FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011 Page: 5,258
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Attachment Act of 1978.92 The Commission's longstanding rule appears to have influenced pole
attachment expectations. No commenter challenges this well-established standard for reasonable notice.
32. Based on the record, 60 days also appears to be a workable timeframe that many utilities
can meet.93 This furthers our interest in dependability. The successful experiences of several utilities and
attachers support the pragmatism of selecting this model. For example, Verizon reports that, when
multiple parties must be sequenced to perform make-ready, 60 days are needed to design the work order
and coordinate make-ready work.? Other utilities also estimate that they need 60 days to perform make-
ready.95 On the attachment side, TWC claims that requests for more than 200 attachments may require 60
days or more.96 We disagree with commenters that contend we should adopt a 45-day deadline for make-
ready performance because New York and Connecticut adopted that interval.97 The record contains no
data showing how often utilities in those states actually meet the 45-day deadline. Some utilities do
report that they find 45 days adequate for make-ready, but only absent complicating factors.98 On this
record, it appears that 45 days may be a "best practice" for medium-sized pole attachment requests, and
30 days or less appears to be a reasonable "best practice" for small requests.99 We decline to adopt these
shorter "best practices" timeframes as rules, but we encourage utilities to maintain or improve upon these
shorter timeframes when feasible. As discussed in greater detail infra, if existing attachers have not
moved their facilities within 60 days of notification, the utility or the attacher may move the facilities for
33. For wireless attachments above the communications space on a pole, we include an extra
30 days for make-ready for two reasons. First, these attachments generally are located in, near or above
the electric space, which can raise significant safety concerns.'0' Second, the record reflects that, at
92 Communications Act Amendments of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-234, 92 Stat. 33 (1978) (Pole Attachment Act);
Adoption of Rules for the Regulation of Cable Television Pole Attachments, CC Docket 78-144, First Report and
Order, 68 FCC 2d 1585, para. 8 (1979) (First Report and Order).
93 The ability to meet the 60-day make-ready period is premised on size limits to orders that would be subject to the
timeline. See infra Part III.A.4. See also, e.g., Coalition Comments at 33; AT&T Comments at 28; TWC
Comments at 18. These comments respond to the 45-day make-ready period we proposed, not the 60-day make-
ready period we adopt.
94 Verizon Comments at 31 (arguing 60 days needed for pole owners to complete the engineering design, create a
work order, and coordinate make-ready work with other attachers where work for multiple parties must be
95 See, e.g., USTelecom Comments at 20; CPS Energy Comments at 9 (both arguing that 60 days are needed to
96 TWC Comments at 18 (arguing that requests to attach 200 poles or less can be filled in 45 days, but requests for
more than 200 attachments may require 60 to 90 days).
97 Fibertech Comments at 5-6 (arguing that experience in New York and Connecticut shows that a 45-day
performance timeframe is sufficient).
98 See Further Notice, 25 FCC Rcd at 11893, para. 40. See, e.g., Idaho Power Comments at 2 (straightforward
requests processed within 45 days); Florida IOUs Comments at 18-24 (45 days reasonable if limited to
communications space); Oncor Comments at 23 (45 days reasonable when deadline applies to attaching entities).
99 See, e.g., TWC Comments at 18 (proposing that make-ready work for fewer than 20 poles should be complete in
30 days); Coalition Comments at 32 (proposing planning meetings for orders in excess of 25 poles); Utah Admin.
Code R746-345-3 (shorter timeframes for orders of 20 or fewer poles); NRECA Comments at &8-10 (finding that
most utilities meet its orders within 30 days).
Too See infra Part III.A.3.
1o See, e.g., HTI Reply at 9 (stating that siting such equipment among "active" components creates additional
safety risks for workers); NY Comm'n Wireless Proceeding at 6 ("Special attention must be given to safety because
S.: ... ' 5258
Federal Communications Commission
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011, book, April 2011; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc52169/m1/430/: accessed January 20, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.