Agenda Date:  April 28. 1999    
Item Number:

Docket:  UT-990469
       
Company Name: ACI Corp.
   Petition For Rulemaking-Provisioning of Collocation Facilities

Staff:    Rebecca Beaton, Regulatory Consultant
   Glenn Blackmon, Assistant Director-Telecommunications
    David Griffith, Telecommunications Engineer
   Bob Wallis, Review Judge   
 
Recommendation: 

Reject the petition filed by ACI Corp., to establish rules for the provision of 
collocation facilities, on the basis that the Commission will conduct a 
rulemaking proceeding on the same topic.

Discussion:
On March 23, 1999, ACI Corp., a facilities-based competitive local exchange 
company, filed a petition with the Commission to establish rules for the 
provisioning of collocation facilities. RCW 34.05.350 requires the Commission 
to either grant such a petition entirely and move directly to a rule proposal 
by filing a notice of proposed rulemaking (CR-102) on the exact proposed 
language, or reject the petition entirely, stating its reasons and identifying 
any alternative way the agency will address the petitioner’s concerns.

Commission Staff believes that the topic is one of significance for competition 
and that there are good reasons for a rulemaking on this topic.  In 1998, the 
Commission conducted a combined proceeding to address several denials of 
requests for physical collocation by U S WEST Communications, Inc., in Docket 
UT-960323, et al.  The FCC recently entered an order (FCC 99-48) relevant to 
collocation issues and modified federal rules providing for interconnection. 
The ACI Corp., petition raises many issues that should be addressed if the 
Commission is to ensure access to collocation space as required by law.  
However, Staff believes that the specific rule language proposed by ACI needs 
further work before being filed as a proposed rule.  Since the law does not 
allow agencies to issue a pre-proposal statement of inquiry (CR-101) based on a 
petition, the Commission must either grant the petition by filing a notice of 
proposed rulemaking or reject the petition.  

Staff recommends that the Commission begin a rulemaking proceeding to explore 
the issues and invite wide industry participation.  Prior to proposing rule 
language, Staff suggests forums for discussion be conducted and recommends that 
the Commission deny the ACI Corp., petition and open a rulemaking proceeding on 
this topic as suggested in Docket UT-990582.

Conclusion:  
The Staff recommends the Commission direct the Secretary to send a letter of 
rejection to ACI Corp., regarding its petition for rulemaking, stating the 
Commission’s reasons for rejecting the petition and stating the alternative 
means by which it will address the issues.