FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011 Page: 5,272
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
than others, and electric utilities report the size of the order as the primary reason they miss the 45-day
survey deadline.191 However, the experience in the states and the scalability of such work supports a
correlation between an order's relative size and its expected processing time. We further reject proposals
that utilities and attachers should negotiate the size and scope of all access requests;'92 the record
demonstrates the problems with an open-ended approach that lacks the certainty and predictability of a
timeline with specific caps.193
67. As previously described, for purposes of calculating the limit, utilities may aggregate into
one order all requests from a single entity within a 30-day period.' Capping the size of an order from
any single attacher within a 30-day period helps utilities to manage workflow and ensures that utilities can
meet incremental goals within each project. When orders from a single attacher are processed on a 30-
day rolling basis, the attacher may hire contractors if a deadline for a particular monthly batch is missed.
Utilities should undertake to perform smaller orders in a shorter amount of time; as stated when
discussing the make-ready stage, a cap that is reasonable for this timeline does not preclude an alternative,
shorter, "best practice" timeline for smaller orders.'95 Utilities may not consider the timeline a safe
harbor for very small orders, but rather remain subject to section 224(b)(l)'s overall requirement of
reasonableness, which includes timeliness in the context of the obligation to provide access to poles.'96
However a utility structures its size and time limits relating to small orders, its policy must be made
public and applied without discrimination.
68. Stopping the Clock. Emergencies and certain events during the make-ready phase that are
beyond a utility's control may legitimately interrupt pole attachment projects, and the Further Notice
sought comment on how best to reconcile the timeline with this reality.' We adopt a "good and
sufficient cause" standard under which a utility may toll the timeline for no longer than necessary where
conditions render it infeasible to complete the make-ready work within the prescribed timeframe. For
example, utilities may toll the timeline to cope with an emergency that requires federal disaster relief, but
may not stop the clock for routine or foreseeable events such as repairing damage caused by routine
seasonal storms; repositioning existing attachments; bringing poles up to code; alleged lack of resources;
19' Utilities Telecom Council White Paper at 12-13 (finding most frequent cause of survey delays to be the size of
192 Ameren et alt. Comments at 7-8 (arguing that utilities should manage the size and scope of access requests);
Oncor Comments at 21-22 (arguing that Commission should continue to allow parties to negotiate and enforce
contractual terms and course of dealings in this area).
193 See, e.g., Alpheus and 360networks NPRM Comments at 2 (arguing that unknown make-ready intervals make it
extremely difficult to introduce services or promise timely delivery on potential sales); Cavalier NPRMComments
at 6 (arguing that potential customers will not engage a service without knowing when they will begin receiving the
service, and stating that some utilities provide Cavalier access within three months while others take more than five
times as long).
194 See Utah Admin. Code R746-345-3(C).
195 See, e.g., Coalition Comments at 33; Sunesys Comments at 11; Verizon Comments at 32-33 (arguing that
smaller requests do not justify shorter timeframes). But see, e.g., Fibertech Comments at 7-8; Level 3 Comments at
6-7 (arguing that small orders should require shorter timeframes). See also Qwest Comments at 8 (arguing that
larger orders need longer timeframes).
196 2010 Order, 25 FCC Red at 11873-74, paras. 17-18 (concluding that access to poles must be timely in order to
be reasonable). See, e.g., Level 3 Comments at 6-7 (arguing that the proposed timeline should not be construed as a
"safe harbor" when an application involves only a small number of poles); Fibertech Comments at 7-8 (stating that
the proposed timeframe is unsuited for smaller applications where a customer is within a short distance from the
network backbone and where pole attachment application is limited in size); TWC Comments at 18 (proposing that
make-ready work for fewer than 20 poles should be complete in 30 days).
197 Further Notice, 25 FCC Rcd at 11887, para. 51.
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/m1/444/: accessed August 20, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.