Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules 75657

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 43

[CC Docket No. 00–229; FCC 00–399]

2000 Biennial Regulatory Review—

Telecommunications Service Quality

Reporting Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: In this document, the

Commission initiates a review of the

service quality reporting requirements

for incumbent local exchange carriers

(LECs). The Commission proposes to

eliminate the current service quality

reporting and replace these reports with

a more streamlined, consumer-oriented,

reporting system. The Commission’s

objectives are to reduce regulatory

burdens on carriers, eliminate reporting

requirements that are no longer

necessary, and better serve consumers.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before January 12, 2001. Reply

comments must be filed on or before

February 16, 2001. Written comments

must be submitted by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) on the

proposed and/or modified information

collections on or before February 2,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 445–12th Street, SW, TW–

A325, Washington, D.C. 20554. In

addition to filing comments with the

Office of the Secretary, a copy of any

comments on the information

collections contained herein should be

submitted to Judy Boley, Federal

Communications Commission, Room 1–

C804, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20554, or via the Internet to

jboley@fcc.gov and to Edward C.

Springer, OMB Desk Officer, 10236

NEOB, 725—17th Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20503 or via the

Internet to

Edward.Springer@omb.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Louise Klees-Wallace at (202) 418–1321

or Mika Savir at (202) 418–0384. For

additional information concerning the

information collections contained in

this document, contact Judy Boley at

202–418–0214, or via the Internet at

jboley@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC

Docket No. 00–229, adopted on

November 9, 2000 and released on

November 9, 2000, is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Information Center, Courtyard Level,

Suite CY–A257, 445 12th Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. The complete text

may also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036.

This NPRM contains proposed

information collection(s) subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(PRA). It has been submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review under the PRA. OMB,

the general public, and other Federal

agencies are invited to comment on the

proposed information collections

contained in this proceeding.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This NPRM contains a proposed

information collection. The

Commission, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burdens,

invites the general public and the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) to

comment on the information

collection(s) contained in this NPRM, as

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Public

and agency comments are due January

3, 2001; OMB notification of action is

due February 2, 2001. 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.

OMB Control Number: None.

Title: The ARMIS Service Quality

Report.

Form No.: FCC Report 43–05.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit.

Number of Respondents: 12.

Estimated Time Per Response: 850.

Total Annual Burden: 10,196 hours.

Cost to Respondents: $0.

OMB Control Number: 3060–0763.

Title: The ARMIS Customer

Satisfaction Report.

Form No.: FCC Report 43–06.

Type of Review: Proposed Revision.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit.

Number of Respondents: 8.

Estimated Time Per Response: 720

hours.

Total Annual Burden: 5760 hours.

Cost to Respondents: $0.

Needs and Uses: In the NPRM the

Commission undertakes a review of its

existing service quality requirements

contained in its Automated Reporting

Management Information System

(ARMIS) FCC Report 43–05 (Service

Quality) and FCC Report 43–06

(Customer Satisfaction) requirements.

ARMIS was implemented to facilitate

the timely and efficient analysis of

revenue requirements, rates of return

and price caps; to provide an improved

basis for audits and other oversight

functions; and to enhance the

Commission’s ability to quantify the

effects of alternative policy. Among

other things, the Commission proposes

to reduce its reporting requirements

from more than 30 categories of

information down to six.

Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking:

I. Introduction

In this proceeding, the Commission

proposes to streamline and reform the

existing service quality monitoring

program. The Commission proposes to

eliminate reporting of many categories

of information and thereby reduce the

regulatory burden for carriers, as well as

to modify how other information is

reported so that it will be more useful

to consumers and to state and federal

regulators.

The Commission undertakes a review

of the existing service quality

requirements contained in the

Automated Reporting Management

Information System (ARMIS) 43–05

Report (Service Quality) and ARMIS 43–

06 Report (Customer Satisfaction). The

Commission proposes to reduce the

reporting requirements from more than

30 categories of information down to

six.

The Commission also hopes to work

with in partnership with the states. The

Commission’s basic role in the service

quality area is to serve as a central

clearinghouse for information. States

may, and likely will, impose additional

service quality reporting and

performance requirements on carriers

operating within their jurisdictions. The

Commission’s proposed national

monitoring ‘‘floor’’ will represent a

uniform framework.

