve any issues they may have on a casebycase basis,"J]  yO,ԍBellSouth Comments at 47.J and Ameritech argues that "collocation rates, terms and conditions have been resolved as  X ,important contractual obligations."J^  yOt,ԍAmeritech Comments at 34.J The record is replete, however, with evidence  X,documenting the expense and provisioning delays inherent in the caged collocation process._" {O,ԍSee Covad Comments at 5 ("incumbent LECs "artificially raise the cost of obtaining space for xDSL equipment in a central office to over $100,000 . . . [and] continue to create artificial space scarcities"); MCI Worldcom Comments at 65 ("Alternative, more costeffective methods of collocation would also spur competition, particularly in residential and rural areas"); AT&T Comments at 7980; e.spire Comments at 25.  X{,National rules governing specific collocation arrangements will help solve those problems.`"{ {O$,ԍSee AT&T Comments at 7980 (requiring cages reduces the efficient use of central office space and delays new entrants' ability to enter a central office); Covad Comments at 18 (with alternative arrangements, "[d]elays and costs caused by cage construction, partitioning, floor conditioning or collocation room construction would be eliminated"). "{~`,-(-(ZZb" We require incumbent LECs to make each of the arrangements outlined below available to competitors as soon as possible, without waiting until a competing carrier requests a particular arrangement, so that competitors will have a variety of collocation options from which to choose. We note, however, that incumbent LECs and their competitors can, in the course of voluntary negotiations, agree to additional or different collocation terms and conditions beyond those we require in this order.  X_,(41.COLLOTYPE-BEGINSHARED COLLO` ` First, we require incumbent LECs to make shared collocation cages available to new entrants. A shared collocation cage is a caged collocation space shared by two or more competitive LECs pursuant to terms and conditions agreed to by the competitive LECs. In making shared cage arrangements available, incumbent LECs may not increase the cost of site preparation or nonrecurring charges above the cost for provisioning such a cage of similar dimensions and material to a single collocating party. In addition, the incumbent must prorate the charge for site conditioning and preparation undertaken by the incumbent to construct the shared collocation cage or condition the space for collocation use, regardless of how many carriers actually collocate in that cage, by determining the total charge for site preparation and allocating that charge to a collocating carrier based on the percentage of the total space  Xy,utilized by that carrier.ay {O,ԍSee NorthPoint Comments at 8; MCI Worldcom Comments at 65; AT&T Comments at 8384. See also  {O,infra Section IV.2.f. discussing allocation of space preparation costs. In other words, a carrier should be charged only for those costs  Xb,directly attributable to that carrier.jbb$ {O7,ԍSee, e.g., Network Access Solutions Comments at 19.j The incumbent may not place unreasonable restrictions on a new entrant's use of a collocation cage, such as limiting the new entrant's ability to contract with other competitive carriers to share the new entrant's collocation cage in a subleasetype arrangement. In addition, if two or more competitive LECs who have interconnection agreements with an incumbent LEC utilize a shared collocation arrangement, the incumbent LEC must permit each competitive LEC to order UNEs to and provision service from that shared collocation space, regardless of which competitive LEC was the  X,original collocator."cZ {O(,ԍSee Letter from Michael E. Olsen, Deputy General Counsel, Government & Industry Affairs, Northpoint, to Lawrence E. Strickling, Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 98147 (dated Mar. 8, 1999)."  X,)42.` ` Second, we require incumbent LECs to make cageless collocation arrangements available to requesting carriers. In general, we agree with commenters that the use of a caged collocation space results in the inefficient use of the limited space in a LEC premises, and we consider efficient use of collocation space to be crucial to the continued development of the  X7,competitive telecommunications market.d\7 {O%,ԍSee Covad Comments at 27; Northpoint Comments at 8; AT&T Comments at 86; KMC Comments at  {O&,16. See also U S WEST Comments at 40 (U S WEST makes cageless collocation arrangements available to competitors). While we do not prevent incumbent LECs from"7 d,-(-(ZZ" offering caged collocation arrangements, we require incumbent LECs to make cageless  X,collocation available so as to offer competitors a choice of arrangements.Pe {Ob,ԍSee Covad Comments at 27.P Subject only to technical feasibility and the permissible security parameters outlined below, incumbent LECs must allow competitors to collocate in any unused space in the incumbent LEC's premises, without requiring the construction of a room, cage, or similar structure, and without requiring  X,the creation of a separate entrance to the competitor's collocation space.f"Z yO,ԍWe believe that reasonable security arrangements deployed under the supervision of state commissions will address the concern expressed by incumbent LECs that cageless collocation poses a risk to their equipment.  {O( ,See infra paras. SECURITY-BEG46שSECURITY-END49. See, e.g., Bell Atlantic Comments at 3234, SBC Comments at 2227, GTE Comments at 68. We further agree with commenters that incumbent LECs may require competitors to use a central entrance to the incumbent's building, but may not require construction of a new entrance for competitors' use, and once inside the building incumbent LECs must permit competitors to have direct  X1,access to their equipment.Ug1D {O&,ԍSee AT&T Comments at 85 n.150.U Incumbent LECs may not require competitors to use an intermediate interconnection arrangement in lieu of direct connection to the incumbent's network if technically feasible, because such intermediate points of interconnection simply  X ,increase collocation costs without a concomitant benefit to incumbents.h  {Os,ԍSee Minn. PUC Comments at 1112; AT&T Comments at 82; Sprint Reply at 34. In addition, an incumbent LEC must give competitors the option of collocating equipment in any unused space within the incumbent's premises, to the extent technically feasible, and may not require competitors to collocate in a room or isolated space separate from the incumbent's own equipment. The incumbent LEC may take reasonable steps to protect its own equipment, such as enclosing the equipment in its own cage, and other reasonable security measures as discussed below. The incumbent LEC may not, however, require competitors to use separate rooms or floors, which only serves to increase the cost of collocation and decrease the amount of available collocation space. The incumbent LEC may not utilize unreasonable segregation requirements to impose unnecessary additional costs on competitors.  X,*43.` ` Incumbent LECs must also ensure that cageless collocation arrangements do not  X,place unreasonable minimum space requirements on collocating carriers.ih  {O ,ԍSee Covad Comments at 26 ("to serve smaller communities . . . Covad may only need to collocate one or two bays of equipment, which would take up, at most, 15 to 30 square feet of floor space"); AT&T Comments at 79; Northpoint Comments at 8. We note that SBC is willing to provide competitors with collocation space of less than 100 square feet. SBC Comments at 22. GTE provides collocation space in minimum increments of 25 square feet. GTE Comments at 68. Thus, a competitive LEC must be able to purchase collocation space sufficient, for example, to house only one rack of equipment, and should not be forced to purchase collocation space that is much larger than the carrier requires. We require incumbent LECs to make collocation space"i,-(-(ZZ" available in singlebay increments, meaning that a competing carrier can purchase space in  X,increments small enough to collocate a single rack, or bay, of equipment.Pj {Ob,ԍSee Covad Comments at 28.P We conclude that this requirement serves the public interest because it would reduce the cost of collocation for competitive LECs and it will reduce the likelihood of premature space exhaustion. We rely on state commissions to ensure that the prices of these smaller collocation spaces are appropriate given the amount of space in the incumbent LEC's premises actually occupied by the new entrants.  XH,+44.COLLOTYPE-END ZONING ` ` Finally, we require incumbent LECs, when space is legitimately exhausted in a particular LEC premises, to permit collocation in adjacent controlled environmental vaults or  X ,similar structures to the extent technically feasible.k Z {O% ,ԍAdvanced Services Order and NPRM at para. 142 (seeking comment on any additional alternative collocation arrangements that incumbent LECs should make available to competitors). Such a requirement is, we believe, the best means suggested by commenters, both incumbents and new entrants, of addressing the issue of space exhaustion by ensuring that competitive carriers can compete with the  X ,incumbent, even when there is no space inside the LEC's premises.l"  {O:,ԍSee GTE Reply at 48 (competitive LECs should be able to lease adjacent space from the incumbent at fair market rates); e.spire Comments at 2425 ("Having this alternative will give [competitive] LECs more opportunity to optimize the available collocation arrangements"); NEXTLINK Comments at 16; Rhythms Comments at 3031; MGC Comments at 24. Because zoning and other state and local regulations may affect the viability of adjacent collocation, and because the incumbent LEC may have a legitimate reason to exercise some measure of control over design or construction parameters, we rely on state commissions to address such issues. In general, however, the incumbent LEC must permit the new entrant 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 traditional collocation arrangements.  X,,45.` ` In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we also asked whether, if an incumbent LEC offers a particular collocation arrangement, such an arrangement should be  X,presumed to be technically feasible at other LEC premises.em {O!,ԍAdvanced Services Order and NPRM at para. 139.e We recognize that different incumbent LECs make different collocation arrangements available on a region by region, state by state, and even central office by central office basis. Based on the record, we now conclude that the deployment by any incumbent LEC of a collocation arrangement gives rise to a rebuttable presumption in favor of a competitive LEC seeking collocation in any"g0 m,-(-(ZZp"  X,incumbent LEC premises that such an arrangement is technically feasible.4nZ {Oy,ԍSee Covad Comments at 10 ("what is technically feasible in one part of the country is technically feasible in all parts of the country"); Northpoint Comments at 8; Intermedia Comments at 3738; Allegiance Comments at 23; MCI Worldcom Comments at 6869.4 Such a presumption of technical feasibility, we find, will encourage all LECs to explore a wide variety of collocation arrangements and to make such arrangements available in a reasonable and timely fashion. We believe this "best practices" approach will promote competition. Thus, for example, a competitive LEC seeking collocation from an incumbent LEC in New York may, pursuant to this rule, request a collocation arrangement that is made available to competitors by a different incumbent LEC in Texas, and the burden rests with the New York incumbent LEC to prove that the Texas arrangement is not technically feasible. The incumbent LEC refusing to provide such a collocation arrangement, or an equally costeffective arrangement, may only do so if it rebuts the presumption before the state commission that the particular premises in question cannot support the arrangement because of either technical reasons or lack of space.  X ,XX` ` X , e.gSecurity(#  X ,  X ,-46.SECURITY-BEG` ` In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we sought comment on the security and access issues that may arise from a requirement that incumbent LECs provide  X{,alternative collocation arrangements, including cageless collocation.eo{ {O,ԍAdvanced Services Order and NPRM at para. 140.e We noted that, in the  Xd,Local Competition First Report and Order, the Commission concluded that incumbent LECs should be permitted reasonable security arrangements to protect their equipment and ensure  X8,network security and reliability.p8| {Oe,ԍAdvanced Services Order and NPRM at para. 140. See Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15803, para. 598. We recognized that adequate security for both incumbent  X!,LECs and competitive LECs is important to encourage deployment of advanced services.q! {O,ԍId. See MCI Worldcom Comments at 66 ("Sufficient security measures are important to all providers").  X,.47.` ` We conclude, based on the record, that incumbent LECs may impose security arrangements that are as stringent as the security arrangements that incumbent LECs maintain  X,at their own premises either for their own employees or for authorized contractors.Prh  {O!,ԍSee Covad Comments at 18.P To the extent existing security arrangements are more stringent for one group than for the other, the incumbent may impose the more stringent requirements. Except as provided below, we conclude that incumbent LECs may not impose more stringent security requirements than  Xi,these.Hsi  {O',ԍSee id. at 2930.H Stated differently, the incumbent LEC may not impose discriminatory security"i s,-(-(ZZ" requirements that result in increased collocation costs without the concomitant benefit of providing necessary protection of the incumbent LEC's equipment.  X,/48.` ` We agree with commenting incumbent LECs that protection of their equipment  X,is crucial to the incumbents' own ability to offer service to their customers.ht {O,ԍSee Ameritech Comments at 42; GTE Reply at 5758.h Therefore, incumbent LECs may establish certain reasonable security measures that will assist in protecting their networks and equipment from harm. The incumbent LEC may not, however, unreasonably restrict the access of a new entrant to the new entrant's equipment. We permit incumbent LECs to install, for example, security cameras or other monitoring systems, or to require competitive LEC personnel to use badges with computerized tracking systems. Incumbent LECs may not use any information they collect in the course of implementing or operating security arrangements for any marketing or other purpose in aid of competing with other carriers. We expect that state commissions will permit incumbent LECs to recover the costs of implementing these security measures from collocating carriers in a reasonable  X ,manner.u Z {O,ԍSee e.spire Comments at 30; MCI Worldcom Comments at 67; AT&T Comments at 8687; Comptel  yO,Comments at 4142; Intermedia Comments at 42.  We further permit incumbent LECs to require competitors' employees to undergo the same level of security training, or its equivalent, that the incumbent's own employees, or third party contractors providing similar functions, must undergo. The incumbent LEC may not, however, require competitive LEC employees to receive such training from the incumbent LEC itself, but must provide information to the competitive LEC on the specific type of training required so the competitive LEC's employees can complete such training by, for example, conducting their own security training.  X,049.SECURITY-END` ` Moreover, in order to provide customers with a competitive level of service, we agree with commenters that competitive LECs must have access to their collocated equipment  X,24 hours a day, seven days a week.v {O=,ԍSee MCI Worldcom Comments at 67; AT&T Comments at 87; e.spire Comments at 30; Covad Comments at 3132. If competitors do not have such access, they will be unable to service and maintain equipment or respond to customer outages in a timely manner. We do not agree, however, with Ameritech and SBC that 24 hour security escorts are  X,necessary.w yOR!,ԍAmeritech Comments at 42 (security escorts are necessary to avoid "even inadvertent damage" to incumbent LEC equipment); SBC Comments at 16. We agree with commenters that alternative security measures, like those outlined above, adequately protect incumbent LEC networks without the added cost and burden of  Xe,security escorts.xef  {O|%,ԍSee e.spire Comments at 30; MCI Worldcom Comments at 67; AT&T Comments at 8687; Comptel  yOF&,Comments at 4142; Intermedia Comments at 42.  We therefore conclude that incumbent LECs must allow collocating parties to access their equipment 24 hours a day, seven days a week, without requiring either a"N x,-(-(ZZm" security escort of any kind or delaying a competitor's employees' entry into the incumbent LEC's premises by requiring, for example, an incumbent LEC employee to be present. We also require incumbent LECs to provide competitors reasonable access to basic facilities, such as restroom facilities and parking, while at the incumbent LEC's premises.  X,  X,XX` ` X ,f.gSpace Preparation Cost Allocation(#  Xv,  X_,150.