4.2.3 Deadlines

Joint Petitioners assert that the interim appendices and amendments violate state law by failing to meet the April 10, 2000, deadline for line sharing. To the contrary, we complied with, and implemented, the FCC's order in a manner we determined to be reasonable and appropriate for line sharing to become available by April 10, 2000. CLCs declined to enter into interim agreements with ILECs, however, and chose to pursue additional negotiation and arbitration.

Joint Petitioners also contend that the interim appendices and amendments violate federal law by failing to meet the June 6, 2000, deadline. To the contrary, the interim appendices and amendments are all effective June 6, 2000.

Joint Petitioners assert that the FCC required the arbitration to be complete, with final agreements to be effective by June 6, 2000. We do not read the FCC Line Sharing Order in the same way as Joint Petitioners. Our interim arbitration procedure, with appendices and amendments effective June 6, 2000, and with further proceedings to determine final prices and other line sharing issues, results in full compliance with FCC orders.

Joint Petitioners assert that FCC rules require ILECs to own and provision splitters by June 6, 2000. The outcome of the interim arbitration is that ILECs are not required to own splitters. Joint Petitioners claim that is contrary to federal law, and results in our failing to meet the June 6, 2000, deadline for line sharing. We disagree. Rather, we affirm the outcome of the interim arbitration that ILECs are not required to own and provision splitters.

Finally, the FAR finds that tie cable installation is a collocation matter subject to collocation intervals. Joint Petitioners allege that this holding allows ILECs to impose lengthy collocation intervals, and ensures that CLCs will not have necessary components in place by the June 6, 2000, deadline. We are not persuaded that this justifies disturbing the results of the interim arbitration.

As found in the FAR, it would be unreasonable to assign different intervals for the installation of each piece of equipment. Rather, multiple intervals detract from efficient operations, and will not enhance the likelihood that services will be provisioned smoothly and timely.

Moreover, CLCs recommended a 30-day interval for tie-cable installation. Even with CLCs' recommendation, amendments effective June 6, 2000, would not result in tie cable installation until after June 6, 2000. On the other hand, Pacific instituted a rating and ranking of central offices for rapid deployment of line sharing. This ensured reasonable initiation of line sharing by June 6, 2000. The FAR adopts a reasonable interval for installation and provisioning of future tie cables according to collocation schedules.

Thus, we are convinced that we have taken reasonable and responsible steps to satisfy federal and state law for implementation of line sharing, and are in compliance with those laws. Nothing about Joint Petitioners' argument convinces us that this is a reason to reject the results of the interim arbitration. In fact, adopting Joint Petitioners' recommendation would produce the unreasonable result of there being no interim line sharing appendices or amendments. We decline to reach that outcome.