II. Discussion

Categories of performance data. The

Commission proposes to continue

75658 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules

reporting obligations for six categories

of service quality information that are

important to consumers. The

Commission proposes to retain

reporting for the following measures: (1)

The percentage of installation

appointments that are missed; (2) the

time it takes to install service; (3) the

percentage of lines that have problems,

including out of service lines; (4) the

time it takes to have out of service lines

repaired; (5) the percentage of repair

appointments that are missed; and (6)

the time it takes to repair service. The

Commission seeks comment on this

proposal.

With respect to missed installations,

the Commission proposes that carriers

continue to report the number of missed

installation commitments and the total

number of installations that occur

during the reporting period. Through

these two numbers a percentage can be

generated that can permit appropriate

comparisons among companies by

consumers. The Commission seeks

comment on this proposal.

With respect to installation intervals,

the Commission proposes that carriers

continue reporting installation time

because consumers should know how

long it is likely to take a particular

carrier to provide service. The

Commission seeks comment, however,

on whether installation intervals should

be measured in a different way. An

average completion time may not

provide an accurate picture to

consumers because outliers may skew

the reported data. The Commission

seeks comment on whether carriers

should report the number of installation

orders for service completed within a

specified number of days, such as five

working days, instead of the current

average interval, and the total number of

installation orders.

With respect to trouble reports, or

impairments on a customer’s line, the

Commission seeks comment on whether

carriers should report only the number

of initial trouble reports and number of

out-of-service troubles occurring within

the reporting period, as well as the total

number of access lines.

An out-of-service trouble means that a

consumer cannot make or receive calls.

In addition to the inconvenience and

potential financial impact of such an

outage, this also raises safety concerns

because the consumer cannot make 911

emergency calls. The Commission

proposes collecting only information on

average intervals for out-of-service

troubles. The Commission seeks

comment on this proposal.

A missed repair commitment occurs

when a customer trouble is not repaired

on or before the date and time

commitment with the customer. The

number of missed repair commitments

should have a direct impact on

consumers who are waiting for service

problems to be fixed. The Commission

proposes that carriers report the number

of missed repair commitments, and the

total number of repair commitments.

The Commission seeks comment on this

proposal.

Price cap incumbent LECs currently

report the average time for repairs. The

Commission proposes to continue

measuring repair intervals and seeks

comment whether this should require

an average or some other measure.

The Commission seeks comment on

whether there are other types of service

quality information that consumers

would find useful, and if so, what are

the benefits, burdens and feasibility of

requiring carriers to collect and disclose

such information. The Commission

seeks comment, for example, on

whether carriers should report the

length of time customers wait on hold

before speaking to a customer service

representative and the length of time a

customer has to wait for a call back from

a carrier. Commenters should discuss

how carriers would collect this

information.

Broadband services. The Commission

seeks comment on whether to gather

information and report about service

quality in the provision of broadband

and other advanced services. The

Commission seeks comment on what

information in this area consumers

would find useful, and what are the

costs and benefits of adding any new

reporting requirements in this area.

Disaggregation of information.

Currently, carriers are required to report

installation and repair information

separately for business and residential

customers. The Commission proposes to

maintain this aspect of the reporting

requirements. A review of data filed to

date shows different quality of service

performance in the residential market

and business markets. Accordingly, the

Commission seeks comment on

maintaining this disaggregation.

Permitting carriers to aggregate business

and residential customers into one class

could provide a misleading picture of

the carrier’s performance with respect to

each group of customers.

To depict a carrier’s service quality in

urban and rural areas, the current

ARMIS service quality reports

disaggregate information into results in

‘‘Metropolitan Statistical Areas’’ (MSAs)

and ‘‘Non-Metropolitan Statistical

Areas’’ (Non-MSAs). The Commission

seeks comment on the proposal that

carriers should no longer disaggregate

data into MSA and non-MSA categories.

Types of reporting entities. Currently,

only price cap LECs file the ARMIS 43–

05 and 43–06 reports. The Commission

does not collect service quality data

from small incumbent LECs, including

those serving rural areas, nor does the

Commission collect this data from

competitive LECs (CLECs). The NARUC

Service Quality White Paper concludes

that service quality data would be more

meaningful for all interested parties,

including consumers and state

commissions, if all LECs—including

CLECs—reported such data. The

Commission seeks comment on the

benefits and costs of imposing the

proposed service quality reporting

requirements on these carriers.