` ` In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we sought comment on ALTS'  XJ,proposal that we establish rules for the allocation of upfront space preparation charges.eyJ {O ,ԍAdvanced Services Order and NPRM at para. 143.e One approach we noted, which had been adopted by Bell Atlantic in its prefiling statement in the New York Commission's section 271 docket, was that the competing provider would be responsible only for its share of the cost of conditioning the collocation space, whether or not  X ,other competing providers were immediately occupying the rest of the space. z Z {O,ԍId. at para. 143. See Petition of New York Telephone Company for Approval of its Statement of Generally Available Terms and Conditions pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and  {O,Draft Filing of Petition for InterLATA Entry Pursuant to Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, New York Commission Case 97C0271, PreFiling Statement of Bell Atlantic New York, at 2123 (N.Y.P.S.C. filed April 6, 1998).  In addition, Bell Atlantic committed to allowing smaller competing providers to pay on an installment  X ,basis.k{  {O,ԍAdvanced Services Order and NPRM at para. 143.k We sought comment on whether we should adopt Bell Atlantic's approach, or any other approach, as a national standard in order to speed the deployment of advanced  X,telecommunications capability to all Americans.@| {O,ԍId.@  Xd,251.` ` We conclude, based on the record, that incumbent LECs must allocate space preparation, security measures, and other collocation charges on a prorated basis so the first collocator in a particular incumbent premises will not be responsible for the entire cost of site  X,preparation.}"2  {O,ԍSee Intermedia Comments at 4344 ("such a rule will eliminate a major entry barrier . . ."); Northpoint Comments at 11 (incumbent LEC costing method "has led to a reluctance to act first that has diminished consumers' ability to choose among broadband services"); ICG Comments at 22; Covad Comments at 2829; e.spire Comments at 3132; Sprint Comments at 16. For example, if an incumbent LEC implements cageless collocation arrangements in a particular central office that requires air conditioning and power upgrades, the incumbent may not require the first collocating party to pay the entire cost of site preparation. In order to ensure that the first entrant into an incumbent's premises does not bear the entire cost of site preparation, the incumbent must develop a system of partitioning the cost by comparing, for example, the amount of conditioned space actually occupied by the new entrant with the overall space conditioning expenses. We expect state commissions will"},-(-(ZZ" determine the proper pricing methodology to ensure that incumbent LECs properly allocate site preparation costs among new entrants. We also conclude that these standards will serve as minimum requirements, and that states should continue to have flexibility to adopt additional collocation requirements, consistent with the Act.  X,XX` ` X , g.gProvisioning Intervals(#  Xv,  X_,352.` ` In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we sought comment on how to address the entry barrier posed by delays between the ordering and provisioning of collocation space. Specifically, we sought comment on ALTS' proposal that we should establish presumptive reasonable deployment intervals for new collocation arrangements and expansion  X ,of existing arrangements.e~  {O~ ,ԍAdvanced Services Order and NPRM at para. 144.e Currently, some incumbent LECs require a new entrant to obtain state competitive LEC certification before it can begin to negotiate an interconnection agreement. In addition, competitive LECs asserted that some incumbent LECs will not allow a requesting carrier to order collocation space until an interconnection agreement becomes  X ,final.N Z {O,ԍId. at para. 143.N  X{,453.` ` We conclude that an incumbent LEC may not impose unreasonable restrictions on the time period within which it will consider applications for collocation space. Specifically, we conclude that an incumbent LEC may not refuse to consider an application for collocation space submitted by a competitor while that competitor's state certification is pending, or before the competitor and incumbent LEC have entered into a final  X,interconnection agreement. {O,ԍSee NTIA Jan. 11, 1999 Ex Parte at 22 ("[competitive LECs] should have the option of accelerating the start of the provisioning process by ordering space prior to a finalized interconnection agreement . . ."). We agree with commenters who contend that there is no legitimate reason for an incumbent LEC to refuse to begin processing a collocation application, especially given that competitors pay an application fee to the incumbent to cover  X,the costs associated with consideration of the application.IF {O,ԍSee Northpoint Comments at 12 (U S WEST, for example, refused to permit Northpoint to order collocation space until it had signed an interconnection agreement, the agreement had been approved by the state commission, and Northpoint had been certified as a competitive LEC by the state); Level 3 Comments at 10;  {O!,Sprint Comments at 17. See also Ameritech Comments at 45 (Ameritech permits carriers to submit collocation applications before state certification or interconnection agreements are completed).I  X,554.PROVISIONING` ` We do not adopt specific provisioning intervals at this time. We have adopted several new collocation rules in this Order, and we do not yet have sufficient experience with the implementation of these new collocation arrangements to suggest time frames for provisioning. While we do not at this time adopt specific intervals, we retain authority to adopt specific time frames in the future as we deem necessary. We emphasize the importance"9 ,-(-(ZZ(" of timely provisioning, and we are confident that state commissions recognize the competitive harm that new entrants suffer when collocation arrangements are unnecessarily delayed. The record in this proceeding reflects the significant competitive harm suffered by new entrants whose collocation space is not ready for as long as six to eight months after their initial  X,collocation request is submitted to the incumbent LEC. {O,ԍSee, e.g., Covad Comments at 8 (up to 180 business days from date of application to provisioning of collocation space in certain Bell Atlantic states). Several state commissions have taken significant steps to lessen the time periods within which incumbent LECs provision  Xv,collocation space.sv" {OI ,ԍSee, e.g., Texas PUC Comments at 8; NY PUC Comments at 910.s The Texas PUC has required Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT) to provide competitive LECs with information on space availability in a SWBT  XH,premises within ten days of receipt of a collocation request.UH {O ,ԍSee Intermedia Comments at 23.U Because of the importance of ensuring timely provisioning of collocation space, we encourage state commissions to ensure that incumbent LECs are given specific time intervals within which they must respond to collocation requests.  X ,655.` ` The practices of several carriers suggest that provisioning intervals can be short. Both GTE and Ameritech state that they respond to physical collocation requests  X ,within ten days by advising the requesting carrier whether space is available or not.^ F yO,ԍGTE Comments at 74; Ameritech Comments at 45.^ We view ten days as a reasonable time period within which to inform a new entrant whether its collocation application is accepted or denied. Even with a timely response to their applications, however, new entrants cannot compete effectively unless they have timely access to provisioned collocation space. We urge the states to ensure that collocation space is available in a timely and procompetitive manner that gives new entrants a full and fair opportunity to compete.  X, X` `  ,h.gSpace Exhaustion(#  X,  X,756.` ` In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we noted that one of the major barriers facing new entrants that seek to provide advanced services on a facilities basis is the  X,lack of collocation space in many incumbent LEC premises.e {O",ԍAdvanced Services Order and NPRM at para. 145.e Pursuant to the Act, incumbent LECs must provide physical collocation unless they demonstrate to the state commission's satisfaction that "physical collocation is not practical for technical reasons or  XP,because of space limitations."JPh  yOi&,ԍ47 U.S.C.  251(c)(6).J Because incumbent LECs have the incentive and capability to impede competition by reducing the amount of space available for collocation by"9 ,-(-(ZZj"  X,competitors, the Commission, in the Local Competition First Report and Order, required incumbent LECs that deny requests for physical collocation on the basis of space limitations  X,to provide the state commission with detailed floor plans or diagrams of their premises. {OM,ԍLocal Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15805, para. 602. The Commission concluded that such submissions would aid the state commission in  X,evaluating whether the denial of physical collocation was justified.@Z {O,ԍId.@  Xx,857.` ` We now adopt our tentative conclusion that an incumbent LEC that denies a request for physical collocation due to space limitations should, in addition to providing the state commission with detailed floor plans, allow any competing provider that is denied physical collocation at the incumbent LEC's premises to tour the premises. This proposal  X ,received wide support in the record."  {O,ԍAdvanced Services Order and NPRM at para. 146. See Covad Comments at 3334; MCI Worldcom Comments at 69; KMC Comments at 18; Illinois C.C. Comments at 12; Comptel Comments at 44; AT&T Comments at 90; ICG Comments at 2527; Intermedia Comments at 43; Sprint Comments at 18; Texas PUC Comments at 12; Northpoint Comments at 15; Allegiance Comments at 6. Specifically, we require the incumbent LEC to permit representatives of a requesting telecommunications carrier that has been denied collocation due to space constraints to tour the entire premises in question, not just the room in which  X ,space was denied, without charge, within ten days of the denial of space.  {O^,ԍSee Covad Comments at 19; e.spire Comments at 29; NTIA Jan. 11, 1999 Ex Parte at 22.ĝ As we noted in  X ,the Advanced Services NPRM, allowing competing providers to walk through a LEC's premises will enable those providers to identify space that they believe could be used for  X,physical collocation.h  {O,ԍAdvanced Services Order and NPRM at para. 146. See GTE Comments at 49 (supporting third party verification of space availability claims); Covad Comments at 34 ("not knowing the space status of a particular office can delay the [competitive] LEC one month while such a survey of available space is done"); NEXTLINK Comments at 15 (tour of U S WEST premises after denial of collocation resulted in space being provisioned); e.spire Comments at 29. If, after the tour of the premises, the incumbent LEC and competing provider disagree about whether space limitations at that premise make collocation impractical, both carriers could present their arguments to the state commission. We disagree with the comments of several incumbent LECs that tours are unnecessary and could  X8,potentially harm LEC central offices.M8 {O",ԍSee Bell Atlantic Comments at 43; BellSouth Comments at 47; Ameritech Comments at 4647. SBC contends that permitting competitive LEC representatives to tour central offices could raise "potential intellectual property/proprietary concerns." SBC Comments at 29. SBC does not provide any explanation for how these concerns would be raised by the mere presence of a competitive LEC employee in SBC's central office, nor does SBC explain how these concerns would outweigh the importance of providing tours of incumbent LEC facilities.M Incumbent LECs are permitted to assign their own personnel to such tours, thus offering sufficient protection against harm to the network and proprietary information."  ,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X,ԙ958. COLLO-10 ` ` We also adopt our tentative conclusion that an incumbent LEC must submit to a requesting carrier within ten days of the submission of the request a report indicating the  X,incumbent LEC's available collocation space in a particular LEC premises.WZ {OK,ԍAdvanced Services Order and NPRM at para. 147. See NTIA Jan. 11, 1999 Ex Parte at 1718 ("the Commission should require [incumbent] LECs to establish and maintain lists from which competitors can learn exactly how much collocation space is available in each central office").W This report must specify the amount of collocation space available at each requested premises, the number of collocators, and any modifications in the use of the space since the last report. The report must also include measures that the incumbent LEC is taking to make additional space available for collocation. In addition to this reporting requirement, we adopt the proposal of Sprint that incumbent LECs must maintain a publicly available document, posted for viewing on the Internet, indicating all premises that are full, and must update such a document within  X1,ten days of the date at which a premises runs out of physical collocation space.1 {O ,ԍSee Sprint Comments at 18. We note that Bell Atlantic already makes information available on an Internet website concerning space availability in its offices in New York. Bell Atlantic Comments at 43. Such requirements will allow competitors to avoid expending significant resources in applying for  X ,collocation space in an incumbent LEC's premises where no such space exists.y D {O,ԍSee AT&T Comments at 88; Qwest Comments at 57; ICG Comments at 25.y We expect that state commissions will permit incumbent LECs to recover the costs of implementing these  X ,reporting measures from collocating carriers in a reasonable manner.  {O\,ԍSee, e.g., e.spire Comments at 30; MCI Worldcom Comments at 67; AT&T Comments at 8687;  yO&,Comptel Comments at 4142; Intermedia Comments at 42.   X ,:59.` ` We disagree with those commenters that argue that preparing such reports would be of no use to requesting carriers because the information contained in them would  Xy,change frequently.[y0  {OZ,ԍSee, e.g., Ameritech Comments at 47.[ For network planning purposes, new entrants need to know what incumbent LEC offices are available for collocation. We disagree with GTE that new entrants should first have to "submit a written request [for collocation space] along with an application  X4,fee" before discovering if space is available in a LEC office.D4  yO,ԍGTE Comments at 74.D Each new entrant cannot be required to apply for collocation space in every central office in order to find out if there is space available in that office, when such information is readily available to the incumbent LEC that occupies that office.  X,;60. OBSOLETE COLLO-END` ` Finally, we conclude that in order to increase the amount of space available for collocation, incumbent LECs must remove obsolete unused equipment from their premises"!R ,-(-(ZZ"  X,upon reasonable request by a competitor or upon the order of a state commission. {Oy,ԍAdvanced Services Order and NPRM at para. 142. See Sprint Comments at 15; Qwest Comments at 5758; AT&T Comments at 88; NEXTLINK Comments at 15; Northpoint Comments at 8.. There is no legitimate reason for an incumbent LEC to utilize space for obsolete or retired equipment that the incumbent LEC is no longer using when such space could be used by competitors for collocation. The record reflects that some incumbent LECs already remove obsolete  X,equipment to increase collocation space.#Z" {Ow,ԍSee U S WEST Comments at 41 ("U S WEST often removes 'obsolete' equipment to increase available space in central offices"); Ameritech Comments at 44 (Ameritech already removes equipment that is not used and useful from central offices).# We believe it would be anticompetitive for an incumbent to maintain such equipment in its premises and contend that no collocation space is available. We rely on state commissions to settle disputes between carriers as to which incumbent equipment is truly obsolete and unused and can be removed from the LEC's premises. We also note that carriers may utilize the complaint provisions of section 208 of the Act in the case of collocation disputes that fall within the Commission's jurisdiction.  X ,#Xj PynXP# B.` ` Spectrum Compatibility(#`  X ,  X ,<61.