Commenters should discuss whether

certain entities could be exempt from

service quality reporting requirements

without compromising the consumer

protection objectives in this proceeding.

Commenters also should address how

imposition of these requirements on

CLECs and smaller LECs fits into the

traditional regulatory treatment of these

entities, many of which may not have

encountered regulatory burdens of this

nature at the federal level.

The Commission seeks comment on

whether a viable alternative would be

voluntary service quality reporting

procedures for certain carriers. The

service quality program could, for

example, establish mandatory service

quality reporting for incumbent LECs

exceeding a threshold of lines served,

such as two percent of the nation’s

access lines, or annual revenue, and

allow voluntary service quality reports

for all other carriers, including CLECs.

The Commission seeks comment on

whether carriers should be relieved of

all mandatory reporting under certain

circumstances, and if so, when. For

instance, whether a carrier should be

relieved of any federal reporting

obligation, if there are few or no service

quality complaints relating to that

carrier pending before a state

commission, or if its performance meets

a specified benchmark for a period of

time. The Commission seeks comment

on what the appropriate benchmarks

should be.

The Commission notes that resellers

and competitors that purchase network

elements from an incumbent LEC may

have no control over the service quality

of the resold service or the purchased

elements, which may impact their

service to retail customers. Commenters

should discuss how, if voluntary or

mandatory reporting were extended to a

broader class of carriers, service quality

measures could take into account

problems due to the conduct of the

incumbent so that consumers would

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules 75659

receive an accurate picture of the

service quality provided by different

carriers.

Frequency of reporting. Currently,

carriers file ARMIS 43–05 reports on an

annual basis. The Commission seeks

comment on whether it would better

serve the consumer protection goals to

collect service quality information more

frequently than yearly, and how the

Commission might accomplish this.

Individual states may require more

frequent service quality reporting, e.g.,

quarterly. The Commission seeks

comment on whether it should act as a

federal clearinghouse for information

gathered at the state level.

Public disclosure of service quality

data. Service quality information can

enable consumers to compare carriers in

their area and make informed choices

between, or among, carriers. The

Commission seeks comment on whether

an effective method of publicizing

service quality data would be for

carriers to post service quality data on

their web sites. This data would be

accessible to the general public, as well

as to state commissions and other

interested parties. The Commission

proposes that carriers would continue to

file the service quality reports with the

Commission as well, which would

continue to be a central clearinghouse

for service quality data. The

Commission can require carriers to

correct inaccurate data, collecting

information at the federal level provides

some ability to ensure that the

information is accurate, which

ultimately benefits consumers. The

Commission also seeks comment on

whether there are other public sources

for service quality information. In

particular, the extent to which the states

collect service quality information, and

whether that information is publicly

accessible.

Elimination of other reporting

requirements—Interexchange carriers.

In Table I of the ARMIS Report 43–05

Service Quality Report, the Commission

currently collects information from

price cap incumbent LECs about the

installation and repair of access services

provided to interexchange carriers. In

Table III of the same report, price cap

carriers provide information about

common trunk group blockage. The

Commission seeks comment on whether

it should eliminate these categories of

information from the service quality

reporting program. This information

reports the quality of service performed

by incumbent LECs to interexchange

carriers. The Commission seeks

comment on whether interexchange

carriers are able to monitor service

quality through operation of their

business relationships with the

incumbent local exchange carriers.

Elimination of other reporting

requirements—the Network Reliability

and Interoperability Council. The

Network Reliability and Interoperability

Council (NRIC) was established by the

Commission to bring together leaders of

the telecommunications industry with

academic and consumer organizations

to explore and recommend measures

that would enhance network reliability.

Carriers currently report in ARMIS 43–

05, Table IV, the number of switches

serving specified numbers of lines and

the number of times switches are down

from two minutes or longer. The

number and duration of switch outages

and interoffice transmission facility

outages indicates the carrier’s

performance in providing continual

access to the full capabilities and

benefits of the network. This data has

been gathered in ARMIS as a

complement to information collected on

large switches by the Network

Reliability Council. Together this

information has permitted regulators to

monitor and assess network reliability,

which is important to consumers

because such outages affect service in

their area. The Commission seeks

comment on whether it should continue

to collect the information contained in

Table IV of ARMIS Report 43–05. The

Commission also seeks comment on

whether competitive pressures to

achieve network reliability in today’s

marketplace have sufficiently replaced

the need for reporting of network

reliability data.

Elimination of other reporting

requirements—complaints to federal

and state commissions. Price cap

incumbent LECs currently report to the

Commission, as part of ARMIS, the

number of customer complaints made to

federal and state regulators. The

Commission seeks comment on the

benefits and burdens of requiring

companies to continue to file FCC and

state complaint information. In

addition, the Commission seeks

comment on whether carriers should be

required to report the number of

complaints they receive directly from

consumers.

Elimination of other reporting

requirements—customer satisfaction

survey. Price cap LECs currently are

required to conduct a survey of their

customers’ satisfaction and report the

results of that survey in ARMIS Report

43–06. The Commission proposes to

eliminate this requirement. Actual

complaint information may be a better

indicator of trends in service quality

than a telephone consumer survey. The

Commission seeks comment on this

proposal.

NARUC Service Quality White Paper.

The NARUC Service Quality White

Paper contains additional proposals for

refining the Commission’s service

quality monitoring program. These

include more detailed measurements

related to maintenance and repair

intervals, answer time performance, and

network performance. The NARUC

Service Quality White Paper also

proposes that the reports be made

available to the public to allow

interested parties to assess the data, and

to provide consumers with information

about their telecommunications carriers.

The Commission seeks comment on the

proposals in the NARUC Service

Quality White Paper.

III. Conclusion

The Commission is committed to

improving the service quality

monitoring program to give consumers

the ability to compare the service

quality of competing carriers. At the

same time, it intends to limit the

reporting burden on carriers by reducing

the categories of reported data. By

making available timely and reliable

service quality data, the Commission

hopes to meet the needs of consumers

as competition grows in the local

exchange marketplace. The Commission

hopes to facilitate market efficiency by

ensuring that consumers have the

information they need to make informed

buying decisions.

IV. Procedural Matters and Ordering

Clauses

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission

has prepared this present Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

of any possible significant economic

impact on small entities by the policies

and rules proposed in this Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). 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 on this

Notice. The Commission will send a

copy of this NPRM, including this IRFA,

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration.

Need for, and Objectives of, the

Proposed Action: The Commission has

initiated this proceeding to determine

whether it should improve the current

service quality monitoring program. The

Commission’s goal is to ensure that the

monitoring program will be uniform and

provide the information needed to carry

out statutory and policymaking

75660 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules

responsibilities. The Commission notes

that as competition develops in the local

exchange market, consumers will

benefit from the ability to compare

carriers’ service quality. This should in

turn lead to the availability of higher

quality services for consumers.

Legal Basis: The legal basis for the

action as proposed for this rulemaking

is contained in sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b),

303(r), and 403 of the Communications

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.

154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 303(r), and 403.

Description and Estimate of the

Number of Small Entities to which the

Proposed Action May Apply: Currently,

only price cap incumbent local

exchange carriers (LECs) file service

quality reports, the Automated

Reporting Management Information

System (ARMIS) 43–05 Report (Service

Quality) and the ARMIS 43–06 Report

(Customer Satisfaction). The

Commission seeks comment on whether

additional carriers, e.g., all LECs, should

comply with the proposed service

quality reporting requirements and if

compliance should be on a mandatory

or voluntary basis. Below is a detailed

description of the types of entities that

could be required to comply with the

proposed reporting requirement (either

on a mandatory or voluntary basis).

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 proposed

rules, if adopted. To estimate the

number of small entities that may be

affected by the proposed rules, we first

consider the statutory definition of

‘‘small entity’’ under the RFA. The RFA

generally defines ‘‘small entity’’ as

having the same meaning as the term

‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’

and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’

In addition, the term ‘‘small business’’

has the same meaning as the term

‘‘small business concern’’ under the

Small Business Act, unless the

Commission has developed one or more

definitions that are appropriate to its

activities. Under the Small Business

Act, a ‘‘small business concern’’ is one

that: (1) Is independently owned and

operated; (2) is not dominant in its field

of operation; and (3) meets any

additional criteria established by the

Small Business Administration (SBA).

The SBA has defined a small business

for Standard Industrial Classification

(SIC) categories 4812 (Radiotelephone

Communications) and 4813 (Telephone

Communications, Except

Radiotelephone) to be small entities

when they have no more than 1,500

employees.