` ` Background. Spectrum compatibility refers generally to the ability of various  X ,loop technologies to reside and operate in close proximityRX D yO,ԍProximity refers to loop technologies residing in the same or an adjacent "binder group." Twisted copper pairs, used to deliver xDSLbased services and other services, including plain old telephone service, are typically housed within binder groups (cable sheaths housing multiple loops).R while not significantly degrading each others performance. Our discussion of spectrum compatibility includes spectral compatibility standards issues, such as setting the signal power densities so as to minimize interference, and spectrum management issues, such as establishing binder group  Xb,administration and deployment practices. bd  yOw,ԍAlthough the terms "spectrum compatibility" and "spectrum management" are often used interchangeably, we intend the rights in the "spectrum compatibility" section to refer to a service provider's general right to deploy a particular technology and the rights in the "spectrum management" section to refer to the provider's right to deploy a technology in a particular situation. The development of spectral compatibility standards should help to minimize crosstalk, the noise caused by extraneous signals combining with the intended signal. This noise can result in the degradation of the intended signal. Compatibility becomes a significant concern with the introduction of new highspeed services in a multiple provider environment. For example, if an incumbent LEC and a competitive LEC offer DSL services that use different line encoding technologies, and if their respective customers' loops are located adjacent to each other within a binder group, the two technologies may unintentionally interfere with one another and interrupt the signals travelling over each loop. One method of ensuring spectral compatibility is through the use of power spectral density (PSD) masks. PSD masks are represented as graphical templates that define the limits on signal power densities across a range of frequencies so as to minimize"|"L ,-(-(ZZ" interference. The goal of PSD mask standards is to permit divergent technologies to coexist  X,in close proximity within the same binder groups. Standards bodies, such as T1E1.4,x yOb,ԍThe T1E1.4 working group of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is developing standards  {O*,for the various varieties of xDSL. See e.g., Network and Customer Installation Interfaces - Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) Metallic Interface (ANSI T1.413-1995) (ANSI T1.413 standard presents the electrical characteristics of the ADSL signals appearing at the network interface.) The physical interface between the network and the customer installation is also described. The transport medium for the signals is a single twisted-wire pair that supports both Message Telecommunications Service (also referred to as POTS) and full-duplex (simultaneous two-way) and simplex (from the network to the customer installation) digital services. This interface standard provides the minimal set of requirements for satisfactory transmission between the network and the customer installation. Equipment may be implemented with additional functions and procedures.  {Ol ,For more information on T1E1.4, see http://www.t1.org/t1e1/_e14home.htm.x define these masks as technology develops. The development of spectrum management rules and practices should help enable multiple technologies to coexist within binder groups.  X,=62.` ` In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we sought comment on how to  Xx,address the host of loop spectrum compatibility issues.ixd  {O,ԍAdvanced Services Order and NPRM at paras. 15962.i In particular, we asked commenters to consider how we should address interference concerns that may result from provision of  XJ,advanced services using different signal formats on copper pairs in the same bundle.NJ  {O,ԍId. at para. 159.N We asked parties to suggest ways to determine when a particular service, technology, or piece of equipment causes network interference such that the use of the particular service, technology,  X ,or piece of equipment should be prohibited.N  {O>,ԍId. at para. 162.N We also asked commenters to suggest ways to distinguish between legitimate claims that particular services, technologies, or equipment create spectrum interference and claims raised simply to impede competition. We sought comment on whether we should adopt any industry standards as the basis for national  X ,spectrum compatibility requirements.:  {Ot,ԍId.: We also sought comment on how any requirements should evolve over time so as to encourage and not stifle innovation. In addition, we sought comment on other approaches to spectrum management that would foster procompetitive use of the loop plant by incumbent LECs and new entrants, while providing necessary network  XM,protection.HM {O",ԍId. at para. 163.H  X,>63.SPECCOMPNEUT MASKS UNILATERAL` ` Discussion. We acknowledge that clear spectral compatibility standards and spectrum management rules and practices are necessary both to foster competitive deployment of innovative technologies and to ensure the quality and reliability of the public telephone"#>,-(-(ZZ"  X,network.m {Oy,ԍSee, e.g., NTIA Jan. 11, 1999 Ex Parte at 2526.m We find, however, that incumbent LECs should not unilaterally determine what technologies LECs, both competitive LECs and incumbent LECs, may deploy. Nor should incumbent LECs have unfettered control over spectrum management standards and practices. We are persuaded by the record that allowing incumbent LECs such authority may well stifle  X,deployment of innovative competitive LEC technology.RZ {O,ԍSee Paradyne Comments at 3.R Various commenters argue that some incumbents are frustrating the deployment of advanced services under the guise of  Xv,spectrum compatibility concerns.v {O ,ԍSee, e.g., AT&T Comments at 59; Covad Comments at 4448; DATA Comments at 10; Northpoint Comments at 1819. The better approach, we believe, is to establish competitively neutral spectral compatibility standards and spectrum management rules and practices so that all carriers know, without being subject to unilateral incumbent LEC determinations, what technologies are deployable and can design their networks and business strategies accordingly.  X ,?64.` ` We find that we do not have a sufficient record with which we can adequately  X ,address all of the longterm spectrum compatibility issues. F yO,ԍFor example, the record is insufficient for us to determine how to develop future power spectral density masks for new technologies on a fair and open basis. Thus, we adopt below a Further NPRM through which we hope to resolve, in a timely manner, the longterm spectrum  X ,compatibility issues.M  {O,ԍSee infra Section V.A.M In the Further NPRM, we seek comment on additional measures we can take to encourage deployment of innovative technology while simultaneously ensuring the integrity of the network. In this Order, we adopt certain rules on spectrum compatibility and management which we believe will enable reasonable and safe deployment of advanced services prior to development of industry standards and resolution of all the issues raised in the Further NPRM.  X,XX` ` 1.X ,Existing Power Spectral Density Masks (#  X,@65.` ` Commenters generally agree that the process of establishing power spectral  X,density masks best occurs within the industry standards setting bodies.0  yO",ԍSee Qwest Comments 62; AT&T Comments at 68; GTE Reply Comments at 68; NTIA Jan. 11, 1999  {Oj#,Ex Parte at 25. Such standards bodies possess the combined knowledge and expertise of a broad sector of the industry.  X|,A66.SIGDEGRADE` ` We conclude, however, that we should establish certain rules on spectrum compatibility that will immediately facilitate the deployment of advanced services, until long"e$ ,-(-(ZZ"ԫ X,term standards and practices can be established. {Oy,ԍSee, e.g., ALTS Comments at 6062; AT&T Comments at 5253; Covad Comments at 44. Although we believe that the development of power spectral density masks is best left to standards bodies such as the T1E1.4, we also believe the Commission can take certain immediate steps to encourage the deployment of  X,advanced services.>Z {O,ԍSee id.> Rather than setting forth in this Order specific standards for the new technologies, we establish certain rules to foster deployment of advanced services while maintaining network integrity, until the standards bodies adopt comprehensive standards for the new technologies. We find that any equipment deployed consistent with the rules adopted here can be connected to the public switched telephone network with reasonable confidence that this technology will not significantly degrade the performance of other advanced services, and with reasonable confidence that this technology will not impair traditional voice band  X ,services.7   yO,ԍFor purposes of this discussion, we define "significantly degrade" as an action that noticeably impairs a service from a user's perspective. We acknowledge that this definition is subject to debate. We currently leave it to the states to determine when a technology significantly degrades the performance of other services. We seek comment in the accompanying Further NPRM as to how to define "significantly degrade" more precisely and how to resolve disputes arising out of claims that a technology is significantly degrading the performance of  {O,other services. See infra para. SIGDEGRADEFN88. While we recognize that some minimal interference may develop as new services are introduced, we believe that it is in the public's best interest to encourage the timely deployment of advanced services. We understand, however, that these advanced services will operate well above the voice grade spectrum, and therefore should not interfere with existing analog voice and analog modem services.7  X ,B67.STANDARDS` ` We conclude that any loop technology that complies with existing industry standards is presumed acceptable for deployment. Specifically, we conclude that technology that complies with any of the following standards is presumed acceptable for deployment:  X ,T1.601, T1.413, and TR28.|  yO,ԍT1.601 defines the technical standards for the provision of BRI ISDN service. T1.413 defines the technical standards for the provision ADSL service. TR28 defines the technical standards for the provision HDSL service. We recognize that TR.28 is not a Committee T1 approved standard. TR.28's universal  {On,deployment, however, results in its status as a de facto standard. See Letter from Jeffrey Blumenfeld, Glenn Manishin, and Frank Paganelli, Blumenfeld & Cohen, Counsel for DSL Access Telecommunications Alliance, to Lawrence Strickling, Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 98 {O,147, at 9 (DATA Dec. 1, 1998 Ex Parte). Furthermore, any technology which has been successfully deployed by any carrier without significantly degrading the performance of other services or has been approved by this Commission, any state commission, or an industry standards body  Xb,is presumed acceptable for deployment."b yO$,ԍFor example, NorthPoint contends that it has successfully deployed SDSL technology in seven states. Letter from Ruth Milkman, The Lawler Group, Counsel for Northpoint, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary,  yO%,Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 98147, at 11 (filed Nov. 24, 1998) (Northpoint Nov. 24,  {Om&,1998 Ex Parte); see also DATA Dec. 1, 1998 Ex Parte at 9.  "K%,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X,C68.STANDARDSTESTANDSEE` ` We conclude that a LEC may not deny a carrier's request to deploy technology that is presumed acceptable for deployment, unless the LEC demonstrates to the state commission that deployment of the particular technology within the LEC network will significantly degrade the performance of other advanced services or traditional voice band services. We conclude further that industry standards are not upper limits on what technology is deployable; incumbent LECs and competitive LECs are free to mutually agree to deploy new technologies that may exceed these standards. We encourage cooperation between incumbents and competitors to establish agreements on the deployment of nonstandard xDSLbased and other advanced services technology. We expect that as standards are ratified for new technologies, carriers will recognize these as deployable technologies and will not deny  X ,competitors the ability to deploy these technologies.a  {O ,ԍSee DATA Dec. 1, 1998 Ex Parte at 9.a In the event that a LEC subsequently demonstrates to this Commission or the relevant state commission that a deployed technology is significantly degrading the performance of other advanced services or traditional voice band services, the carrier deploying the technology shall discontinue deployment of that technology and migrate its customers to technologies that will not significantly degrade the performance of other such services.  Xy,D69.` ` We further conclude that incumbent LECs cannot deny requesting carriers the right to deploy a new technology that does not conform to the standards cited in the preceding paragraph and has not yet been approved by a standards body (or otherwise authorized by this Commission or any state commission), if the requesting carrier can demonstrate to the state commission that this particular technology will not significantly degrade the performance of other advanced services or traditional voice band services. In this situation, there would be no presumption in favor of deployment and the burden would be on the requesting carrier to make the appropriate showing.  X,XX` ` 2.X ,Spectrum Management (#  X|,E70. BINDER ` ` Commenters disagree on how to address spectrum management issues. Incumbent LECs state that they are ultimately responsible for the management of the network  XN,and should make the final decision whether a technology should be deployed.JZNZ {OY,ԍSee, e.g., SBC Comments at 3435 ("[until the development of alternative systems/methods], spectrum management will remain the principle responsibility of the incumbent LEC, the only entity in place to coordinate and enforce standards among a number of different carriers.").J Nonincumbent LECs claim that the incumbent LECs are using this authority to exclude  X ,technologies that could be safely deployed."Z | {OM$,ԍSee, e.g., Qwest Comments at 61 (spectrum management is "an area ripe for [incumbent] LEC discrimination"); Paradyne Comments at 5 ("Too often, spectral compatibility concerns are raised simply as a means to thwart competition . . .")." In order to encourage deployment of innovative technology and allow competitors the same opportunity as incumbent LECs to deploy" &,-(-(ZZ" advanced services, while simultaneously ensuring the integrity of the network, we establish  X,certain spectrum management rules.j {Ob,ԍSee, e.g., NTIA Jan. 11, 1999 Ex Parte at 26.j  X, F71.` ` We define spectrum management to include binder/cable administrationZ yO,ԍIndividual copper loops are wrapped together in large bunches, referred to as a binder or cable, for efficient administration before the loops enter the central office. as  X,well as the broader issue of deployment practices (e.g., the rules for testing and implementing xDSLbased and other advanced services). We believe that the industry must develop a simpler and more open approach to spectrum management. Currently, each incumbent LEC defines its own spectrum management specifications. These measures vary from provider to provider and from state to state, thereby requiring competitive LECs to conform to different  X3,specifications in each area.3 {O,ԍSee AT&T Reply Comments at 6869; DATA Comments at 16; DATA Dec. 1, 1998 Ex Parte at 9. We find that uniform spectrum management procedures are essential to the success of advanced services deployment. As such, we adopt the following spectrum management rules.  X ,G72.` ` We conclude that the incumbent LEC must provide competitive LECs with nondiscriminatory access to the incumbent LEC's spectrum management procedures and  X ,policies.O\ D {O,ԍNTIA Jan. 11, 1999 Ex Parte at 2526. For example, GTE provides information on DSLAM deployment, as well as providing competitive LECs access to binder group data through a web based application.  {O0,See http://www.gte.com/Regulatory/ret_july/fl_ret1.html.O The procedures and policies that the incumbent LEC uses in determining which services can be deployed must be equally available to competitive LECs intending to provide  X{,service in an area._Z{h  {O,ԍSee Copper Mountain Comments at 25 (in a situation where an incumbent LEC claims incompatibility, the competitive LEC can take corrective measures to resolve this incompatibility for example, equipment might be adjusted to resolve the problem or service could be limited in rate or distance). _ We believe that competitive LECs need nondiscriminatory access to such information so that the competitive LEC can independently and expeditiously determine  XM,what services and technologies it can deploy within the incumbent LEC's territory.XM  {O,ԍSee AT&T Reply Comments at 6970.X  X,H73.` ` We conclude that incumbent LECs must disclose to requesting carriers information with respect to the rejection of the requesting carrier's provision of advanced services, together with the specific reason for the rejection. The incumbent LEC must also disclose to requesting carriers information with respect to the number of loops using advanced  X,services technology within the binder and type of technology deployed on those loops.v {O&,ԍSee AT&T Comments at 53.#Xj PynXP#v We"',-(-(ZZB" believe that such disclosure will allow for a more open and accessible environment, foster competition, and encourage deployment of advanced services.  X,I74.