The most reliable source of

information regarding the total numbers

of common carrier and related providers

nationwide, appears to be data the

Commission publishes in its Trends in

Telephone Service report. See FCC,

Common Carrier Bureau, Industry

Analysis Division, Trends in Telephone

Service, Table 19.3 (March 2000).

According to data in the most recent

report, there are 4,144 interstate carriers.

Id. These carriers include, inter alia,

local exchange carriers, wireline carriers

and service providers, interexchange

carriers, competitive access providers,

operator service providers, pay

telephone operators, providers of

telephone toll service, providers of

telephone exchange service, and

resellers.

The Commission has included small

incumbent LECs in this present RFA

analysis. As noted above, a ‘‘small

business’’ under the RFA is one that,

inter alia, meets the pertinent small

business size standard (e.g., a telephone

communications business having 1,500

or fewer employees), and ‘‘is not

dominant in its field of operation.’’ See

5 U.S.C. 601(3). The SBA’s Office of

Advocacy contends that, for RFA

purposes, small incumbent LECs are not

dominant in their field of operation

because any such dominance is not

‘‘national’’ in scope. See letter from Jere

W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy,

SBA, to William E. Kennard, Chairman,

FCC (May 27, 1999). The Commission

has therefore included small incumbent

LECs in this RFA analysis, although this

RFA action has no effect on the

Commission’s analyses and

determinations in other, non-RFA

contexts.

Total Number of Telephone

Companies Affected. The United States

Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau)

reports that, at the end of 1992, there

were 3,497 firms engaged in providing

telephone services, as defined therein,

for at least one year. See United States

Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census, 1992 Census of Transportation,

Communications, and Utilities:

Establishment and Firm Size, at Firm

Size 1–123 (1995) (1992 Census). This

number contains a variety of different

categories of carriers, including local

exchange carriers, interexchange

carriers, competitive access providers,

cellular carriers, mobile service carriers,

operator service providers, pay

telephone operators, personal

communications services (PCS)

providers, covered specialized mobile

radio (SMR) providers, and resellers. It

seems certain that some of those 3,497

telephone service firms may not qualify

as small entities or small incumbent

LECs because they are not

‘‘independently owned and operated.’’

See 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(1). For example, a

PCS provider that is affiliated with an

interexchange carrier having more than

1,500 employees would not meet the

definition of a small business. It seems

reasonable to conclude, therefore, that

fewer than 3,497 telephone service firms

are small entity telephone service firms

or small incumbent LECs that may be

affected by the decisions and rules

proposed in the Notice.

Wireline Carriers and Service

Providers. The SBA has developed a

definition of small entities for telephone

communications companies other than

radiotelephone companies. The Census

Bureau reports that, there were 2,321

such telephone companies in operation

for at least one year at the end of 1992.

See 1992 Census at Firm Size 1–123.

According to SBA’s definition, a small

business telephone company other than

a radiotelephone company is one

employing no more than 1,500 persons.

See 13 CFR 121.201, SIC Code 4813. All

but 26 of the 2,321 non-radiotelephone

companies listed by the Census Bureau

were reported to have fewer than 1,000

employees. Thus, even if all 26 of those

companies had more than 1,500

employees, there would still be 2,295

non-radiotelephone companies that

might qualify as small incumbent LECs.

It seems certain that some of these

carriers are not independently owned

and operated, but we are unable at this

time to estimate with greater precision

the number of wireline carriers and

service providers that would qualify as

small business concerns under SBA’s

definition. Consequently, we estimate

that there are fewer than 2,295 small

entity telephone communications

companies other than radiotelephone

companies that may be affected by the

decisions and rules proposed in the

NPRM.

Local Exchange Carriers,

Interexchange Carriers, Competitive

Access Providers, and Resellers. Neither

the Commission nor the SBA has

developed a definition of small LECs,

interexchange carriers (IXCs),

competitive access providers (CAPs), or

resellers. The closest applicable

definition for these carrier-types under

SBA rules is for telephone

communications companies other than

radiotelephone (wireless) companies.

According to recent Trends in

Telephone Service data, 1,348

incumbent carriers reported that they

were in the provision of local exchange

services. See FCC, Common Carrier

Bureau, Industry Analysis Division,

Trends in Telephone Service, Table 19.3

(March 2000). According to the most

recent Trends in Telephone Service

data, 212 CAP/CLECs carriers and 10

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules 75661

other LECs reported that they engaged

in competitive local exchange services.