` ` We strongly believe that industry should discontinue deployment of well  X,recognized disturbers,v yO,ԍA disturber is a service that significantly degrades another service.v such as AMI T1. X {O,ԍSee Covad Comments at 45; see also http://adsl.com/today_index.html. An AMI T1, also referred to as analog T1, is a loop that transmits at T1 rate (1.544 Mbps) using alternate mark inversion (AMI) line code.  We further believe carriers should, to the fullest extent possible, replace AMI T1 with new and less interfering technologies. In the accompanying Further NPRM, we seek comment on methods by which to reduce or eliminate  X_,the deployment of AMI T1.V_ {O ,ԍSee infra para.  T187 .V  X1,J75.` ` We conclude that if a carrier claims a service is significantly degrading the performance of other advanced services or traditional voice band services, then that carrier must notify the causing carrier and allow that carrier a reasonable opportunity to correct the  X ,problem.X D {O,ԍSee, e.g., Sprint Comments at 36.X Any claims of network harm must be supported with specific and verifiable  X ,supporting information.  {O\,ԍSee AT&T Reply Comments at 51. See infra para. DISPUTERES88, seeking comment on developing a dispute resolution process.  X ,K76.` ` We recognize that there may be a limit to the number of lines delivering advanced services that can share a binder group without interfering with other customers' services. We conclude that the incumbent LEC shall bear the burden of demonstrating to the relevant state commission when a requested advanced service will significantly degrade the  XK,performance of existing services, such that the incumbent can deny the competitor's request.K0  {O,,ԍWe seek comment in the Further NPRM on the specifics of binder group management. See infra para.  yO,BINDERFN86. We do not believe this will be a problem until advanced services penetrate a significant portion of the market and expect incumbents to manage binder groups in such a manner so as  X,to maximize the number and types of advanced services that can be deployed.UZ  yOA",ԍWe recognize, of course, that early attention to binder group management issues will guard against problems arising as advanced services reach higher penetration. We seek comment on managing binder groups  {O#,in the Further NPRM. See infra para. BINDERMAN86.U  X,L77.BINDEREND MASKSEND ` ` We recognize further that the standards development process may delay the deployment of new technologies. To address this difficulty, we encourage the industry to"(,-(-(ZZB" apply a "test and see" strategy, which would allow competitive LECs and incumbent LECs to  X,cooperate in testing and deployment of new services.pZ {Ob,ԍSee supra para. TESTANDSEE68; see also GVNM Comments at 12 (advocating "test and see" approach). A "test and see" strategy refers to a process by which the incumbent LEC and competitive LEC cooperate in testing new services to determine whether these services may result in interference problems.p We find that this strategy will encourage innovation and allow for the more rapid deployment of new technologies. Our hope is that all providers recognize that cooperation is essential in this future shared environment.  Xv, V.XFurther Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (#  X_,  XH,XA.X` ` Spectrum Compatibility LongTerm Standards and Practices(#`  X1,  X ,XX` ` 1.X ,Overview (#  X ,M78.SPECTRUM1` ` In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we requested comment on loop spectrum issues. We asked commenters to address any degradation of service that may result from provision of advanced services using different signal formats on copper pairs in the same  X ,bundle.e  {OD,ԍAdvanced Services Order and NPRM at para. 159.e In the Order above, we establish spectrum compatibility and management rules to the extent currently feasible in order to promote the timely deployment of advanced services without significantly degrading the performance of other advanced services or traditional  Xd,voice band services.od| {O,ԍSee supra paras.  MASKS63 שMASKSEND77.o These rules rest upon currently established technical standards and practices. We recognize that, in the long term, more comprehensive technical standards and practices must be developed. We therefore adopt this Further NPRM, through which we hope to resolve, in a timely manner, the host of longterm spectrum compatibility and management issues.  X,XX` ` 2.X ,Discussion (#  X,N79.` ` In the companion Order, we find that incumbent LECs may not unilaterally set  X,spectrum compatibility and spectrum management policies.^ {OT!,ԍSee supra para. UNILATERAL63.^ In place of incumbent LECdetermined standards and practices, we found in the companion Order that there should be a competitively neutral spectrum standards setting process to investigate the actual level of interference between technologies to determine what technologies are deployable and under  X9,what circumstances.9 {O&,ԍSee supra para. SPECCOMPNEUT63; see also NTIA Jan. 11, 1999 Ex Parte at 2526. In this Further NPRM, we tentatively conclude that this process should"9)2 ,-(-(ZZ(" include the active participation of the incumbent LECs, competitive LECs, equipment suppliers, and the Commission. We further tentatively conclude the following: the process should be competitively neutral in both structure and procedure; representation should be equitably spread over all segments of the industry; and representatives should have equal authority, with no party or groups of parties presuming to have greater weight or "veto" power. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions and how to establish such a process to develop longterm standards and practices. We also seek comment on our authority to direct industry bodies to engage in the process of developing spectrum compatibility and management policies, and our authority to compel industry bodies to adhere to any requirements we establish for the functioning of such bodies.  X ,O80.T1FAIRREP` ` In this Further NPRM we seek comment on two broad and interrelated issues: spectrum compatibility and spectrum management. With regard to spectral compatibility, we generally believe, as indicated in the accompanying Order, that the industry, via its standards bodies, can create acceptable standards for xDSL and other advanced services. Much of the standards development process is continuous in nature, and our hope is that the industry will fairly and expeditiously develop standards beyond completion of this proceeding. Future technologies will require the T1E1.4, or other standards bodies, to develop these compatibility standards in a timely, fair, and open manner. We believe, however, that the Commission can play a role in fostering timely, fair, and open development of standards for current and future technologies.  X,P81.` ` We seek comment on the best process or forum for developing future power spectral density (PSD) masks. We tentatively conclude that T1E1.4 is the best choice for this  X,task. {OQ,ԍSee AT&T Comments at 68; GTE Reply Comments at 68; Qwest Comments at 62. Commenters have expressed concern, however, that T1E1.4 is not representative of the developing advanced services industry as a whole and may be overly represented by  X,incumbent carriers and large manufacturers.JZ yO,ԍSee Qwest Comments at 62.J We seek comments on how to foster broader representation and participation in this standards body. We also ask commenters to suggest other forums or methods of guaranteeing fair and timely resolution of spectrum compatibility problems.  X7,Q82.` ` We seek comment on whether generic masks would be an appropriate means to  X ,address spectrum compatibilitydZ  {O",ԍA generic mask defines a general purpose mask that could apply to several technologies. See Generic Approach and Common Specifications of Transmitter Power Spectral Density Masks for TwistedPair Loop Transmission Systems, Bellcore, March 4, 1998, T1E1.4 technical Subcommittee Working Group Members.d We seek comment on whether this approach might restrict deployment of technologies that otherwise would not harm the network. "* ,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X,R83.` ` We seek comment on whether a calculationbased approach, in addition to a power spectral density maskbased approach, provides a better tool for defining spectral  X,compatibility<Z {OK,ԍSee "A New Framework for Spectral Compatibility," submitted by PairGain to T1E1.4, at http://www.t1.org/index/0312.htm. A calculationbased approach uses a computational model for evaluating spectral compatibility, rather than a static PSD maskbased approach.< We specifically seek comment whether such an approach provides a more accurate predictor of spectrum compatibility.  X,S84.` ` With regard to spectrum management, we believe that comments in response to this Further NPRM can provide the information necessary to establish longterm spectrum management rules. Our goal is that the rules developed as a result of the Further NPRM will encourage technical innovation while preserving network reliability. Although we believe that T1E1.4 could serve as the common ground where industry resolves these issues, we think the Commission can facilitate industry development of fair standards through this Further NPRM. We seek specific comment and clarification on the following items initially raised in the NPRM, but not sufficiently explicated in the record.  X ,T85.` ` We seek comment on methods to encourage the industry to develop fair and open practices for the deployment of advanced services technologies. We tentatively conclude that T1E1.4 should serve as the forum to establish fair and open deployment practices. This conclusion is premised on the assumption that a method will be developed by which to ensure  Xb,the active participation of all segments of the industry in T1E1.4.]b {O,ԍSee supra para. T1FAIRREP80.] What role should the Commission play in facilitating broad participation in this process?  X,U86. BINDERFN BINDERMAN` ` We ask commenters to consider how to maximize the deployment of new technologies within binder groups while minimizing interference. We seek comment on the  X,development of xDSL binder group administration practices, including specifications on the  X,types and numbers of technologies that can be deployed within a binder group.Z| {O,ԍSee supra para. BINDER70.Z This should include procedures allowing for deployment of various xDSLbased services in a  X,nonrestrictive manner.-Z {Oi ,ԍSee, e.g., DATA Comments at 10 ("Not surprisingly, these masks exactly match the ILECs' own proposed technology, but either limit or prohibit other technologies, even where other technologies have less potential to cause spectral interference.").- We seek comment on the procedures for maintaining and updating these administrative practices so as to minimize interference with future technologies. We  X|,seek comment on the practice of segregating services based on the technology. For example, we recognize AMI T1 as a potential disturber and understand that incumbent LECs currently assign AMI T1 to separate binder groups. Competitive LECs have expressed concern that incumbent LECs might apply a similar segregation practice to xDSL technology a practice"7+0 ,-(-(ZZ("  X,competitive LECs claim is not necessary or beneficial.  yOy,ԍLetter from James Earl, Assistant General Counsel, Covad, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal  yOA,Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 98147, at Attach. 2 (filed Nov. 6, 1998).  We seek comment on whether to allow incumbent LECs to segregate xDSL technology in such a manner.  X,V87.T1` ` We seek comment on whether we should establish a grandfathering process for  X,interfering technologies.<z  yOu,ԍInterfering technologies may include existing technologies, such as AMI T1, which have already been widely deployed in incumbent networks, or future technologies, the effects of which are not yet known. These technologies may cause significant interference with other services deployed in the network. Newer technologies may be able to provide the end user with the same amount of bandwidth while causing less interference with  {O ,other services.  See, e.g., NorthPoint Nov. 24, 1998 Ex Parte at 1314. Transitioning customers to less interfering technologies, however, may disrupt service for subscribers. Thus, there are competing goals of maximizing noninterference between technologies and not interfering with subscribers' existing services.< For example, should the Commission establish a sunset period for services such as AMI T1? As noted above, we recognize that carriers have a substantial base of AMI T1 in deployment and that in some areas AMI T1 provides the only feasible highspeed transmission capability. We seek comment on whether carriers should be required to replace AMI T1 with new and less interfering technologies, and, if so, what time frame would be reasonable. We ask commenters to propose rules for a possible grandfathering process which will not disrupt the network and simultaneously encourage investment in, and deployment of, new technology.  X , W88.DISPUTERESSIGDEGRADEFN` ` We seek comment on whether to develop a dispute resolution process regarding the existence of disturbers in shared facilities. Specifically, we ask commenters to suggest  X ,how best to resolve disputes arising out of claims that a technology is "significantly  X,degrading" the performance of other services.^b  {O,ԍSee supra para. SIGDEGRADE66.^ We also seek comment on whether, and if so, how we should define "significantly degrade" so as to ensure that consumers have the broadest selection of services from which to choose without harming the network. If we develop a dispute resolution process, should it rely on an outside party as an arbitrator, such as the state commission, the FCC, or a neutral third party, or should the procedures simply provide the rules by which players must conform?  X,X89.` ` We seek comment to determine whether the Commission should solicit the assistance of a third party in developing loop spectrum management policies. What role could  X,such a third party serve in facilitating communication between the industry and regulatory bodies? Should it serve a role similar to the role served by the administrator for local number  X,portability?  {O8%,ԍSee In the Matter of Administration of the North American Numbering Plan, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 2588, at 261116, paras. 5467 (1995). Should it be empowered to develop binder group management procedures, facilitate the development of future PSD masks, and resolve disputes between carriers over the"|,N ,-(-(ZZ"  X,existence of disturbers in shared facilities? We also ask parties to comment on whether a voluntary industry effort could effectively address loop management issues.  X,Y90.` ` We acknowledge that the industry, via the T1E1.4, is currently engaged in  X,developing standards for various varieties of xDSL technologies. {O,ԍT1E1.4 is looking at a number of xDSL related issues. See http://www.t1.org/index/0338.htm. We recognize further that the industry can best address many of the details concerning spectral compatibility. Furthermore, we acknowledge that many of the spectral compatibility issues will require ongoing analysis and oversight beyond the completion of this proceeding. Although we have initiated this Further NPRM in order to develop rules to address longterm spectrum management concerns, we expect that the industry, via the T1E1.4 or other bodies, will continue to develop standards and procedures to promote deployment of advanced services and resolve the problems that arise when multiple carriers deploy multiple technologies over the same facilities. We encourage the industry, through its standards bodies, to continue its independent efforts to develop longterm standards and practices for spectrum management. We expect that the industry will conduct this ongoing role in a expeditious, fair and open manner.  Xy,Z91.SPECTRUM2` ` We ask commenters to address any additional measures the Commission could take to ensure that spectrum compatibility and management concerns are resolved in a fair and expeditious manner. We also ask commenters to consider what measures the Commission could take to ensure that spectral compatibility requirements are forwardlooking and able to evolve over time to encourage, rather than stifle, innovation and deployment of advanced services.  X,X B.X` ` Line Sharing (#`  X,  X,XX` ` 1.X ,Overview (#  X|,[92.LINSHARE-BEGINLINESHAREBEG` ` In the Advanced Services Order and NPRM, we sought comment on whether two different service providers should be allowed to offer services over the same line, with  XP,each provider utilizing different frequencies to transport voice or data over that line.PZ {O[,ԍSee Advanced Services Order and NPRM at para. 162; Sprint Comments at 2326; NAS Comments at 3033; NAS Reply Comments at 1314. For example, ADSLtechnology allows a highspeed data channel to run on higher frequencies  X",above the frequency used for delivery of analog voice signals.M" yO#,ԍMachOne Comments at 7, n.11.M By separating the line into a voice channel and an advanced services channel, such a line can carry both voice and advanced services traffic simultaneously and, potentially, each service could be provided by a"-D,-(-(ZZ"  X,different carrier.: {Oy,ԍId.: We asked commenters whether we should mandate such line sharing, specifically whether the competitive LEC should have the right to run high frequency data  X,signals, or other advanced services, over the same line as the incumbent LEC's voice signal.eZ {O,ԍAdvanced Services Order and NPRM at para. 162.e  X,\93.` ` Shared line access makes it possible for a competing carrier to offer advanced services over the same line that a consumer uses for voice service without requiring the competing carrier to take over responsibility for providing the voice service. Such shared line access would enable new entrants to focus solely on the advanced services market without having to acquire the resources or the expertise to provide other types of telecommunications services, such as analog voice service. Shared line access could also remove any cost disadvantage that an advanced services only provider might face if it had to provide advanced services over a standalone line. A competitive LEC, therefore, may want to take advantage of the ability of advanced services technology, such as ADSL, to run on the frequency above the analog voice channel by providing only highspeed data service, without voice service, over a loop.  X,]94.` ` We believe each end user customer should be able to choose from a broad array of services and from whom to obtain these services. Just as customers can choose one carrier to provide local service, another carrier to provide long distance, and a third entity to provide Internet access over a single line, a customer should have the right to purchase voice service from one carrier and advanced services from another over the same line. In particular, we believe allowing consumers to keep their voice service provider while allowing them to obtain advanced services on the same line from a different provider will foster consumer choice and promote innovation and competitive deployment of advanced services.  X,^95.` ` Line sharing assumes that a requesting carrier will have access to the incumbent  X,LEC's local loop. While the Supreme Court, in Iowa Utilities Board, has directed the Commission to reevaluate the standard for defining the local loop as an unbundled network  X~,element,e~ {O,ԍSee Iowa Utilities Board, 119 S.Ct. at 73336.e we see no reason to delay seeking comment in this proceeding on whether competing carriers may have access to the high frequency portion on an incumbent LEC's loop. To the extent that any redefinition of the local loop, or other network elements, affects any conclusions drawn from this proceeding, we will revise our analysis and conclusions accordingly.  X,XX` ` 2.X ,Discussion (#  X ,_96.` ` The existing record indicates that incumbent LECs have denied competitors the option of offering advanced services over the same line on which the incumbent LEC"!.~,-(-(ZZ/ "  X,provides voice service.X {Oy,ԍSee, e.g., MachOne Comments at 5.X Therefore, in order to provide advanced services to their customers, competing carriers have had to obtain additional lines, typically dedicated to high speed, digital transmission. We believe that if shared line access could be made widely available, competition for advanced services would grow more rapidly as consumers would not be required to purchase a second telephone line in order to have access to highspeed digital services, and competitors would offer advanced services to markets, such as the residential market, where loop costs make a standalone data service uneconomic. Line sharing also holds the possibility of enabling more providers to enter the advanced services market and to enter the market in a manner that enables them to incur no greater costs than the incumbent  X1,LEC or its affiliate will incur.>1Z {O< ,ԍSee id.> As a result, line sharing should promote consumer choice. For example, consumers might want to stay with their existing local telephone company for their plain old telephone service and might want to choose a different carrier for advanced services without incurring the additional expense of installing a new line. Line sharing will enable such customers to keep their analog voice service with their local telephone company, while a competitive LEC provides highspeed digital services over the same line.  X,`97.` ` We decline, however, to mandate line sharing at the federal level at this time under the accompanying Report and Order. Although we find no evidence that line sharing is not technically feasible, we find that the record does not sufficiently address the operational, pricing, and other practical issues that may arise if LECs are compelled to share lines with  X4,competitors.\4 {O,ԍSee, e.g., Letter from Peter K. Pitsch, Intel, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal  {O,Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 98147, at 1 (filed Jan. 21, 1999) (Intel Jan. 21, 1999 Ex Parte) (". . . line sharing is technically feasible. . . . However, [there may be] significant operational concerns. . . ."). We acknowledge that the Commission has concluded that a "determination of technical feasibility does not include consideration of economic, accounting, billing, space, or  X,site, concerns."E yO,ԍ47 C.F.R.  51.5.E Several incumbent LECs have raised, however, billing, accounting, and other operational issues, that we would like to consider before we determine whether to mandate line sharing nationwide. For example, how will two carriers coordinate and manage  X,assignment, maintenance, repair, and billing systems? {O!,ԍSee, e.g., Letter from Dee May, Bell Atlantic, to Michael Pryor, Deputy Division Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 98147, at 1214 (filed Dec. 14, 1998)  {O",(Bell Atlantic Dec. 14, 1998 Ex Parte) ("having two carriers provide service over different portions of the loop will require extensive coordination between them that will necessarily increase the cost of such things as billing and maintaining the loop"). While none of the issues raised by the incumbents challenge the technical feasibility of line sharing, we believe that there may be practical considerations that have not been adequately addressed in the existing record. Moreover, there may be policy considerations that weigh against line sharing, even if the"|/T ,-(-(ZZ" Commission were to conclude that technical and operational concerns could be met. For example, would line sharing create disincentives for investment in facilities or in using the full capability of the local loop? As a result, we seek additional comments in the Further NPRM in order to develop a more comprehensive record on the policy and practical ramifications of federally mandated line sharing, including any policy considerations that weigh against line sharing.  X_,XX` ` X , a.XgAuthority to Require Line Sharing (#  X1,a98.` ` In Iowa Utilities Board, the Supreme Court held that we have jurisdiction to implement the local competition provisions of the Act and that our rulemaking authority  X ,extends to sections 251 and 252.k  {O~ ,ЍIowa Utilities Board, 119 S.Ct. at 72629.k We therefore tentatively conclude that we have authority to require line sharing. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.  LSSTATES  LSSTATES Finally, we tentatively conclude that nothing in the Act, our rules, or caselaw precludes states from mandating line sharing, regardless of whether the incumbent LEC offers line sharing to itself  X ,or others, and regardless of whether it offers advanced services.\ Z {O,ԍSee MachOne Reply Comments at 910; but see In the Matter of the Petition of PDO Communications, Inc. for Arbitration Pursuant to Section 252 of the Federal Communications Act of 1996 to Establish an  {OF,Interconnection Agreement with Pacific Bell, Application No. 9806052, Opinion (Cal.P.U.C. Jan. 7, 1999). We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.  X{,  Xd,XX` ` X ,b.XgAccess to "HighFrequency Portion" of the Loop (#  X6,b99.` ` We tentatively conclude that incumbent LECs must provide requesting carriers with access to the transmission frequencies above that used for analog voice service on any lines that LECs use to provide exchange service when the LEC itself provides both exchange and advanced services over a single line. We tentatively conclude that, without such a ruling, competitive LECs will be hampered in their ability to compete in providing advanced services to end users because the competitive LEC would have to obtain a new line from the incumbent LEC in order to provide advanced services whereas the incumbent LEC could provide advanced services far less expensively by using the existing line. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions. Moreover, in the absence of line sharing, the competing carrier effectively may be forced to provide both voice and data over the local loop it leases from the incumbent. This means that the competing carrier potentially must invest in two technologies circuit switched technology for voice transmissions and packet switched technologies for data. The competing carrier may need to make this investment in circuit technology even though that technology may become obsolete over time. We seek comment on the extent to which the absence of line sharing requires such dual investment and the competitive effect of such dual investment. " 0~,-(-(ZZ2"Ԍ X,c100.LINESHARUNEEND` ` We also seek comment in this proceeding on whether we should more precisely define what constitutes the frequency above that used for analog voice service, so that it is clear to all parties what the incumbent must unbundle, in the event we require line sharing. We ask commenters to address whether setting a specific dividing line between a low frequency channel and a high frequency channel on the loop would arbitrarily freeze technological development and deny carriers opportunities to use the loop to provision  Xv,services that rely on different frequencies bands within the loop.rv {O,ԍSee, e.g., Bell Atlantic Dec. 14, 1998 Ex Parte at 2.r  XH,d101.LINESHAREFN-END` ` We also tentatively conclude that any rules we adopt on line sharing should not mandate a particular technological approach to the use of a line for multiple services. We believe that shared line access is a rapidly evolving technology and any rules we adopt must be forwardlooking and flexible enough to stimulate, rather than stifle, technological  X ,innovation.r Z {O,ԍSee MCI WorldCom Comments at 86; DATA Reply Comments at 13.r We ask commenters to address how we can construct regulations that promote local competition and technological innovation so that American consumers can take full advantage of the line's features, functionalities, and capabilities.  X ,  X,XX` ` X ,c.XgTechnical, Operational, Economic, Pricing, and Cost  Xy,Allocation Issues Associated with Line Sharing (#  XK,e102.LSTECHFEASBEG` ` The current record in this proceeding reveals that incumbent LECs have opposed linesharing with xDSLbased providers on the grounds that simultaneous provision of advanced service and voice service over a single line by separate providers is not  X,technically feasible. {O,ԍSee, e.g., Ameritech Comments at 2122; BellSouth Comments at 5153; GTE Comments at 8690; SBC Comments at 3642. These parties broadly argue that allowing new entrants to acquire rights to the high frequency channel of the line, while declining to purchase the voice channel  X,of the line, would harm the network.?F {O,ԍSee id. ? We find that incumbent LECs have placed nothing on the record in this proceeding demonstrating that a competitor's advanced services equipment is likely to cause any network problems.  X|,f103.` ` Technical Issues. We find nothing in the existing record to persuade us that  Xe,line sharing is not technically feasible.je {O#,ԍSee, e.g., Intel Jan. 21, 1999 Ex Parte at 1.j In fact, incumbent LECs are already sharing the line for the provision of both voice and advanced services. Pacific Bell, for instance, offers line sharing to an independent Internet Service Provider, Concentric Network, Inc, which describes its xDSLbased service as follows:" 1j ,-(-(ZZ%"ԌXInstallation prices include the following: DSL modem, and if using PacBell and an existing phone line, a splitter . . . . If PacBell is the LEC, the standard phone service charge for the phone line used as the DSL circuit is not included. However, an existing phone line may be used, and a splitter will be installed to enable your existing phone line to carry both your data and voice traffic. Our other DSL LECs require a  X,new phone line be installed and the phone service fee is included.S yO,ԍMachOne Reply Comments at 7, n.13.S(# Technically, there appears to be no analytic difference between Pacific Bell's offering to Concentric of xDSLbased services for Internet connectivity over a shared line and Pacific Bell allowing an xDSL provider to order the data functionality of a loop. In both cases, consumers will receive two separate services from two separate providers (at least in terms of operational responsibility) over one copper loop. In the Concentric case, the incumbent LEC owns and maintains the network portion of the xDSL equipment at the customer premises and in the central office (or wherever the xDSL line terminates), and splits the data signals off at the line termination for Concentric. In the case of a competitive xDSL provider, the equipment employed would be virtually identical, but would be owned and maintained by the advanced services provider. Once again, the advanced services and voice signals would run together along the copper loop until they reached the termination of the xDSLcapable loop (in the central office or remote terminal) where the voice signal would be directed to the incumbent LEC's switch, and the advanced services signal would be transported to the advanced services provider's point of presence. Furthermore, the incumbent LEC retail xDSL tariffs filed with the Commission specifically offer ADSL service as an overlay to existing  X,voice service, so that both services are provided over the same line.AX {O,ԍBell Atlantic Direct Case, Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies Tariff FCC No. 1, Transmittal No. 1076,  {O,CC Docket No. 98168 (filed Oct. 6, 1998) at 13; BellSouth Reply Comments, BellSouth Telecommunications,  {O,Inc. FCC No. 1 (filed Aug. 31, 1998) at 1011; GTE Reply Comments, GTE Telephone Operating Companies  {Om,Tariff FCC No. 1 (filed May 28, 1998) at 1719; Pacific Bell Reply Comments, Pacific Bell Tariff FCC No. 128 (filed June 26, 1998) at 15.A In these offerings, the incumbent LEC uses splitter functionality to bundle the voice and data at the customer's  X,premises and unbundle them at the central office end of the loop. {O,ԍBell Atlantic Telephone Companies Tariff FCC No. 1, Transmittal No. 1076 at para. 918.39. Thus the incumbent LEC xDSL tariffs add further support to the proposition that line sharing is technically feasible. As further evidence of the technical feasibility of line sharing, at least one competitive LEC reports that it has successfully conducted technical trials for line sharing of its xDSLbased  X|,data services with the voice services of an independent incumbent LEC.U| yO#,ԍMachOne Reply Comments at Exhibit B.U Because incumbent LECs are already using single lines to provide both voice and advanced services and are even sharing lines with other providers for the provision of both voice and advanced  X7,services, it appears that there exists no bona fide issue of technical infeasibility. As such, we"722 ,-(-(ZZ(" tentatively conclude that line sharing is technically feasible. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.  X,g104.LSTECHFEASEND` ` Although not set forth in the record, we can conceive of some circumstances in which advanced services cannot share a line with analog voice service. For example, some varieties of xDSL may interfere with the analog voice signal. Furthermore, if load coils or repeaters are needed to amplify the voice signal over a long loop, removal of those repeaters to allow for the transmission of high frequency signals would hamper the quality of the voice service. We tentatively conclude that such isolated situations can be remedied and should not interfere with the incumbent's general obligation to share the line. We tentatively conclude that, to the extent that an incumbent LEC can demonstrate to the state commission that digital loop conditioning would interfere with the analog voice service of the line, line sharing is not technically feasible on that particular line, and the incumbent is not obligated to share that line. We tentatively conclude that incumbent LECs would be required to perform other sorts of conditioning, such as removing bridge taps or cleaning up splices along the loop, that would not interfere with the analog voice signal. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions. We ask commenters to address any other technical problems that may arise in line sharing arrangements and to suggest remedies for such problems.  