Id. It seems certain that some of these

carriers are not independently owned

and operated, or have more than 1,500

employees; however, we are unable at

this time to estimate with greater

precision the number of these carriers

that would qualify as small business

concerns under SBA’s definition.

Consequently, the Commission

estimates that there are fewer than 1,348

small incumbent LECs, 212 small entity

CAPs, and 10 other small entity LECs

that may be affected by the rules

proposed in the Notice.

Rural Radiotelephone Service. The

Commission has not adopted a

definition of small entity specific to the

Rural Radiotelephone Service. See 47

CFR 22.99. A significant subset of the

Rural Radiotelephone Service is the

Basic Exchange Telephone Radio

Systems (BETRS). See 47 CFR 22.757,

22.759. The Commission will use the

SBA’s definition applicable to

radiotelephone companies, i.e., an

entity employing no more than 1,500

persons. See 13 CFR 121.201, SIC Code

4812. There are approximately 1,000

licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone

Service, and the Commission estimates

that almost all of them qualify as small

entities under the SBA’s definition.

Description of Proposed Reporting,

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance

Requirements: The focus of this

proceeding is whether the Commission

should require LECs to report certain

service quality information in a more

consumer-friendly format instead of the

format of the current ARMIS reports.

Historically, service quality reporting

was limited to the price cap LECs. With

the emergence of competition in the

local exchange market, service quality

information on competitive LECs would

permit consumers to compare carriers in

their area. The Notice seeks comment on

the costs and benefits of imposing new

service quality reporting requirements

on all LECs. The NPRM seeks comment

on whether the Commission should

modify its service quality reporting

requirements by reducing the quantity

of data requested and if all LECs should

report this information on a mandatory

or voluntary basis.

Commenters should discuss whether

state commissions currently require

LECs to provide the proposed service

quality information. If LECs—other than

price cap incumbent LECs—are required

to file this service quality information

with a state commission, is there an

additional cost in preparing and filing

the service quality data with the

Commission? Commenters should

discuss the costs to small entities of

preparing the proposed service quality

reports for federal reporting purposes.

The NPRM sets out in detail, and

seeks comment on, the types of carriers

that should report, frequency of reports,

and data to be reported. The NPRM

seeks comment on whether there are

other types of service quality

information that consumers would find

useful, and if so, what are the benefits,

burdens and feasibility of requiring

carriers to collect and disclose such

information. Under the proposal, there

would be fewer categories of data

reported but more carriers may be

required to report. Commenters should

address the benefit of giving consumers

access to service quality data from all

carriers providing local exchange

service in their area, including small

entities, and discuss the increased cost,

if any, to smaller LECs.

Steps Taken to Minimize Significant

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and

Significant Alternatives Considered: The

RFA requires an agency to describe any

significant alternatives that it has

considered in reaching its proposed

approach, which may include the

following four alternatives (among

others): (1) The establishment of

differing compliance or reporting

requirements or timetables that take into

account the resources available to small

entities; (2) the clarification,

consolidation, or simplification of

compliance or reporting requirements

under the rule for small entities; (3) the

use of performance, rather than design,

standards; and (4) an exemption from

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,

for small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603(c).

One of the goals in this proceeding is

to consider whether consumers should

have access to service quality

information that can be used to make

comparisons between the incumbent

LEC and other carriers in their area.

Service quality information is of limited

use if the consumers do not have

comparable information on all carriers

in their area, including any small

entities that might provide service. With

the emergence of competition in the

local exchange market, accurate service

quality information on all LECs would

permit consumers to compare carriers.

The Notice seeks comment on the costs

and benefits of imposing new service

quality reporting requirements on all

LECs and on whether all LECs should be

required to report service quality data.

Under this scenario, small entities may

be required to report service quality

data. The Commission is seeking to

balance the consumers’ need for

information with the reporting burden

on the industry, particularly small

entities. Commenters should discuss

how the imposition of service quality

reporting on carriers other than price

cap incumbent LECs may be

burdensome, and the costs of

compliance. Commenters should

discuss whether certain entities should

be exempt from service quality reporting

requirements and how that could be

done without compromising the goals in

this proceeding.

One alternative would be to limit

service quality reporting to the

incumbent LECs. This alternative,

however, would not permit consumers

to compare service providers in their

area. The Commission observes that the

effective functioning of competitive

markets is predicated on consumers

having access to accurate information.

Thus, revising the current service

quality reporting requirements may be

essential to allow consumers to compare

service quality among or between

carriers and make informed choices. A

second alternative would be to make

service quality reporting voluntary for

certain carriers. Commenters advocating

limiting service quality reporting to

price cap LECs should discuss how

consumers would have access to service

quality data on all LECs in their area if

only the price cap LECs were required

to file service quality reports. Another

alternative would be to limit service

quality reporting to carriers whose

performance fell below a specified

performance benchmark. This

alternative would reduce reporting

burdens for carriers, including small

carriers, that do not have significant

service quality problems.

This proposed reporting requirement

is less than the current service quality

reporting requirement (now limited to

price cap LECs). Commenters should

discuss whether the proposed reporting

requirements should be streamlined for

small entities and how this could be

done without compromising the goals in

this proceeding. Commenters should

address any cost savings to small

entities resulting from such

streamlining.

Federal Rules that May Duplicate,

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed

Rule: None.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This NPRM contains a proposed

information collection. As part of its

continuing effort to reduce paperwork

burdens, the Commission invites the

general public and the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) to take

this opportunity to comment on the

information collections contained in the

Notice as required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law No.

104–13. Public and agency comments

75662 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 233 / Monday, December 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules

are due January 3, 2001. Written

comments must be submitted by OMB

on the proposed information collections

on or before February 2, 2001.

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.

C. Ex Parte Presentations

This is a permit-but-disclose

rulemaking proceeding subject to

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ requirements

under § 1.1206 of the Commission’s

rules, as revised. See 47 CFR 1.1206.

Additional rules pertaining to oral and

written presentations are set forth in

§ 1.1206.

D. Comment Period

Pursuant to the applicable procedures

set forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415,

1.419, interested parties may file

comments on or before January 12,

2001. Reply comments are to be filed on

or before February 16, 2001. Comments

filed through the ECFS can be sent as an

electronic file via the Internet to <http:/

/www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>.

Generally, only one copy of an

electronic submission must be filed. If

multiple docket or rulemaking numbers

appear in the caption of this proceeding,

however, commenters must transmit

one electronic copy of the comments to

each docket or rulemaking number

referenced in the caption. In completing

the transmittal screen, commenters

should include their full name, Postal

Service mailing address, and the

applicable docket or rulemaking

number. Parties may also submit an

electronic comment by Internet e-mail.

To get filing instructions for e-mail

comments, commenters should send an

e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should

include the following words in the body

of the message, ‘‘get form <your e-mail

address>.’’ A sample form and

directions will be sent in reply.

Parties who choose to file by paper

must file an original and four copies of

each filing. If participants want each

Commissioner to receive a personal

copy of their comments, an original plus

nine copies must be filed. All filings by

paper must be sent to the Commission’s

Secretary: Magalie Roman Salas, Office

of the Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission, 445 12th

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

Parties who choose to file by paper

should also submit their comments on

diskette. Diskettes should be submitted

to: Ernestine Creech, Accounting

Safeguards Division, Federal

Communications Commission, 445 12th

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

The required diskette copies of

submissions should be on 3.5 inch

diskettes formatted in an IBM

compatible format using Word or

compatible software. Each diskette

should be accompanied by a cover letter

and should be submitted in ‘‘read only’’

mode. The diskette should be clearly

labeled with the commenter’s name,

proceeding (CC Docket No. 00–229),

type of pleading (comment or reply

comment), date of submission, and the

name of the electronic file on the

diskette. The label should also include

the following phrase ‘‘Disk Copy—Not

an Original.’’ Each diskette should

contain only one party’s pleadings,

preferably in a single electronic file. In

addition, parties who choose to file by

paper must send diskette copies to the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036. Comments and

reply comments will be available for

public inspection during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Information Center, Courtyard Level,

Suite CY-A257, 445 12th Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C.

E. Authority

The action is authorized under the

Communications Act of 1934, sections

4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 303(r), and 403, 47

U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 303(r), and

403, as amended.

F. Ordering Clauses

Pursuant to the authority contained in

sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 303(r), and 403

of the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j),

201(b), 303(r), and 403, this notice of

proposed rulemaking is hereby adopted.

The Commission’s Consumer

Information Bureau, Reference

Information Center, shall send a copy of

this notice of proposed rulemaking,

including the Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–30803 Filed 12–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U