XK,h105.LINESHAREEND` ` Operational Issues. In addition to technical feasibility concerns, commenters  X4,raise concerns about operational barriers to line sharing.4 {O,ԍSee, e.g., Bell Atlantic Dec. 14, 1998 Ex Parte at 1 (spectrum unbundling "is unsound on both legal and policy grounds"); SBC Comments at 3642; U S WEST Comments at 47 & Attach, D para. 12. U S WEST, for example, concedes that the issue is not the technical feasibility of actually sharing the line between voice and advanced services, but instead the operational ability to manage shared lines in  X,terms of "assignment, maintenance, billing and repair systems."^" yO,ԍU S WEST Comments at 47 & Attach, D para. 12.^ We ask commenters to discuss the operational issues that may arise with line sharing. For example, what effect will line sharing have on existing analog voice service? Should carriers be allowed to request just the voice channel of a line? Should carriers be allowed to request any unused portion of a line? How will line sharing affect existing and evolving operations support systems? To what extent will LEC operations support systems need to be modified in order to allow two carriers to share a line? Which entity should manage the multiplexing equipment if two carriers are offering services over the same loop? Should different customers be allowed on the same physical loop? How and by whom should problems on the line be handled? What happens if conditioning a loop for advanced services requires removal of repeaters or load coils, which are needed to preserve the quality of the analog voice signal? These examples are merely illustrative of issues that may arise from two carriers providing services over the same line. We ask commenters to address these issues and any other operational, administrative, and pricing concerns with specificity. "!3,-(-(ZZ "Ԍ X,i106.` ` Economic, Pricing, and Cost Allocation Issues. We also seek comment on the economic, pricing, and cost allocation issues that may arise from line sharing. For example, how might line sharing affect federal and state access charge regimes and universal service  X,mechanisms? What are the pricing consequences of requiring line sharing (e.g., what consequences will line sharing have on the price of the unbundled local loop)? Should the entire cost of the loop be imputed to the voice channel or divided equally or otherwise between the two services sharing the facility? What cost allocation issues, if any, are raised by line sharing? What effect will line sharing have on new entrants' ability to compete with  XJ,incumbents?J yO ,ԍFor example, without line sharing, xDSLbased service providers generally must provide xDSLbased services over a "stand alone" line, in which case they must recover the entire cost of that line from the xDSLbased service alone. Because the recurring loop cost in most cases is approximately half the total cost of providing xDSLbased services, a second line means that competitive xDSLbased service providers must recover significant costs that the incumbent LECs do not have to carry. The incumbent LECs, providing both voice and data over a single line, therefore calculate the loops cost for their xDSLbased service at $0 a month, while the  {Os,competitive LEC competitors may pay as much as $40. See, e.g., DATA Dec. 1, 1998 Ex Parte at 23. This makes it impossible for a data competitive LEC employing two lines to compete with incumbent LECs on price, particularly for the residential consumer market. This scenario, commonly referred to as a "price squeeze," may result in the competitive LEC's cost for the xDSLcapable loop being greater that the incumbent LEC's charge for xDSLbased services. How will line sharing stimulate or retard innovation? How will line sharing affect investment in local exchange facilities?  X ,j107.` ` Finally, we ask commenters to address the continued viability of line sharing arrangements as telecommunications network architectures migrate from a circuit to a packet environment. As carriers deploy ATM and other packet technologies, and as voice traffic moves from the circuitswitched network to Internet Protocol (IP) or ATM networks, is a line sharing requirement commercially or technically feasible? Commenters should address whether a competitive LEC's ability to deliver voice service over a packetswitched network obviates the need to share a loop with the incumbent LEC.  XM, XC.X` ` Procedural Matters (#`  X,X` ` 1. ,Ex Parte Presentations (#  X,k108.` ` The matter in Docket No. 98147, initiated by the Further NPRM portion of this item, shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding in accordance with the  X,Commission's ex parte rules.K\*  {O",ԍSeeĠAmendment of 47 C.F.R. 1.1200 et seq. Concerning Ex Parte Presentations in Commission  {Oh#,Proceedings, GC Docket No. 9521, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 7348, 7356-57, para. 27 citing 47 C.F.R.  yO2$,1.1204(b)(1) (1997).K Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two"4N ,-(-(ZZv"  X,sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required.c {Oy,ԍSee 47 C.F.R. 1.1206(b)(2), as revised.c Other rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in Section 1.1206(b) as well.  X, ` ` 2. ,Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis (#`  X,l109.` ` The Further NPRM contains either a proposed or modified information collection. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the information collections contained in this Notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law No. 10413. Public and agency comments are due at the  X ,same time as other comments on this Notice; OMB comments are due 60 days from date of publication of this Notice in the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.  XK,X` ` 3. ,Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (#  X,m110.` ` As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, see 5 U.S.C.  603, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible impact on small entities of the proposals suggested in this document. The IRFA is set forth as Appendix D. Written public comments are requested with respect to the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines for comments on the rest of the NPRM, but they must have a separate and distinct heading, designating the comments as responses to the IRFA. The Office of Public Affairs, Reference Operations Division, will send a copy of this NPRM , including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.  X",` ` 4. ,Comment Filing Procedures (#`  X,n111. DATES ` ` The proceeding, Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98147, is initiated by the Further NPRM portion of this item. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before June 15, 1999 and  X",reply comments on or before July 15, 1999. All filings should refer only to Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability, CC Docket No. 98147. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS)"j$5Z,-(-(ZZ""  X,or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24,121 (1998). Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file  X,via the Internet to . Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number, which in this instance is CC Docket No. 98147. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet email. To get filing instructions for email comments, commenters should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message, "get form 63.XNorthern Telecom, Inc.(#  X ,?64.XNorthpoint Communications Inc.(#  X!,@65.XOpTel, Inc.(#  X",A66.XParadyne Corporation(#  X#,B67.XPaging and Messaging Alliance of the Personal Communications Industry Association(#  Xh$,C68.XPaging Network, Inc. (PageNet)(#  XQ%,D69.XPeople of the State of California and PUC of California(#  X:&,E70.XPSINet, Inc.(#  X#',F71.XPublic Utility Commission of Texas(#"#':,-(-(ZZ$"Ԍ X,G72.XQwest Communications Corporation(#  X,H73.XRCN Telecom Services, Inc.(#  X,I74.XRhythms NetConnections, Inc.(#  X,J75.XRural Telecommunications Group(#  X,K76.XSBC Communications Inc.(#  X,L77.XSprint Corporation(#  Xv,M78.XSupra Telecommunications and Information Systems, Inc.(#  X_,N79.XTandy Corporation(#  XH,O80.XTechnology Entrepreneurs Coalition(#  X1,P81.XTCA, Inc.(#  X ,Q82.XTelecommunications Resellers Association(#  X ,R83.XTelehub Network Services Corporation(#  X ,S84.XTime Warner Telecom(#  X ,T85.XTranswire Communications, Inc.(#  X ,U86.XUnited States Small Business Association(#  X ,V87.XUnited States Telephone Association(#  X,W88.XUTC(#  Xy,X89.XU S WEST Communications, Inc.(#  Xb,Y90.XUS Xchange, LLC(#  XK,Z91.XVirtual Hipster (Shad Nygren)(#  X4,[92.XWarner, Jim(#  X,\93.XWashington Association of Internet Service Providers(#  X,]94.XWestel, Inc.(#  X,^95.XWilliams Communications, Inc.(#  X,_96.XxDSL Networks, Inc.(#  X, ]Reply Comments October 16, 1998  X|, 1. a. i.(1)(a)(i) 1) a)` 1. a. i.(1)(a)(i) 1) a) 1.XAllegiance Telecom, Inc.(#  Xe,2.XALLTEL Communications Services Corporation(#  XN,3.XAmeritech(#  X7,4.XAssociation for Local Telecommunications Services (ALTS)(#  X ,5.XAT&T Corp.(#  X ,6.XAware, Inc.(#  X,7.XBell Atlantic(#  X,8.XBellSouth Corporation(#  X ,9.XCoalition of Utah Independent Internet Service Providers(#  X!, 10.XCommercial Internet Exchange Association(#  X", 11.XConsumer Federation of America(#  X#, 12.XCovad Communications Company(#  Xh$, 13.XCTSI, Inc.(#  XQ%, 14.XDSL Access Telecommunications Alliance(#  X:&,15.Xe.spire Communications, Inc.(#  X#',16.XExcel Telecommunications, Inc.(#"#';,-(-(ZZ$"Ԍ X,17.XFlorida Digital Network, Inc.(#  X,18.XGeneral Services Administration(#  X,19.XGST Telecom Inc.(#  X,20.XGTE Service Corporation(#  X,21.XHyperion Telecommunications, Inc.(#  X,22.XIntermedia Communications Inc.(#  Xv,23.XKeep America Connected, United Homeowners Association, Harlem Consumer Education Council, National Latino Telecommunications Task Force, American Telemedicine Association, National Association of Development Organizations, Alpha One, and The World Institute on Disability(#  X ,24.XKMC Telecom, Inc.(#  X ,25.XLevel 3 Communications, Inc.(#  X ,26.XMachOne Communications, Inc.(#  X ,27.XMCI WorldCom, Inc.(#  X ,28.XMGC Communications, Inc.(#  X ,29.XMindspring Enterprises, Inc.(#  X,30.XMoultrie Independent Telephone Company(#  Xy,31.XNational Cable Television Association(#  Xb,32.XNational Rural Telecom Association and the Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies(#  X4, 33.XNational Telephone Cooperative Association(#  X,!34.XNetwork Access Solutions, Inc.(#  X,"35.XNetwork Plus, Inc.(#  X,#36.XNew World Paradigm, Ltd.(#  X,$37.XNext Level Communications(#  X,%38.XNEXTLINK Communications, Inc.(#  X,&39.XNorthpoint Communications Inc.(#  X,'40.XQwest Communications Corporation(#  X|,(41.XRCN Telecom Services, Inc.(#  Xe,)42.XRural Telecommunications Group(#  XN,*43.XSBC Communications Inc.(#  X7,+44.XSprint Corporation(#  X ,,45.XTelecommunications Resellers Association(#  X ,-46.XTelehub Network Services Corporation(#  X,.47.XTeligent, Inc. and Net2000 Group, Inc.(#  X,/48.XTime Warner Telecom(#  X ,049.XTranswire Communications, Inc.(#  X!,150.XUnited States Small Business Association(#  X",251.XUnited States Telephone Association(#  X#,352.XUniversal Service Alliance(#  Xh$,453.XU S WEST Communications, Inc.(#  XQ%,554.XVerio Inc.(#  X:&,655.XVirgin Islands Telephone Corporation(#":&<,-(-(ZZ$"  X,  @A-B-@ 0APPENDIX B Final Rules  X,AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS ă 1. Part 51 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) is amended as follows:  Xv, m PART 51 INTERCONNECTION * * * *  X , Subpart A General Information  X ,* * * * 2. Section51.5 is amended by adding the following language:  X,  51.5` ` Terms and Definitions.  Xb,* * * *  X4,Advanced Services. The term "advanced services" is defined as high speed, switched, broadband, wireline telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics or video telecommunications using any technology. * * * *  X, Subpart D Additional Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers 3. Section 51.321 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (f) and adding new paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:  X9,  51.321` ` Methods of obtaining interconnection and access to unbundled elements under section 251 of the Act.  X , * * * * (c) A previously successful method of obtaining interconnection or access to unbundled network elements at a particular premises or point on any incumbent LEC's network is substantial evidence that such method is technically feasible in the case of substantially similar network premises or points. A requesting telecommunications carrier seeking a particular collocation arrangement, either physical or virtual, is entitled to a presumption that such arrangement is technically feasible if any LEC has deployed such collocation arrangement in any incumbent LEC premises. "%'=,-(-(ZZ$"Ԍ* * * * (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. 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 just the area in which space was denied, without charge, within ten days of the receipt of the incumbent LEC's denial of space. * * * * (h) Upon request, an incumbent LEC must submit to the requesting carrier within ten days of the submission of the request a report indicating the incumbent LEC's available collocation space in a particular LEC premises. This report must specify the amount of collocation space available at each requested premises, the number of collocators, and any modifications in the use of the space since the last report. This report must also include measures that the incumbent LEC is taking to make additional space available for collocation. The incumbent LEC must maintain a publicly available document, posted for viewing on the incumbent LEC's publically available Internet site, indicating all premises that are full, and must update such a document within ten days of the date at which a premises runs out of physical collocation space. (i) An incumbent LEC must, upon request, remove obsolete unused equipment from their premises to increase the amount of space available for collocation. 4. Section 51.323 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (h), and (i) and adding new paragraph (k) to read as follows:  Xe,  51.323` ` Standards for physical collocation and virtual collocation. * * * * (b) An incumbent LEC shall permit the collocation of any type of equipment used or useful for interconnection or access to unbundled network elements. 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 National Equipment and Building Specifications performance"#'>,-(-(ZZ$" 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 within 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. Equipment used for interconnection and access to unbundled network elements includes, but is not limited to: (1) Transmission equipment including, but not limited to, optical terminating equipment and multiplexers, and (2) Equipment being collocated to terminate basic transmission facilities pursuant to  66.1401 and 64.1402 of this chapter as of August 1, 1996. (3) Digital subscriber line access multiplexers, routers, asyncronous transfer mode multiplexers, and remote switching modules. * * * * (c) Nothing in this section requires an incumbent LEC to permit collocation of equipment used solely for switching or solely to provide enhanced services; provided, however, that an incumbent LEC may not place any limitations on the ability of requesting carriers to use all the features, functions, and capabilities of equipment collocated pursuant to subsection (b), including, but not limited to, switching and routing features and functions and enhanced services functionalities. * * * * (h) An incumbent LEC shall permit a collocating telecommunications carrier to interconnect its network with that of another collocating telecommunications carrier at the incumbent LEC's premises and to connect its collocated equipment to the collocated equipment of another telecommunications carrier within the same premises provided that the collocated equipment is also used for interconnection with the incumbent LEC or for access to the incumbent LEC's unbundled network elements. (1) An incumbent LEC shall provide, at the request of a collocating telecommunications carrier, the connection between the equipment in the collocated spaces of two or more telecommunications carriers. The incumbent LEC must permit any collocating telecommunications carrier to construct its own connection between the carrier's equipment and that of one or more collocating carriers, if the telecommunications carrier does not request the incumbent LEC's construction of such facilities. The incumbent LEC must permit the requesting carrier to construct such facilities using copper or optical fiber equipment. ":&?,-(-(ZZ$"Ԍ(2) An incumbent LEC shall permit collocating telecommunications carriers to place their own connecting transmission facilities within the incumbent LEC's premises outside of the actual physical collocation space, subject only to reasonable safety limitations. (i) As provided herein, an incumbent LEC may require reasonable security arrangements to protect its equipment and ensure network reliability. An incumbent LEC may only impose security arrangements that are as stringent as the security arrangements that incumbent LECs maintain at their own premises for their own employees or authorized contractors. An incumbent LEC must allow collocating parties to access their collocated equipment 24 hours a day, seven days a week, without requiring either a security escort of any kind or delaying a competitor's employees' entry into the incumbent LEC's premises. Reasonable security measures that the incumbent LEC may adopt include: (1) installing security cameras or other monitoring systems; or X(2) requiring competitive LEC personnel to use badges with computerized tracking systems; or (# (3) requiring competitive LEC employees to undergo the same level of security training, or its equivalent, that the incumbent's own employees, or third party contractors providing similar functions, must undergo; provided, however, that the incumbent LEC may not require competitive LEC employees to receive such training from the incumbent LEC itself, but must provide information to the competitive LEC on the specific type of training required so the competitive LEC's employees can conduct their own training. * * * * (k) An incumbent LEC's physical collocation offering must include the following: (1) Shared collocation cages. A shared collocation cage is a caged collocation space shared by two or more competitive LECs pursuant to terms and conditions agreed to by the competitive LECs. In making shared cage arrangements available, an incumbent LEC may not increase the cost of site preparation or nonrecurring charges above the cost for provisioning such a cage of similar dimensions and material to a single collocating party. In addition, the incumbent must prorate the charge for site conditioning and preparation undertaken by the incumbent to construct the shared collocation cage or condition the space for collocation use, regardless of how many carriers actually collocate in that cage, by determining the total charge for site preparation and allocating that charge to a collocating carrier based on the percentage of the total space utilized by that carrier. An incumbent LEC  X#,must make shared collocation space available in singlebay increments or their equivalent, i.e., a competing carrier can purchase space in increments small enough to collocate a single rack, or bay, of equipment. "<&@,-(-(ZZ$"Ԍ(2) Cageless collocation. Incumbent LECs must allow competitors to collocate in any unused space in the incumbent LEC's premises, without requiring the construction of a cage or similar structure, and without requiring the creation of a separate entrance to the competitor's collocation space. An incumbent LEC may require collocating carriers to use a central entrance to the incumbent's building, but may not require construction of a new entrance for competitors' use, and once inside the building, incumbent LECs must permit  Xv,collocating carriers to have direct access to their equipment. An incumbent LEC may not require competitors to use an intermediate interconnection arrangement in lieu of direct connection to the incumbent's network if technically feasible. In addition, an incumbent LEC must give competitors the option of collocating equipment in any unused space within the incumbent's premises, and may not require competitors to collocate in a room or isolated space separate from the incumbent's own equipment. An incumbent LEC must make cageless collocation space available in singlebay increments, meaning that a competing carrier can purchase space in increments small enough to collocate a single rack, or bay, of equipment. (3) Adjacent space collocation. An incumbent LEC must make available, where space is legitimately exhausted in a particular incumbent LEC premises, collocation in adjacent controlled environmental vaults or similar structures to the extent technically feasible. The incumbent LEC must permit the new entrant 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 either the incumbent LEC or by the requesting carrier itself."A,-(-(ZZ|"  X,    @B-C-@i #XP PynXP# APPENDIX C REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS Đ X,w  X, $FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS ă  X, 1. a. i.(1)(a)(i) 1) a)7 I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 1 1(1)(a)(i) 1) a)1.` ` As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),X yO,#]\  PCɒP#э See 5 U.S.C.  603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C.  601 et. seq.#x6X@KX@##]\  PCɒP#, has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). an Initial Regulatory  X,Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Advanced Services Order and NPRM.  Xx,The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Advanced Services  Xc,Order and NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. [The comments received are discussed  XN,below.] This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.oN yO ,#]\  PCɒP#э See 5 U.S.C.  604. o  X , I.Need for and Objectives of this First Report and Order and the Rules Adopted  X ,Herein. ` `  X ,2.` `   In order to encourage competition among carriers to develop and deploy new advanced services, it is critical that the marketplace for these services be conducive to  X ,investment, innovation, and meeting the needs of consumers. In this First Report and Order, we seek to ensure that all carriers have economic incentives to innovate and invest in new technologies.  XW,3.` ` We also adopt additional measures to further facilitate the development of competition in the advanced services market. First, we strengthen our collocation rules to reduce the costs and delays faced by competitors that seek to collocate equipment in an incumbent LEC's central office. We also adopt certain spectrum compatibility guidelines and  X,adopt a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) to explore issues related to developing longterm standards and practices for spectrum compatibility and management and  X,line sharing. The issues which are the subject of the FNPRM will be discussed in a separate Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.  V,  X, II.  Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the  Xu,IRFA.  XG,4.` ` In the IRFA, we stated that any rule changes would impose minimum burdens  X0,on small entities. We indicated that the collocation section of the NPRM proposed reporting requirements. The IRFA solicited comment on alternatives to our proposed rules that would minimize the impact they may have on small entities. In response we received comments from the Office of Advocacy, United States Small Business Administration (SBA) specifically directed to the IRFA. Specifically, SBA contends that the Commission's IRFA was inadequate because it failed to consider the effect of its proposed rules on small incumbent"!Bx,-(-(ZZ "  X,LECs.] yOy,ԍSmall Business Administration Comments at 6.] While we continue to believe that incumbent LECs are dominant and therefore not "small" businesses within the meaning of the SBA, we include a discussion of the effect of the actions taken in this order on small incumbent LECs in order to remove any possible issue  X,of RFA compliance.X {O,ԍSee Local Competition First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 16145, para. 1330. As noted in Part V of this FRFA, in making the determinations reflected in this order, we have given consideration to the SBA's comments, as well as comments of parties that generally addressed the impact of our proposed rules on small entities. We also do not agree with SBA's contention that our IRFA was not sufficiently  X_,detailed to generate "meaningful comments on the impact of the proposed rules."C_ yO ,ԍSBA Comments at 7.C The comments of the SBA, the National Rural Telecom Association, and the Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies, among others, provided more than sufficient detail for us to prepare this FRFA.  X , III.  Description and Estimates of the Number of Small Entities Affected by the First  X ,Report and Order. ` `  X ,5.` ` The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an  X,estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the actions taken in this First  X{,Report and Order.{z {O,#] PɒP#эSee 47 U.S.C.  603(b)(3). The RFA generally defines the term "small entity " as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small governmental  XO,jurisdiction."~O  {O ,#] PɒP#эSee 47 U.S.C.  601(6).~ In addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the term  X8,"small business concern" under the Small Business Act.g8 yO,#] PɒP#э47 U.S.C.  601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of "small business concern" in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to the RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register." 5 U.S.C.  601(3).g 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  X,(SBA). N  yO#,#] PɒP#эSmall Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632 (1996).  X,6.` ` Below, we further describe and estimate the number of small entities that may  X,affected by the decisions in this First Report and Order."C,-(-(ZZ?"Ԍ X,ԙ7. ` ` The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers of certain 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  X,Telecommunications Industry Revenue report, regarding the Telecommunications Relay  X,Service (TRS).? yO,#] PɒP#эFCC, Telecommunications Industry Revenue: TRS Fund Worksheet Data, Figure 2 (Number of Carriers  {O,Paying Into the TRS Fund by Type of Carrier) (Nov. 1997) (Telecommunications Industry Revenue). ? According to data in the most recent report, there are 3,459 interstate  X,carriers.i" {Ob ,#] PɒP#эId. i These carriers include, inter alia, local exchange carriers (LECs), wireline carriers  Xz,and service providers, interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, operator service  Xc,providers, pay telephone operators , providers of telephone toll service, providers of telephone exchange service, and resellers.  X ,8.` ` The SBA has defined establishments engaged in providing "Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone" to be small businesses when they have no more  X ,than 1,500 employees.I  {OU,#] PɒP#э13 C.F.R. 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 4812 and 4813. See Executive  {O,Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987).I Below, we discuss the total estimated number of telephone companies and small businesses in this category, and we then attempt to refine further those estimates.  X,9. ` ` Although some affected incumbent LECs may have 1,500 or fewer employees, we do not believe that such entities should be considered small entities within the meaning of the RFA because they are either dominant in their field of operations or are not independently owned and operated, and therefore by definition not "small entities" or "small business concerns" under the RFA. Accordingly, our use of the terms "small entities" and "small businesses" does not encompass small incumbent LECs. Out of an abundance of caution, however, for regulatory flexibility analysis purposes, we will separately consider small incumbent LECs within this analysis and use the term "small incumbent LECs" to refer to any  X,incumbent LECs that arguably might be defined by the SBA as "small business concerns."*$ {O,#] PɒP#эSee 13 C.F.R. 121.201, SIC code 4813. Since the time of the Commission's 1996 decision,  {Mg,Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report and  {O/ ,Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 1614445 (1996), 61 FR 45476 (August 29, 1996), the Commission has consistently addressed in its regulatory flexibility analyses the impact of its rules on such incumbent LECs.*  X, 10.` ` Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition for small LECs. The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for  X,telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies.  {O-&,#] PɒP##] PɒP#эId.  Xi,According to the most recent Telecommunications Industry Revenue data, 1,371 carriers"iD ,-(-(ZZ"  X,reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services. {Oy,#] PɒP#эTelecommunications Industry Revenue, Figure 2. We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are either dominant in their field of operations, are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of LECs that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that fewer than 1,371 providers of local exchange service are small entities or small incumbent LECs that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.  XH, 11.` ` Competitive LECs. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to providers of competitive LECs. The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications companies except radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The most reliable source of information regarding the number of competitive LECs nationwide is the data that we collect annually in  X ,connection with the TRS Worksheet. According the most recent Telecommunications Industry  X ,Revenue data, 109 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive local exchange service or competitive access service, which are placed together in  X,the data.:Z {O,ԍId.: We do not have information on the number of carriers that are not independently owned and operated, nor have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of competitive LECs that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 109 small competitive LECs or competitive access providers.  X!,  X , IV.  Summary of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance  X,Requirements.    X, A.` ` Collocation  X, 12.` ` We establish additional national rules for collocation. We require incumbent LECs to permit collocating carriers to construct their own crossconnect facilities between collocated equipment located on the incumbent's premises. An incumbent LEC that denies collocation of a competitor's equipment, citing safety standards, must provide to the competitive LEC within five business days a list of all equipment that the incumbent LEC locates within 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. Incumbent LECs must provide specific collocation arrangements, consistent with the rules we outline below, at reasonable rates, terms, and conditions as are set by state commissions in conformity with the Act and our rules. "!E,-(-(ZZ "Ԍ X, 13.` ` Incumbent LECs must make shared collocation cages, cageless collocation, and adjacent controlled environmental huts, each with singlebay collocation arrangements, available to new entrants. Subject only to technical feasibility and certain security parameters, incumbent LECs must allow competitors to collocate in any unused space in the incumbent LEC's premises, without requiring the construction of a cage or similar structure, and without requiring the creation of a separate entrance to the competitor's collocation space. Incumbent LECs may not require competitors to use an intermediate interconnection arrangement in lieu of direct connection to the incumbent's network if technically feasible, because such intermediate points of interconnection simply increase collocation costs without a concomitant benefit to incumbents. Incumbent LECs must allow competitive LECs to have access to their collocated equipment 24 hours a day, seven days a week, without requiring a security escort or delaying a competitor's employees' entry into the incumbent LEC's premises.  X , 14.` ` Incumbent LECs must allocate space preparation, security measures, and other collocation charges on a prorated basis so the first collocator in a particular incumbent premises will not be responsible for the entire cost of site preparation. An incumbent LEC may not refuse to consider an application for collocation space submitted by a competitor while that competitor's state certification is pending, or before the competitor and incumbent LEC have entered into a final interconnection agreement. Incumbent LECs must permit representatives of a requesting telecommunications carrier that has been denied collocation due to space constraints to tour the entire premises in question. Upon request from a competitive LEC, an incumbent LEC must submit to the requesting carrier within ten days of the submission of the request a report indicating the incumbent LEC's available collocation space in a particular LEC premises. This report should specify the amount of collocation space available at each requested premises, the number of collocators, and any modifications in the use of the space since the last report. The report should also include measures that the incumbent LEC is taking to make additional space available for collocation. In addition to this reporting requirement, incumbent LECs must maintain a publicly available document, posted for viewing on the Internet, indicating all premises that are full, and must update such a document within ten days of the date at which a premises runs out of physical collocation space. Finally, incumbent LECs must remove obsolete unused equipment from their premises to increase the amount of space available for collocation.  X , B.` ` Spectrum Compatibility  X,15.` ` We establish certain spectrum compatibility guidelines in order to permit the  X ,safe deployment of xDSL and other advanced technologies. We determine that complying with these rules may require use of engineering, technical, operational, accounting, billing, and legal skills. However, we believe that incumbent LECs will already have these skills. "#F,-(-(ZZ!"Ԍ X, HV. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and  X,Small Incumbent LECs, and Alternatives Considered.  X, A.` ` Collocation   X,16.` ` Incumbent LECs that deny competitive LECs collocation of certain equipment in a central office must provide the requesting carrier, within five business days, a list of all Hequipment the incumbent locates within the premises in question, together with an affidavit attesting that all the incumbent's equipment meets the safety standards that the incumbent contends the competitor's equipment fails to meet. In addition, an incumbent LEC must submit to the requesting carrier within ten days of the submission of the request a report indicating the incumbent LEC's available collocation space in a particular LEC premises. These requirements allow competitive LECs, who would otherwise have be unable to discover if incumbent LECs are imposing discriminatory standards, to determine what type of equipment incumbents will accept to be collocated, and further will allow competitive LECs to determine if incumbent LECs are discriminating in enforcing equipment requirements on competitive LECs but not on themselves. The burden in preparing these reports in minimum, because incumbent LECs already know what equipment they have in their offices, how much space they have available, and the way in which they apply their collocation standards.  X4,17.` ` Incumbent LECs that deny collocation for space reasons must allow competitive LECs to tour facilities. This requirement again provides proof of lack of space, and allows competitive LECs to gather evidence for presentation to state commission if there is a factual dispute regarding space availability. The burden on the incumbent LEC is minimum, because it can schedule tours when an employee is on site and available to give one.  X,18.` ` An incumbent LEC must make public a document available on Internet that lists all its premises that have no more collocation space available, within 10 days of the time that the space fills up completely. This serves competitive LECs by telling them when an incumbent LEC office is full, so they need not apply for space. The burden on incumbent LECs is minimal, because an Internet site is easy and cheap to maintain, and all they are doing is making available information that they already know themselves.  X,19.` ` An incumbent LEC must submit a report, within 10 days of receipt of a request for such a report, to a requesting competitive LEC indicating how much space is available in a particular incumbent LEC premises. This benefits competitive LECs by allowing them to find out if space is available without having to go through the lengthy and expensive application process. There is minimal burden on the incumbents because they already know the design of their own central offices and should be able to easily state how much space is available for collocation.  X:&,20.` ` Incumbent LECs must remove obsolete unused equipment from their premises to create more collocation space. Such a requirement can result in the creation of more"#'G,-(-(ZZ$" collocation space in central offices that were previously without space. The burden on incumbent LECs is minimal, because if the equipment is obsolete and unused, the removal of such equipment will not affect the network operations of the incumbent.  X, B.` ` Spectrum Compatibility   Xv,21.` ` Incumbent LECs must make public the spectrum management guidelines and policies that they use to determine what services competitive LECs can provide over unbundled loops. This requirement benefits competitive LECs by ensuring they know what services they can provide over unbundled loops. There is a minimal burden to incumbent LECs, because they already know what spectrum management guidelines they are applying to their own network, and they are now simply required to make such information public.  X , VI.Report to Congress  X ,22.` ` The Commission will send a copy of the FIRST REPORT AND ORDER, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business  Xy,Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, see 5 U.S.C.  801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the  Xb,Commission will send a copy of the FIRST REPORT AND ORDER, including FRFA, to  X4, X Xthe Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the  X,FIRST REPORT AND ORDER and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be  X,published in the Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C.  604(b).(# "H,-(-(ZZ"  X, #XP PynXP# INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS   X,w 1 1 1(1)(a)(i) 1) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 1 1(1)(a)(i) 1) a)1.` ` As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), X yOK,#]\  PCɒP#э See 5 U.S.C.  603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C.  601 et. seq.#x6X@KX@##]\  PCɒP#, has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the  yO,CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).#x6X@KX@#  the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments  X_,on the Further NPRM provided above in paragraph DATES111 DATES . The Commission will send a copy of the Further NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small  X1,Business Administration.U1 {O ,ԍSee 5 U.S.C.  603(a)U In addition, the Further NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof)  X ,will be published in the Federal Register.D z {OE,ԍSee id.D  X , I. Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rule  X ,2.` ` The Commission is issuing the Further NPRM to seek comment on issues related to spectrum compatibility management. We ask commenters to consider whether the Commission should establish rules for deployment of central office equipment similar to those set forth in Part 68 of our rules. We also ask commenters to address the technical, operational, pricing, legal or policy ramifications of line sharing. We tentatively conclude that there are no technical, legal, regulatory or policy obstacles to line sharing among competing carriers. Further, we seek comment on our tentative conclusions that incumbent LECs must provide requesting carriers with unbundled access to the transmission frequencies above that used for analog voice service on any lines that LECs use to provide exchange service when the LEC itself provides both exchange and advanced services over a single line. We ask commenters to address any other technical problems that may arise in line sharing arrangements and to suggest remedies for such problems.  X, II.  Legal Basis   Xe,3.` ` The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the Further NPRM is contained in sections 14, 10, 201, 202, 251254, 271, and 303(r) of the Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151154, 160, 201, 202, 251254, 271, and 303(r). " I 0*%%ZZ"Ԍ X, III.  Description and Estimates of the Number of Small Entities Affected by the  X,Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking   X,4.` ` 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 proposals in this Further  X,NPRM, if adopted. {O,#] PɒP#эSee 47 U.S.C.  603(b)(3). The RFA generally defines the term "small entity " as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small governmental  X_,jurisdiction."~_Z {Oj ,#] PɒP#эSee 47 U.S.C.  601(6).~ In addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the term  XH,"small business concern" under the Small Business Act.gH yO ,#] PɒP#э47 U.S.C.  601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of "small business concern" in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to the RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register." 5 U.S.C.  601(3).g 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  X ,(SBA).   yOP,#] PɒP#эSmall Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632 (1996).  X ,5.` ` Below, we further describe and estimate the number of small entities that may affected by the proposals in this Further NPRM, if adopted.  X,6. ` ` The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers of certain 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  XK,Telecommunications Industry Revenue report, regarding the Telecommunications Relay  X6,Service (TRS).?6,  yO,#] PɒP#эFCC, Telecommunications Industry Revenue: TRS Fund Worksheet Data, Figure 2 (Number of Carriers  {O,Paying Into the TRS Fund by Type of Carrier) (Nov. 1997) (Telecommunications Industry Revenue). ? According to data in the most recent report, there are 3,459 interstate  X,carriers.i  {OV!,#] PɒP#эId. i These carriers include, inter alia, local exchange carriers (LECs), wireline carriers  X ,and service providers, interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, operator service  X,providers, pay telephone operators , providers of telephone toll service, providers of telephone exchange service, and resellers. "J0*%%ZZB"Ԍ X,7.` ` The SBA has defined establishments engaged in providing "Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone" to be small businesses when they have no more  X,than 1,500 employees.$ {OK,#] PɒP#э13 C.F.R. 121.201, SIC codes 4812 and 4813. See Executive Office of the President, Office of  {O,Management and Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987).$ Below, we discuss the total estimated number of telephone companies and small businesses in this category, and we then attempt to refine further those estimates.  Xv,8. ` ` Although some affected incumbent LEC may have 1,500 or fewer employees, we do not believe that such entities should be considered small entities within the meaning of the RFA because they are either dominant in their field of operations or are not independently owned and operated, and therefore by definition not "small entities" or "small business concerns" under the RFA. Accordingly, our use of the terms "small entities" and "small businesses" does not encompass small incumbent LECs. Out of an abundance of caution, however, for regulatory flexibility analysis purposes, we will separately consider small incumbent LECs within this analysis and use the term "small incumbent LECs" to refer to any  X ,incumbent LECs that arguably might be defined by the SBA as "small business concerns."*$ $ {O,#] PɒP#эSee 13 C.F.R. 121.201, SIC code 4813. Since the time of the Commission's 1996 decision,  {M],Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report and  {O%,Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 1614445 (1996), 61 FR 45476 (August 29, 1996), the Commission has consistently addressed in its regulatory flexibility analyses the impact of its rules on such incumbent LECs.*  X,9.` ` Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition for small LECs. The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for  Xb,telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies.b {O#,#] PɒP##] PɒP#эId.  XK,According to the most recent Telecommunications Industry Revenue data, 1,371 carriers  X6,reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services.6 {O,#] PɒP#эTelecommunications Industry Revenue, Figure 2. We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are either dominant in their field of operations, are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of LECs that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that fewer than 1,371 providers of local exchange service are small entities or small incumbent LECs that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.  X~, 10.` ` Competitive LECs. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to providers of competitive LECs. The"gK4 0*%%ZZp" closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications companies except radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The most reliable source of information regarding the number of competitive LECs nationwide is the data that we collect annually in  X,connection with the TRS Worksheet. According the most recent Telecommunications Industry  X,Revenue data, 109 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive local exchange service or competitive access service, which are placed together in  Xz,the data.:z {O,ԍId.: We do not have information on the number of carriers that are not independently owned and operated, nor have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of competitive LECs that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 109 small competitive LECs or competitive access providers.  X ,  X , IV.  Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance  X ,Requirements   X , 11.` ` We were unable to gather a sufficient record on the development of rules relating to procedures for equipment testing and compliance, so we seek additional comments on this issue. We are seeking comments on whether the Commission should establish rules for deployment of central office equipment similar to those set forth in Part 68 of our rules. We also ask commenters to address whether the Commission should be involved with the actual testing and compliance procedures or whether the industry is better suited to serve this function through the use of independent and accredited labs. We ask commenters to address any additional measures the Commission could take to ensure that spectrum compatibility and management concerns are resolved in a fair and expeditious manner. We seek comment on the level of demand for line sharing, and on technical and operational obstacles to sharing a single line between two service providers.  X, V.  Significant Alternatives to Proposed Rule Which Minimize Significant Economic  X,Impact on Small Entities and Small Incumbent LECs, and Accomplish Stated Objectives  XR, 12.` ` In this Further NPRM, we seek to develop a record sufficient enough to adequately address issues related to developing longterm standards and practices for spectrum  X$,compatibility and management,z$Z {O/!,ԍSee supra paras. SPECTRUM178שSPECTRUM291.z and to the sharing of loops by multiple providers.{$ {O",ԍSee supra paras. LINESHAREBEG92שLINESHAREEND105.{ In addressing these issues, we seek to ensure that competing carriers, including small entity carriers, obtain access to inputs necessary to the provision of advanced services. We"L~0*%%ZZz" tentatively conclude that our proposals in the Further NPRM would impose minimum burdens on small entities. We seek comment on these proposals and the impact they may have on small entities.  X, VI.Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rule  Xv, 13.` ` None."vM0*%%ZZ("   @C-@ X,~ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF  COMMISSIONER HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH DISSENTING IN PART w  V, Re:X In the Matter of Deployment of Advanced Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability; (CC Docket No. 98147).(#  X_, I support many aspects of this Order, but write separately to express several reservations. First, while I generally support the collocation requirements adopted here, I am concerned with the Commission's continuing establishment of additional rules or clarifications under Section 251. I believe that Congress had expected this agency to fully implement the Section 251 requirements expeditiously and then to allow the market to function without further government intervention. I hope that the collocation requirements adopted today will provide clear guidelines for local exchange carrier (LEC) interaction, and provide some level of certainty without the need for continuing government involvement. In addition, I specifically dissent from the majority's decision to proceed with a Further Notice on line sharing at this time. We have not even asked what our new standard for the unbundling of network elements should be. I believe the Commission should first address the standard for unbundling network elements consistent with the Supreme Court's remand, prior to concluding, even tentatively, that we have the authority to require line sharing when one of the bases to make such a conclusion is that it is an unbundled network element. Moreover, it would have been preferable to have these issues addressed subsequent to or at least in conjunction with the UNE proceeding so that commenters could apply their proposed section 251(d)(2) standard to line sharing. Since the Commissioners had not even seen a draft of any item initiating the remand proceeding prior to adopting this Further Notice, the Further Notice and accompanying comment schedule is at best premature and may even prejudge issues that are more appropriately discussed in a comprehensive manner. I believe that in adopting this Further Notice the Commission has put the cart before the horse, especially since it has yet to release even a public notice seeking comment on the issues that were remanded to this agency almost two months ago. " N0*%%ZZ"  X,   X  STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL K. POWELL,  X,qCONCURRING IN PART w  V,X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: