Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 94 / Friday, May 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules 27021

(including references). Electronic

comments must be submitted as a Word

Perfect 5.1 or 6.1 file, or as an ASCII file

avoiding the use of special characters.

Comments will also be accepted on

disks in WordPerfect 5.1 or 6.1, or ASCII

file format. Electronic comments on this

Notice may be filed online at many

Federal Depository Libraries.

Commenters who want EPA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

should include a self-addressed,

stamped envelope. No facsimiles (faxes)

will be accepted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800–426–

4791) for general information about the

proposed rule. The Safe Drinking Water

Hotline is open Monday through Friday,

excluding Federal holidays, from 9 a.m.

to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time. For technical

inquiries, contact Franc ̧oise M. Brasier

(202–260–5668) or Rob Allison (202–

260–9836).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Consumer Confidence Report rule

would require community water

systems to mail to each of their

customers an annual report on local

drinking water quality. The report

would include such information as the

source of local drinking water, the levels

of any contaminants detected in water

delivered to consumers, violations of

drinking water regulations, and other

information about local water quality.

The proposed rule sets few

requirements for the format of the

reports, thereby allowing water

suppliers to tailor their reports around

the information that they must present.

EPA proposed several brief

definitions of regulatory terms (e.g.,

‘‘maximum contaminant level’’) that

systems would have to include in their

reports. EPA also proposed brief health

effects language for each regulated

contaminant. Water systems would have

to include this language in their reports

whenever they detected a regulated

contaminant in excess of its legal limit.

In the proposal’s preamble, EPA

discussed options for both sets of

language and requested comment on

which language would be most useful to

consumers.

Availability of Data

The data to which this Notice refers

is available for inspection from 9 to 4

p.m. (Eastern Time), Monday through

Friday, excluding legal holidays, at the

Water Docket, U.S. EPA Headquarters,

401 M. St., SW, East Tower Basement,

Washington, DC 20460. Please call 202–

260–3027 to schedule an appointment

and refer to W–97–18. The Focus Group

Report is also available on the Internet

at www.epa.gov/safewater/ccr/

focus.html.

Regulated persons. Potentially

regulated persons are community water

systems.

Category Example of regulated entities

Publiclyowned

CWSs.

Municipalities; County Governments; Water districts;

Water and Sewer Authorities.

Privatelyowned

CWSs.

Private water utilities; homeowners associations.

Ancillary

CWSs.

Persons who deliver drinking

water as an adjunct to

their primary business (e.g.

trailer parks, retirement

homes).

Dated: May 8, 1998.

Robert Perciasepe,

Assistant Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–13025 Filed 5–14–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Chapter I

[CC Docket No. 98–56, RM–9101, FCC 98–

72]

Performance Measurements and

Reporting Requirements for

Operations Support Systems,

Interconnection, and Operator

Services and Directory Assistance

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission is issuing

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

seeking comment on various proposed

performance measurements and

reporting requirements relating to

incumbent carriers’ operations support

systems (OSS). The performance

measurements and reporting

requirements proposed in the NPRM

will complement existing state

proceedings and efforts by carriers,

independent of regulatory requirements,

to incorporate performance

measurements into their

interconnection agreements.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

June 1, 1998 and Reply Comments are

due on or before June 22, 1998. Written

comments by the public on the

proposed information collections are

due June 1, 1998. Written comments

must be submitted by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) on the

proposed information collections on or

before July 14, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments and reply

comments should be sent to Office of

the Secretary, Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Room 222, Washington, D.C. 20554,

with a copy to Janice Myles of the

Common Carrier Bureau, 1919 M Street,

N.W., Room 544, Washington, D.C.

20554. Parties should also file one copy

of any documents filed in this docket

with the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., 1231 20th St., N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20036. In addition to filing

comments with the Secretary, a copy of

any comments on the information

collections contained herein should be

submitted to Judy Boley, Federal

Communications Commission, Room

234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20554, or via the Internet to

jboley@fcc.gov, and to Timothy Fain,

OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725—

17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20503 or via the Internet to

fainlt@al.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Radhika Karmarkar, Attorney, Common

Carrier Bureau, Policy and Program

Planning Division, (202) 418–1580. For

additional information concerning the

information collections contained in

this NPRM contact Judy Boley at (202)

418–0214, or via the Internet at

jboley@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking adopted April 16,

1998 and released April 17, 1998 (FCC

98–72). This NPRM contains proposed

information collections subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(PRA). It has been submitted to the OMB

for review under the PRA. The OMB,

the general public, and other Federal

agencies are invited to comment on the

proposed information collections

contained in this proceeding. The full

text of this Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking is available for inspection

and copying during normal business

hours in the FCC Reference Center, 1919

M St., N.W., Room 239, Washington,

D.C. The complete text also may be

obtained through the World Wide Web,

at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/

Common Carrier/Orders/fcc9872.wp, or

may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th St.,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This NPRM contains a proposed

information collection. The

Commission, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burdens,
27022 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 94 / Friday, May 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules

invites the general public and OMB to

comment on the information collections

contained in this NPRM, as required by

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. Public and agency

comments are due at the same time as

other comments on this NPRM; OMB

notification of action is due July 14,

1998. 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 Approval Number: None.

Title: Performance Measurements and

Reporting Requirements for Operations

Support Systems, Interconnection, and

Operator Services and Directory

Assistance.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: New collection.

Information collection

Number of

respondents

(Approximately)

Estimated

time per

pesponse

(annual)

(hours)

Total annual

burden

(hours)

Pre-Ordering: Average Response Time ................................................................................................... 11 240 2,640

Ordering/Provisioning: Order Completion Measurements ....................................................................... 11 480 5,280

Ordering/Provisioning: Coordinated Customer Conversions ................................................................... 11 240 2,640

Ordering/Provisioning: Order Status Measurements ............................................................................... 11 1,200 13,200

Ordering/Provisioning: Held Order Measurement .................................................................................... 11 240 2,640

Ordering/Provisioning: Installation Troubles Measurement ..................................................................... 11 240 2,640

Ordering/Provisioning: Order Quality Measurements .............................................................................. 11 480 5,280

Ordering/Provisioning: 911 Database Update and Accuracy .................................................................. 11 480 5,280

Repair and Maintenance Measurements ................................................................................................. 11 960 10,560

Billing Measurements ............................................................................................................................... 11 480 5,280

General Measurements: Systems Availability .......................................................................................... 11 240 2,640

General Measurements: Center Responsiveness ................................................................................... 11 240 2,640

General Measurements: OS/DA .............................................................................................................. 11 240 2,640

Interconnection: Trunk Blockage Measurements ..................................................................................... 11 480 5,280

Interconnection: Collocation Measurements ............................................................................................ 11 720 7,920

Frequency of Response: Monthly; On

occasion.

Total Annual Burden: 76,560 hours.

Respondents: Business or other for

profit.

Estimated costs per respondent:

$800,000.

Needs and Uses: The NPRM seeks

comment on certain performance

measurements and reporting

requirements to implement the

interconnection requirements of the

1996 Act. The proposed measurements

are intended to permit a direct

assessment of whether an incumbent

local exchange carrier is complying with

its obligations under section 251 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended.

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

I. Introduction

1. In this proceeding, we explore ways

to advance a fundamental goal of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996—to

increase consumer choice by fostering

competition in the provision of local

telephone service. The 1996 Act

requires incumbent local telephone

service providers to open their markets

to competition.

2. Congress required incumbents to

make available to new entrants in a

nondiscriminatory, and just and

reasonable manner the services and

facilities the incumbents use to provide

retail services to their own customers. In

order to take advantage of the service

and facility offerings that Congress

requires incumbents to provide, new

entrants need access to the support

functions that incumbents use to

process orders from their own

customers.

3. In this proceeding, we propose a

methodology by which to analyze

whether new providers of local

telephone service are able to access,

among other things, the support

functions (that is, the functions

provided by computer systems,

databases, and personnel) of incumbent

local telephone companies in a manner

consistent with the 1996 Act’s

nondiscrimination requirement. We

seek comment, as explained below, on

certain proposed measurements and

reports designed to illuminate the

performance of incumbent local

telephone companies in providing

access to these vital support functions.

Such performance measurements will

assist incumbents, new entrants, and

regulators in evaluating an incumbent’s

performance in meeting its statutory

obligations. We do not, however,

propose specific performance standards

or technical standards. We also seek

comment on ways to achieve the

statutory goals, while also minimizing

the burden on all incumbent carriers,

especially small, rural, and midsized

incumbent local telephone companies.

4. We recognize that some state

commissions have undertaken efforts to

develop performance measurements and

reporting requirements for these support

functions. Other states have yet to begin

such efforts, but plan to do so. States

have sought this Commission’s help in

developing these measurements. The

primary goal of this NPRM, therefore, is

to provide guidance, in the most

efficient and expeditious manner

possible, to the states and the industry

on a set of performance measurements

and reporting requirements that will

help spur the development of local

competition. Accordingly, we propose,

in the first instance, to adopt model

performance measures and reporting

requirements, as described in detail

herein, that are not legally binding. This

approach will allow those states that

have commenced proceedings to

incorporate the model performance

measurements and reporting

requirements as they deem beneficial

and aid those states that have not begun

work in this area. We expect to develop

such model performance measurements

and reporting requirements as

expeditiously as possible once the

record closes in this proceeding. The

experience we gain from the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 94 / Friday, May 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules 27023

development of these model

performance measurements and

reporting requirements and their

application by the states will, we

believe, provide a more informed and

comprehensive record upon which to

decide whether to adopt national,

legally binding rules. The adoption of

national rules may, however, prove to

be unnecessary in light of the states’ and

carriers’ application of the model

performance measurements and

reporting requirements that we intend to

adopt in the first instance. We

emphasize our belief that the adoption

of model performance measurements

and reporting requirements to serve as

guidelines for state commissions

constitutes the most efficient and

effective role for the Commission in this

area at this time.

II. Background

A. Procedural History

5. On May 30, 1997, LCI International

Telecom Corp. (LCI) and the

Competitive Telecommunications

Association (CompTel) jointly filed a

petition asking the Commission to

initiate a rulemaking proceeding (‘‘LCI/

CompTel Petition’’) concerning the

requirements governing OSS,

interconnection, and other related

activities established by the

Commission in its Local Competition

First Report and Order, 61 FR 45476,

August 29, 1996. On June 10, 1997, the

Commission issued a Public Notice

seeking comment on the LCI/CompTel

petition. A number of parties, including

both incumbent LECs and competing

carriers, filed comments and reply

comments in response to this Public

Notice.

6. Among other things, petitioners ask

the Commission to establish: (1)

performance measurements and

reporting requirements for the provision

of operations support systems (OSS)

functions; (2) default performance

standards or benchmarks that would

apply when an incumbent LEC fails, or

refuses, to report on its performance; (3)

technical standards for OSS interfaces;

and (4) remedial provisions that would

apply to non-compliant incumbent

LECs. In their petition, LCI/CompTel

propose that the Commission rely on the

Service Quality Measurements adopted

by the Local Competition Users Group

(LCUG) as the basis for establishing

performance measurements, reporting

requirements, and default performance

standards. On October 8, 1997, LCUG

filed a revised proposal that described

in detail its proposed performance

measurements and default standards. A

number of parties filed additional ex

parte comments, offering their own

proposed measurements and addressing

the specific recommendations made by

LCUG in its revised proposal.

B. Summary of Proposals

7. In this NPRM, we tentatively

conclude that we should propose model

performance measurements and

reporting requirements for OSS

functions, interconnection, and access

to operator services and directory

assistance. In Part III, we discuss the

respective roles of the Commission and

the states with regard to the

development and implementation of

model rules, as well as with respect to

the establishment of legally binding

rules. In Part IV, we set forth proposed

performance measurements. In Part V,

we discuss reporting procedures, and in

Part VI we propose methods to evaluate

performance measurements. As

explained in Part VII, we conclude that

we will not address at this time several

points raised in the LCI/CompTel

petition, such as the establishment of

national performance standards,

technical standards, and enforcement

mechanisms. In addition, we recognize

that the proposals set forth in this

NPRM may disproportionately impact

small, rural, and midsized incumbent

LECs. Consequently, in Part VIII we also

seek comment on the potential burdens

that our proposed model rules could

impose on these incumbent LECs and

we seek comment on possible remedies.

III. Role of Commission and States

8. LCI and CompTel petitioned the

Commission to initiate a rulemaking to

promulgate performance measurements

and reporting requirements. States as

well have urged us to assist them in

developing these measurements. Indeed,

NARUC passed a resolution seeking

such assistance. It states in pertinent

part:

Resolved: That the FCC be urged to move

promptly to advance the establishment of

performance guidelines that can be used to

evaluate the provision of access to the

components of OSS functions * * *.

Individual states have also begun work

in this area. For example, California and

New York have initiated proceedings to

develop OSS requirements, including

performance measurements and

reporting requirements.

9. The primary goal of this NPRM is

to provide the requested guidance to the

states in the most efficient and

expeditious manner possible.

Accordingly, we intend, in the first

instance, to adopt a set of model

performance measurements and

reporting requirements, based on the

detailed descriptions provided herein

and subject to whatever modifications

we deem appropriate in light of

comments received. These model

performance measurements and

reporting requirements would not be

legally binding.

10. We recognize that parties in this

proceeding have offered differing

opinions concerning our jurisdiction to

issue OSS rules. Some have argued that

the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Iowa

Utilities v. FCC would preclude our

authority to establish rules relating to

OSS, while others have argued, to the

contrary, that portions of that decision

would validate our authority to issue

such rules. We invite parties to

comment on this issue. Given that our

primary goal is to provide guidance to

states through the adoption of model

rules in the first instance, however, we

strongly encourage parties to focus on

the substance of the proposed

performance measurements and

reporting requirements, rather than

focusing exclusively on issues of

jurisdiction.

IV. Proposed Performance

Measurements and Reporting

Requirements

A. General Issues

11. In this section, we propose

performance measurements for each of

the five OSS functions, as well as for

interconnection and OS/DA. These

measurements are intended to permit a

direct assessment of whether an

incumbent LEC is complying with its

obligations under section 251.

12. In the Local Competition First

Report and Order, the Commission

determined that, because OSS includes

the information necessary to obtain

other network elements or resold

services, providing access to OSS

functions falls squarely within an

incumbent LEC’s duty under section

251(c)(3) to provide unbundled network

elements under terms and conditions

that are nondiscriminatory, just and

reasonable, and its duty under section

251(c)(4) to offer resale services without

imposing any limitations or conditions

that are discriminatory or unreasonable.

Additionally, the Commission identified

OSS itself as a network element and

stated that it consisted of five functions:

(1) pre-ordering; (2) ordering; (3)

provisioning; (4) maintenance and

repair; and (5) billing. The Commission

concluded that, as with all unbundled

network elements, an incumbent LEC

must provide access to these five OSS

functions that is equivalent to what it

provides itself, its own end-user

customers, or other carriers.
27024 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 94 / Friday, May 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules

13. As a practical matter, for those

OSS functions provided to competing

carriers that are analogous to OSS

functions that an incumbent LEC

provides itself in connection with retail

service offerings, the incumbent LEC

must provide access to competing

carriers that is equivalent to the level of

access that the incumbent LEC provides

itself in terms of quality, accuracy, and

timeliness. Thus, for example, for those

functions that an incumbent LEC itself

accesses electronically, the incumbent

LEC must provide electronic access for

competing carriers. In addition,

competing carriers must have access to

OSS functions that allows them to make

use of such functions in ‘‘substantially

the same time and manner’’ as the

incumbent LEC. For those OSS

functions that have no direct retail

analog, such as the ordering and

provisioning of unbundled network

elements, an incumbent LEC must

provide access sufficient to allow an

efficient competitor a meaningful

opportunity to compete.

14. With respect to interconnection,

the Commission concluded that

‘‘section 251(c)(2)(C) requires an

incumbent LEC to provide

interconnection between its network

and that of a requesting carrier at a level

of quality that is at least

indistinguishable from that which the

incumbent provides itself, a subsidiary,

an affiliate, or any other party.’’ Finally,

incumbent LECs are obligated under

section 251(c)(3) to provide

nondiscriminatory access to operator

services and directory assistance

because they are network elements.

15. The measurements we propose in

this NPRM are designed to assist in

assessing an incumbent LEC’s

performance in providing OSS,

interconnection, and OS/DA to

competing carriers. Various parties

presented proposals for performance

measurements in this proceeding. We

conclude, however, that no single

proposal optimally balances our goals of

detecting possible instances of

discrimination while minimizing, to the

extent possible, burdens imposed on

incumbent LECs. We therefore propose

a set of measurements that we believe

provides an appropriate balance of these

goals.

16. We recognize that reporting

averages of performance measurements

alone, without further analysis, may not

reveal whether there are underlying

differences in the way incumbent LECs

treat their own retail operations in

relation to the way they treat competing

carriers. Consequently, we propose, as

part of the model rules proposed herein,

the use of statistical tests to determine

whether measured differences in the

average performance of incumbent LECs

toward their retail customers and

toward competing carriers represent

true differences in behavior rather than

random chance. Further, we recognize

that reporting on averages alone may

mask potential forms of discrimination.

For example, an incumbent LEC may

have the same average completion

interval in providing service to

competing carriers as it has in providing

service to its retail customers, but the

variation in completion intervals in

providing the service may differ greatly.

It may be the case, for instance, that the

average completion interval is four days

for both competing carriers and retail

customers, but half of competing

carriers’ orders are completed in one

day and half in seven days, while all of

retail customers’ orders are completed

in exactly four days. For this reason, we

seek comment below on the possible use

of statistical tests that capture

differences in variances between two

samples as well as tests of differences in

averages. We also seek comment below

on whether, as part of the model rules

proposed herein, the data underlying

the performance measurement results

should be made available to competing

carriers so that they can evaluate the

incumbent LECs’ performance in other

ways if they choose to do so.

17. Before describing the individual

performance measurements, however,

we seek comment on a number of

general issues that pertain to all

performance measurements. These

general issues concern: 1) the

appropriate balance between the

burdens and benefits associated with

performance measurements and

reporting requirements; 2) the

appropriate geographic level for

reporting; 3) the scope of activities that

incumbent LECs should report; and 4)

the relevant electronic interfaces for

purposes of reporting the measurements

described below.

1. Balance Between Burdens and

Benefits

18. Our goal in developing

performance measurements, and the

associated level of detail, is to isolate

the activities in which an incumbent

could discriminate when providing

services and facilities to competing

carriers. We believe that persistent

discrimination by an incumbent LEC in

any of the activities for which we have

proposed performance measurements

potentially would undermine a

competing carrier’s prospects for

success in the local market. At the same

time, as we have noted previously,

although we believe that performance

measurements and reporting

requirements will help foster

competition in the local exchange

market, compliance with performance

measurements and reporting

requirements imposes certain burdens

on incumbent LECs. In developing our

proposed performance measurements

and reporting requirements, we have

sought to balance our goal of detecting

possible instances of discrimination

with our goal of minimizing, to the

extent possible, burdens imposed on

incumbent LECs. As a general matter,

we seek comment on whether our

proposed measurements appropriately

balance these twin goals.

19. Additionally, we ask parties to

comment generally on the level of detail

contained in the proposed performance

measurements. Specifically, we seek

comment on whether the performance

measurements we propose in this NPRM

are sufficiently detailed to ensure the

collection of meaningful data, or

whether greater detail or disaggregation

is necessary or whether lesser detail or

disaggregation would be sufficient.

2. Geographic Level for Reporting

20. We seek comment on the

appropriate geographic level of

reporting. In particular, we seek

comment on whether carriers should

report data for each performance

measurement based on state boundaries,

LATAs, metropolitan statistical areas

(MSAs), or some other relevant

geographic area. We also seek comment

on whether a uniform geographic level

of reporting should apply to all

performance measurements, or whether

it would be appropriate to require

different levels of reporting for separate

measurements.

3. Scope of Reporting

21. We believe that, when an

incumbent LEC reports the results of the

performance measurements, it must do

so in a manner that permits a competing

carrier to compare the access the

incumbent LEC provides to the carrier

and other competing carriers with the

access the incumbent LEC provides to

itself or its affiliates. Accordingly, we

tentatively conclude that an incumbent

LEC should report separately on its

performance as provided to: (1) its own

retail customers; (2) any of its affiliates

that provide local exchange service; (3)

competing carriers in the aggregate; and

(4) individual competing carriers. We

seek comment on these proposed levels

of disaggregation and whether they will

permit competing carriers to detect

discrimination.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 94 / Friday, May 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules 27025

4. Relevant Electronic Interfaces

22. As the Commission has previously

noted, an incumbent LEC must provide

competing carriers the same electronic

access to its OSS functions as it

provides itself in accessing its own

internal systems and databases. Because

incumbent LECs access their systems

electronically for retail purposes, we

tentatively conclude that incumbent

LECs need measure only the access they

provide electronically to competing

carriers. Therefore, our proposals would

only require incumbent LECs to

measure the performance of the

electronic interfaces that incumbent

LECs offer to competing carriers for

access to OSS.

23. We recognize that most incumbent

LECs provide several types of electronic

interfaces, such as a GUI-based interface

and an EDI-based interface. We seek

comment on whether these incumbent

LECs must provide performance

measurements for each type of

electronic interface. We seek comment

on whether an incumbent LEC should

measure performance for each of its

electronic interfaces or only some subset

of the interfaces it offers. To the extent

that incumbent LECs report on

performance for all electronic interfaces,

we tentatively conclude that they

should disaggregate the data by interface

type when reporting each performance

measurement.

24. As noted above, we have sought

to balance our goal of detecting possible

instances of discrimination with our

goal of minimizing, to the extent

possible, burdens imposed on

incumbent LECs. Because we intend to

limit our proposed measurements to the

performance of an incumbent LEC’s

electronic interfaces, we expect that

most of the measurements proposed in

this NPRM can be collected through

electronic coding or some other

automatic logging procedure. We seek

comment on which, if any, of our

proposed measurements may require

more labor-intensive collection methods

and whether, as a result, they would be

unduly burdensome.

B. Proposed Measurements

1. Pre-Ordering Measurements

25. The pre-ordering function allows

a competing carrier to gather and

confirm information necessary to place

an accurate order for its end user. We

tentatively conclude that an incumbent

LEC must measure the average interval

for providing access to pre-ordering

information to competing carriers, as

well as to itself. The Average Response

Time measurement could, however, be

based on all queries sent to the preordering interface or some subset of

these queries. We seek comment on

whether a sampling approach, such as

the one adopted in the Bell Atlantic/

NYNEX Merger Order, would be a

sufficient method for assessing an

incumbent LEC’s nondiscriminatory

provision of pre-ordering information.

In addition, we propose that an

incumbent LEC disaggregate the results

for this measurement according to the

pre-ordering sub-functions.

26. We recognize that there may be

instances where an incumbent LEC does

not provide access to certain preordering sub-functions on a real time

basis, but rather via batch files (e.g.,

street address verification). We seek

comment on whether incumbent LECs

should exclude those pre-ordering subfunctions that are not provided on a real

time basis from this measurement, or

whether there are alternative methods to

detect possible discriminatory access in

such instances.

27. In certain instances a competing

carrier may be unable to retrieve preordering information for each query

attempt. Instead, it may receive a

rejected query notice (also known as a

failed attempt notice). We seek

comment on whether an incumbent LEC

should measure the speed by which it

provides rejected query notices to

competing carriers as well as to itself. In

addition, we seek comment on whether

a rejected query notice measurement

must be provided as a separate category

for the pre-ordering function in general

or, alternatively, disaggregated

separately for each pre-ordering subfunction. Finally, we seek comment on

whether incumbent LECs should

measure the number of rejected query

notices as a percentage of the total

number of pre-ordering queries.

2. Ordering and Provisioning

Measurements

a. Disaggregation of data. 28. Before

describing the proposed ordering and

provisioning measurements, this section

discusses the levels of disaggregation

that we believe should apply to these

measurements, as well as to the repair

and maintenance measurements

discussed in Part IV.B.3. We believe that

some level of disaggregation is

necessary to ensure the collection of

meaningful results. We note that a

number of parties have proposed

various levels of disaggregation.

Although we make no tentative

conclusions regarding the appropriate

levels of disaggregation for ordering and

provisioning measurements and repair

and maintenance measurements, we

seek comment on the thirteen

measurement categories. In order for

competing carriers to track more easily

the treatment accorded to certain types

of orders throughout the ordering and

provisioning process, we propose to use

these thirteen measurement categories

for the order completion measurements,

the order status measurements, the held

orders measurement, and the

installation troubles measurement.

Similarly, in order for competing

carriers to observe more easily

correlations between the types of

services or elements ordered and any

subsequent need for repair and

maintenance, we propose to use the

same thirteen measurement categories

for the various repair and maintenance

measurements, the Average Time to

Restore measurement, the Frequency of

Troubles in a Thirty Day Period

measurement, the Frequency of Repeat

Troubles in a Thirty Day Period

measurement and the Percentage of

Customer Troubles Resolved within

Estimated Time measurement.

29. We seek comment on whether the

thirteen proposed measurement

categories are appropriate. In particular,

we seek comment on whether these

categories would disaggregate the data

sufficiently to allow the detection of

discrimination. We also seek comment

on whether fewer levels of

disaggregation would sufficiently detect

instances of discrimination, but would

impose less reporting burden on

incumbent LECs.

30. We propose that incumbent LECs

first break down the orders by

separating resold services, unbundled

network elements, and interconnection

trunks.

For resold services, we propose to

disaggregate the measurements further

according to the three broad categories

of resold telecommunications services:

(1) Residential POTS; (2) business

POTS; and (3) special services. We

believe that each particular service that

is available for resale can be categorized

under one of these broader service

umbrellas. We propose, however, that

each group should be broken down by

orders that require the dispatch of a

service technician and those that do not.

We believe that this breakdown is

important because the need for field

work has a significant impact on the

amount of time necessary to provision a

resale order placed by a competing

carrier. We seek comment on the

proposed levels of disaggregation for

resold services.

31. For unbundled network elements,

we propose that incumbent LECs report

separately the measurement results

associated with ordering and

provisioning different types of network

elements (i.e., unbundled loops,
27026 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 94 / Friday, May 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules

unbundled switching, and unbundled

local transport). We believe that

disaggregation by type of network

element is necessary because there are

varying degrees of order complexity and

inter-carrier coordination involved with

different types of network elements,

including combinations of network

elements, and that these variations will

affect the time required to provision a

network element order. In addition, we

propose that orders for unbundled loops

should be broken down by whether the

loops are provisioned with interim

number portability. We believe that the

provisioning time for loops with interim

number portability may differ from

those without. We seek comment on our

proposed levels of disaggregation for

network element orders. We also seek

comment on whether the unbundled

loop category should be further

disaggregated, as suggested by LCUG,

between 2-wire unbundled loops, which

are generally used for POTS-type

services, and all other loop types, such

as 4-wire unbundled loops and

unbundled DS1 loops, which may be

more complex to provision.

32. Finally, we propose to include

interconnection trunks as a separate

measurement category. Although

interconnection trunks are physically

indistinguishable from transport links,

interconnection trunks are unique

because they are used for the

transmission of traffic between two

networks, whereas transport links are

used for the transmission of traffic

within the incumbent’s network. As a

result, the process for ordering

interconnection trunks, as well as the

mechanisms for provisioning those

trunks, is likely to involve a higher

degree of order complexity, as well as

greater inter-carrier coordination, and,

therefore, may require a separate

reporting category. We seek comment on

the inclusion of interconnection trunks

as a separate measurement category.

b. Order Completion Measurements.

33. We tentatively conclude that

incumbent LECs must measure the

Average Completion Interval and the

Percentage of Due Dates Missed for

orders placed by their own retail

customers and for orders placed by

competing carriers.

34. The measurement for the Average

Completion Interval seeks to compare

the average length of time it takes an

incumbent LEC to complete orders for

competing carriers with the average

length of time it takes to complete

comparable incumbent LEC retail

orders. For competing carriers’ orders,

we tentatively conclude that an

incumbent LEC must measure the

interval from its receipt of a valid order

(‘‘Order Submission Date and Time’’) at

its OSS interface until the time it

returns a completion notification to the

competing carrier (‘‘Date and Time of

Notice of Completion’’). For its own

orders, we propose that an incumbent

LEC measure the interval from when its

service representative enters an end user

customer’s order into its order

processing system (‘‘Order Submission

Date and Time’’) to the time it

completes the order (‘‘Completion Date

and Time’’). We seek comment on

whether our proposed measurement for

the Average Completion Interval is

sufficient or whether greater or lesser

detail is necessary.

35. The Percentage of Due Dates

Missed measurement seeks to determine

whether the agreed-upon due dates for

order completion are equally reliable for

orders placed by competing carriers and

orders placed by an incumbent LEC’s

end user customers. We tentatively

conclude that an incumbent LEC must

calculate this percentage by comparing

the total number of orders not

completed by the committed due date

and time during the specified reporting

period to the total number of orders

scheduled to be completed during that

reporting period. This same

measurement would apply to orders for

an incumbent LEC’s customers and for

orders submitted by competing carriers.

We seek comment on whether our

proposed measurement for Percentage of

Due Dates Missed is appropriate or

whether additional detail is necessary.

36. With respect to both the Average

Completion Interval and Percentage of

Due Dates Missed measurements, we

tentatively conclude that certain

exclusions should apply. We tentatively

conclude that incumbent LECs should

exclude orders canceled or

supplemented by competing carriers

from these measurements. We seek

comment on whether additional

exclusions are needed.

c. Average time for coordinated

customer conversions. 37. We

tentatively conclude that the incumbent

LECs should measure the Average Time

for Coordinated Customer Conversions.

Specifically, incumbent LECs must

measure the average time it takes to

disconnect an unbundled loop from the

incumbent LEC’s switch and cross

connect it to a competing carrier’s

equipment with and without number

portability. This performance

measurement will assist in determining

how long a customer switching to a

competing carrier is without local

exchange service when the competing

carrier utilizes the incumbent LEC’s

unbundled loop, in conjunction with its

own switching equipment, to provide

such service. We believe that this

measurement will assist in evaluating

the incumbent LEC’s provisioning of

unbundled loops and the impact on

competing carriers’ customers.

d. Order status measurements. 38. We

have previously stated that a competing

carrier must receive information on the

status of its orders on the same basis as

an incumbent LEC provides such

notices to itself.

39. We tentatively conclude that

incumbent LECs must provide the

following order status measurements:

(1) the Average Reject Notice Interval;

(2) the Average Firm Order

Confirmation (FOC) Notice Interval; (3)

the Average Jeopardy Notice Interval; (4)

the Percentage of Orders in Jeopardy;

and (5) the Average Completion Notice

Interval. We tentatively conclude that

all incumbent LECs must also measure

these intervals for themselves, whether

or not they have done so previously, in

order to provide a basis for comparison

with the average intervals for competing

carriers. A comparison of these times

can provide information on whether the

incumbent is providing

nondiscriminatory access to competing

carriers. We seek comment on these

tentative conclusions. If an incumbent

LEC does not currently provide itself

with a certain form of notice (e.g., a

FOC), we seek comment on the

appropriate retail analog that should be

measured. We also seek comment on

whether all of these order status

measurements are necessary to ensure

that an incumbent LEC is providing

nondiscriminatory access.

40. The Average Reject Notice Interval

seeks to measure the amount of time it

takes an incumbent LEC to notify the

competing carrier that an order has been

rejected. An incumbent LEC typically

sends an order rejection notice for

invalid orders, such as those that have

syntax or formatting errors in the order

form. The Commission has previously

explained that ‘‘[t]imely delivery of

order rejection notices has a direct

impact on a new entrant’s ability to

service its customers, because new

entrants cannot correct errors and

resubmit orders until they are notified

of their rejection * * *.’’ We tentatively

conclude that an incumbent LEC must

measure the time it takes to deliver such

notices by using the measurement. We

propose that an incumbent LEC measure

this interval from the time it receives an

order at its OSS interface to the time the

rejection notice leaves its gateway. We

seek comment on these tentative

conclusions.

41. The Average FOC Notice Interval

seeks to measure the amount of time it

takes an incumbent LEC to send a
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 94 / Friday, May 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules 27027

competing carrier a notice confirming

the order. Competing carriers rely on

FOC notices to apprise their customers

of due dates. We tentatively conclude

that an incumbent LEC must measure

the time it takes to deliver a FOC notice

by using the measurement. We also

tentatively conclude that the incumbent

LEC must measure this interval from the

time it received a valid order at its OSS

interface from the competing carrier to

the time the FOC leaves its OSS

interface and is transmitted to the

competing carrier. Because this interval

measures only valid orders, we

tentatively conclude that incumbent

LECs must exclude rejected orders from

this measurement. We seek comment on

these tentative conclusions.

42. The Average Jeopardy Notice

Interval attempts to determine how far

in advance a competing carrier receives

notice that its customer’s order is in

jeopardy of not being completed as

scheduled, compared to how far in

advance an incumbent LEC’s service

representative receives such notice. The

Commission has previously explained

that competing carriers need timely

order jeopardy notices to inform their

customers of the potential need to

reschedule the time for service

installation. We tentatively conclude

that incumbent LECs must measure the

amount of time between the originally

scheduled order completion date and

time (as stated on the FOC) and the date

and time a notice leaves the incumbent

LEC’s interface informing the carrier

that the order is in jeopardy of missing

the originally scheduled date. We seek

comment on this tentative conclusion.

43. We also tentatively conclude that

incumbent LECs must measure the

Percentage of Orders in Jeopardy. This

measurement determines the percentage

of orders that the incumbent LEC

identifies as being in jeopardy of not

being completed on time for any reason.

This information will enable a

competing carrier to determine whether

a significantly higher percentage of its

orders are placed in jeopardy than an

incumbent LEC’s retail orders.

Additionally, a competing carrier

should receive a jeopardy notification

for each of its orders that the incumbent

LEC fails to complete on time. A

competing carrier can determine

whether it is receiving this requisite

advance notice by comparing the

Percentage of Orders in Jeopardy to the

Percentage Due Dates Missed

measurement.

44. Finally, the Average Completion

Notice Interval measures the amount of

time it takes an incumbent LEC to send

a competing carrier notice that work on

an order has been completed. We

tentatively conclude that an incumbent

LEC must use the measurement and

must measure the interval by

subtracting the date and time that it

completed the work from the date and

time a valid completion notice leaves its

OSS interface. We seek comment on

these tentative conclusions.

e. Average interval for held orders. 45.

We tentatively conclude that incumbent

LECs must measure the Average Interval

for Held Orders. This measurement

seeks to capture the time required to

complete held orders, i.e., those orders

pending at the end of the reporting

period whose committed due dates have

passed. For example, if incumbent LECs

report on a monthly basis, a held order

would be any order that is overdue at

the end of the month. By measuring

those orders whose due dates have

passed, the Average Held Order

measurement will capture those orders

not covered by the Average Completion

Interval measurement, which measures

orders that are completed by the

committed due date. We believe that the

Average Interval for Held Orders

measurement will enable a requesting

carrier to determine whether the average

period that its orders are pending after

the committed due date is no longer

than the average period for similar

incumbent LEC pending orders. We seek

comment on the utility of measuring the

average interval for held orders and

whether the measurement described

below accurately captures the necessary

information.

46. To arrive at the Average Interval

for Held Orders, we tentatively

conclude that the incumbent LEC

should first identify all orders with a

FOC listing a due date prior to the end

of the reporting period in question for

which a valid completion notice has not

yet been issued. The held order interval

for a particular order is the number of

calendar days between the completion

date listed on that order’s FOC and the

close of the reporting period. The

Average Interval for Held Orders is then

calculated by dividing the total number

of days since the due date up to the

reporting period close date by the

number of held orders. Incumbent LECs

should measure the Average Interval for

Held Orders for both competing carrier

orders and their own retail customer

orders. We propose that incumbent

LECs exclude from this measurement

those orders cancelled by a competing

carrier. We seek comment on whether

these exclusions will assist in producing

meaningful results and on whether

additional exclusions are needed.

f. Installation troubles. 47. We

tentatively conclude that an incumbent

LEC must measure Percentage Troubles

in Thirty Days for New Orders. We

believe that incumbent LECs must

calculate the percentage of new orders

for which a competing carrier, or

incumbent LEC customer service

representative, receives complaints that

there is a problem with the service

within the first thirty days after

completion of the order. Trouble reports

often indicate that a customer has not

received the exact service ordered,

either because the carrier provided the

wrong type of service or a lower quality

of service than expected. We believe,

therefore, that this measurement will

provide information about whether the

incumbent LEC processed the order

accurately. Accordingly, we propose

that incumbents LECs measure

Percentage Troubles in Thirty Days for

New Orders as a substitute for LCUG’s

proposed measurement of Percentage

Orders Processed Accurately. We

believe that Percentage Troubles in

Thirty Days for New Orders will provide

the information sought by LCUG, but

will be a less burdensome measurement

than measuring order accuracy, which

requires an incumbent LEC to compare

the original account profile and order

sent by the competing carrier to the

account profile following completion of

the order. Nevertheless, we seek

comment on using this measurement as

a substitute for order accuracy. We also

seek comment on whether thirty days is

an appropriate cut-off for measuring

trouble reports for new orders.

48. Although we make no tentative

conclusions regarding the specific

measurement needed to measure

Percentage Troubles in Thirty Days for

New Orders, we seek comment on the

measurement. Specifically, we seek

comment on whether this measurement

should be disaggregated in the same

way as the other ordering and

provisioning measurements. It may not

be appropriate, for example, to include

interconnection trunks because any

problems relating to such trunks will

likely affect many customers on the

competing carrier’s network, rather than

one specific customer. We seek

comment on whether interconnection

trunks, or any other categories of

disaggregation, should be eliminated for

this measurement.

49. Finally, we seek comment on

whether it is appropriate to measure

percentage troubles on a ‘‘per order’’

basis. We seek comment on whether

tracking troubles on a per order basis

might mask a higher number of troubles

for larger orders. For example, an order

of forty new lines may have several

problems and yet would be reported as

having only one trouble report. We

therefore seek comment on whether a
27028 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 94 / Friday, May 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules

‘‘per circuit’’ basis for resale orders and

‘‘per element’’ basis for unbundled

network element orders might be more

useful than a ‘‘per order’’ basis.

g. Ordering quality measurements.

1. Order Flow Through

50. An incumbent LEC’s internal

ordering system permits its retail service

representatives to submit retail

customer orders electronically, directly

into the ordering system. This is known

as ‘‘flow through.’’ Similarly, a

competing carrier’s orders ‘‘flow

through’’ if they are transmitted

electronically (i.e., with no manual

intervention) through the gateway into

the incumbent LEC’s ordering systems.

Order Flow Through applies solely to

the OSS ordering function, not the OSS

provisioning function. In other words,

Order Flow Through measures only how

the competing carrier’s order is

transmitted to the incumbent’s back

office ordering system, not how the

incumbent ultimately completes that

order. Electronically processed service

orders are more likely to be completed

and less prone to human error than

orders that require some degree of

human intervention.

51. We tentatively conclude that

incumbent LECs should measure the

percentage of competing carriers’ orders

that flow through electronically to the

incumbent LEC’s ordering systems. The

Percentage Order Flow Through

measurement seeks to calculate the

percentage of orders that an incumbent

LEC processes electronically through its

gateway and accepts into its back office

systems without manual intervention

(i.e., without additional human

intervention once the order is submitted

into the system). This measurement

only applies to valid orders, that is,

orders that have not been rejected for

some reason. A separate measurement

for rejected orders is in paragraph 53.

52. We tentatively conclude that the

Order Flow Through measurement must

be disaggregated by the following

categories: (1) resale POTS; (2) resale

specials; (3) network elements; and (4)

combinations of network elements. We

note that the proposed categories for the

Order Flow Through measurement are

less detailed than the categories

proposed for the other measurements

relating to the ordering process (e.g.,

order completion and order status

measurements). We believe this

distinction is justified because the Order

Flow Through measurement focuses

solely on the OSS ordering function,

whereas the other proposed

measurements (i.e., those regarding

order completion and order status) also

focus on the OSS provisioning function.

In the provisioning context, there may

be substantial differences in the time

required to provide various types of

unbundled network elements and

services. For example, the time required

to complete certain orders may vary

based on whether an order requires a

dispatch, or merely a billing change. In

the order flow through context, such

issues are irrelevant. The method of

ordering resold services and network

elements is not likely to vary between

residential and business customers. We

seek comment on the proposed levels of

disaggregation for the Order Flow

Through measurement and whether

further disaggregation is necessary.

2. Order Rejections

53. We tentatively conclude that

incumbent LECs must report on the

Percentage of Rejected Orders. We also

tentatively conclude that this

measurement must be reported to the

same level of disaggregation as the

Order Flow Through measurement. The

Percentage of Rejected Orders

measurement, would determine the

percentage of total orders received

electronically that are rejected.

54. In addition to the above

measurement, we seek comment on

whether incumbent LECs should report

on the average number of times an order

must be resubmitted before it is finally

accepted as a valid order. The Average

Submissions per Order measurement

would require incumbent LECs to

measure the number of orders accepted

for provisioning and the number of

orders rejected during the reporting

period in order to calculate the total

number of order submissions in the

reporting period. The total number of

order submissions would then be

divided by the total number of orders

accepted for provisioning in the

reporting period.

h. 911 Database update and accuracy.

55. One of the OSS databases used in

ordering and provisioning services and

facilities to competing carriers is the

911/E911 database. We seek comment

on whether incumbent LECs should

measure the provision of 911 and E911

emergency services to competing

carriers. The accuracy of 911 and E911

database updates was identified as an

important issue in the Ameritech

Michigan 271 Order, 62 FR 44969,

August 25, 1997. We seek comment on

whether federal reporting requirements

are necessary to monitor possible

discrimination, or whether the states’

existing oversight functions of 911 and

E911 database services adequately

monitor carrier-to-carrier

discrimination.

56. We also seek comment on what

particular measurements would be

useful if we were to adopt reporting

requirements in this area. In particular,

we seek comment on the utility of

measuring the percentage of accurate

updates for incumbent LEC and

competing carrier customers. Such a

measurement might assist a competing

carrier in determining whether there is

discriminatory treatment in updating

these databases.

57. We also seek comment on the

utility of measuring the timeliness of

updates to the 911 and E911 databases.

We seek comment on whether

incumbent LECs should measure the

percentage of missed due dates by

establishing due dates, or specific time

frames, for updating databases.

Alternatively, we seek comment on

whether incumbent LECs should

measure the mean time to update the

911 and E911 databases.

3. Repair and Maintenance

Measurements

58. We tentatively conclude that

incumbent LECs must provide the

following repair and maintenance

measurements: (1) Average Time to

Restore; (2) Frequency of Repeat

Troubles in Thirty Days; (3) Frequency

of Troubles in a Thirty Day Period; and

(4) Percentage of Customer Troubles

Resolved within the Estimated Time.

Incumbent LECs must calculate these

measurements for themselves and for

competing carriers. We seek comment

on whether these four measurements are

sufficient to assess whether incumbent

LECs provide repair and maintenance in

a nondiscriminatory manner, or whether

this assessment could be done with

fewer measurements. In addition, we

seek comment on whether incumbent

LECs should disaggregate the repair and

maintenance measurements in the

manner described with respect to the

ordering and provisioning

measurements.

59. The Average Time to Restore

measurement allows a competing carrier

to gauge whether its customers’ services

are repaired in the same time frame as

that of the incumbent LEC’s customers.

The Average Time to Restore measures

the time from when a service problem

is reported to the incumbent LEC (i.e.,

when a ‘‘trouble ticket’’ is logged) to the

time when the incumbent LEC returns a

trouble ticket resolution notification to

the competing carrier.

60. The Frequency of Troubles in a

Thirty Day Period measurement reports

the percentage of access lines that

receive trouble tickets in a thirty day

period. This measurement permits a

competing carrier to determine on an
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 94 / Friday, May 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules 27029

ongoing basis whether its customers

experience more frequent incidents of

trouble than the incumbent LEC’s end

users. Disparity in this measurement

may indicate differences in the

underlying quality of the network

components supplied by the incumbent

LEC. We seek comment on whether

thirty days is an appropriate time frame.

61. The Frequency of Repeat Troubles

in a Thirty Day Period measurement

calculates the percentage of trouble

tickets that are repeat trouble tickets.

Any differences in this measurement

may indicate that the incumbent LEC

provides inferior maintenance support

in the initial resolution of troubles or, in

the alternative, that the incumbent LEC

supplies network components of an

inferior quality. The Frequency of

Repeat Troubles in a Thirty Day Period

measurement is calculated by dividing

the number of repeat troubles generated

in a thirty day period by the total

number of trouble tickets received in the

same thirty day period. Again, we seek

comment on whether thirty days is an

appropriate time frame.

62. The Percentage of Customer

Troubles Resolved Within the Estimated

Time measures whether the estimated

times for repairs the incumbent LEC

reports to competing carriers are as

reliable as the estimated times the

incumbent LEC provides to its end user

customers. Recognizing that troubles on

interconnection trunks may not be

customer specific, we seek comment on

the utility of requiring incumbent LECs

to report on the Percentage of Customer

Troubles Resolved Within the Estimated

Time with respect to interconnection

trunks.

63. We note that LCUG has proposed

measurement categories for the Average

Time to Restore measurement based on

the disposition and cause of the trouble.

We seek comment on whether most

carriers use the disposition and cause

categories proposed by LCUG, and

whether such a breakdown would be

useful for the repair and maintenance

measurements. We also seek comment

on whether such a breakdown would

place undue burdens on incumbent

LECs.

64. We tentatively conclude that

incumbent LECs should exclude the

following types of trouble reports from

the measurements described above: (1)

trouble tickets that are cancelled by the

competing carrier; (2) incumbent LEC

trouble reports associated with the

internal or administrative use of local

service; and (3) instances where the

customer requests a ticket be ‘‘held

open’’ for monitoring. With respect to

the Frequency of Repeat Troubles

measurement, we tentatively conclude

that incumbent LECs should exclude

subsequent trouble reports on

maintenance tickets that have not been

reported as resolved or closed. We seek

comment on whether these exclusions

will assist in producing meaningful

results and whether additional

exclusions are needed.

4. Billing Measurements

65. As noted above, an incumbent

LEC must provide nondiscriminatory

access to billing, as one of the five OSS

functions identified by the Commission

in the Local Competition First Report

and Order. A competing carrier is

dependent on an incumbent LEC to

obtain billing information, regardless of

whether it uses unbundled network

elements or resold services. Two types

of billing information a competing

carrier must obtain from an incumbent

LEC are: (1) customer usage records (i.e.,

those records detailing each end user’s

use of the incumbent’s services); and (2)

billing invoices, which establish the

amount the competing carrier owes the

incumbent LEC for use of its services or

facilities.

66. We tentatively conclude that a

competing carrier can determine

whether it is obtaining

nondiscriminatory access to these two

sets of billing records by obtaining

performance measurements on the

Average Time to Provide Usage Records

and the Average Time to Deliver

Invoices. The first measurement

(Average Time to Provide Usage

Records) seeks to capture the average

time it takes an incumbent LEC to

provide customer usage records. We

tentatively conclude that incumbent

LECs should use the measurements for

the Average Time to Provide Usage

Records in calculating the intervals for

competing carriers and for their own

retail use. For competing carriers, an

incumbent LEC must compare the date

and time it records usage data with the

date and time it transmits the records

from its OSS gateway to the competing

carrier. For its own retail use, we

propose that an incumbent LEC measure

the elapsed time between the date and

time of recording the usage record to the

date and time it reformats the record on

an Electronic Message Record (EMR), or

an equivalent, format. We seek comment

on these measurements. Additionally,

we understand that files and billing for

local usage, exchange access usage, and

alternately billed usage are separated in

the actual billing process, and we seek

comment on whether incumbent LECs

should disaggregate the Average Time to

Provide Usage Records into these three

groups.

67. The second measurement

(Average Time to Deliver Invoices) seeks

to measure the average time it takes an

incumbent LEC to transmit a billing

invoice to a competing carrier for

charges related to resale and/or network

elements. We tentatively conclude that

incumbent LECs should calculate the

Average Time to Deliver Invoices. For

competing carriers, an incumbent LEC

must compare the date and time it

transmits the invoices to the competing

carrier to the date and time the billing

cycle closes. For an incumbent LEC’s

own retail use, LCUG has proposed that

an incumbent LEC compare the date and

time the customer’s bills are produced

in electronic format (whether or not

they are distributed) to the date and

time the billing cycle closes. We seek

comment on this proposal for retail use

and on our tentative conclusion

regarding the appropriate measurement

for competing carriers. We also seek

comment on whether incumbent LECs

should report separately for wholesale

bill invoices and unbundled element

bill invoices for competing carriers.

Finally, we seek comment on whether

any other measurements for billing are

appropriate.

5. General Measurements

a. Systems Availability. 68. We

tentatively conclude that an incumbent

LEC must measure the percentage of

time its electronic interfaces for each

OSS function are actually operational as

compared to the scheduled availability.

We propose that an incumbent LEC

calculate this measurement by

comparing the total time it provides

access to a particular interface during

the reporting period to the total time the

interface was scheduled to be available

during the reporting period. We also

propose that an incumbent LEC

compare the total time its own systems

are available to its service

representatives to the amount of time

that those systems should have been

available during the reporting period.

We believe that this measurement will

assist in determining whether the

incumbent LEC provides

nondiscriminatory access to its

electronic interfaces. We believe that

both prolonged outages and frequent

unavailability of electronic access to an

incumbent LEC’s OSS interfaces may

significantly and adversely affect a

competing carrier’s ability to provide

service to end users. We tentatively

conclude that this measurement must be

disaggregated by interface type, such as

EDI and GUI, as well as by each separate

OSS function provided by the

incumbent LEC to competing carriers

(e.g., pre-ordering, ordering,
27030 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 94 / Friday, May 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules

provisioning, repair and maintenance,

and billing). We seek comment on our

tentative conclusions regarding systems

availability measurements.

b. Center Responsiveness. 69. We

tentatively conclude that an incumbent

LEC must measure the average time to

answer calls from competing carriers to

an incumbent LEC’s wholesale service

center. We propose that an incumbent

LEC calculate this measurement by

tracking the time elapsed from when the

service center’s call management system

is prompted by an incoming call from a

competing carrier until the call is

answered by an incumbent LEC’s

service representative. We seek

comment on our tentative conclusion to

require a measurement for center

responsiveness.

c. Operator services and directory

assistance. 70. We tentatively conclude

that an incumbent LEC must measure

the average time it takes its own end

user customers and those of competing

carriers to access the incumbent LEC’s

operator services and directory

assistance databases or operators. We

seek comment on this specific

measurement.

71. Incumbent LECs appear to be able

to provide separate measurement results

for competing carriers that use

dedicated trunks to access the

incumbent LEC’s OS/DA database or

operators. Therefore, we tentatively

conclude that incumbent LECs must

provide separate measurement results in

such instances. We seek comment,

however, on whether, for purposes of

disaggregation, an incumbent LEC is

able to differentiate between OS/DA

calls from its own end user customers

and customers of competing carriers if

all such calls are carried over the same

OS/DA trunk groups.

6. Interconnection Measurements

72. As previously noted, section

251(c)(2) of the Act requires incumbent

LECs to provide interconnection to

competing carriers at the same level of

quality as used in their own networks.

We tentatively conclude that incumbent

LECs must measure the quality of

interconnection through three different

means. As discussed above, we

tentatively conclude that incumbent

LECs must report separately for

interconnection trunks when

disaggregating the ordering and

provisioning measurements, as well as

the repair and maintenance

measurements. We also tentatively

conclude, as discussed below, that

incumbent LECs must report on two sets

of interconnection measurements, one

for trunk blockage and one for

collocation. These two sets of

measurements are intended to reveal the

quality of interconnection provided to

competing carriers.

a. Trunk Blockage. 73. We tentatively

conclude that incumbent LECs must

measure trunk blockage, i.e., blockage

on final trunk groups within their

networks. Blockage on these final trunk

groups prevents end user calls from

reaching their final destination. The

inability of a competing carrier’s end

users to complete or receive calls has a

direct impact on the customer’s

perception of the competing carrier’s

quality of service.

74. We believe that competing

carriers’ traffic can be blocked at two

critical points: (1) interconnection trunk

groups (e.g., those trunk groups

connecting the incumbent LEC’s end

offices, access tandems, or local

tandems with a competing carrier’s

network); or (2) common trunk groups

located within the incumbent LEC’s

network behind the point of

interconnection (e.g., trunks connecting

the incumbent’s tandem switch with

other points in the incumbent LEC’s

network). We therefore tentatively

conclude that an incumbent LEC

measure on blockage on both sets of

trunk groups. We seek comment on

these tentative conclusions.

75. We seek comment on certain

general issues associated with

measuring trunk blockage. We recognize

that inferior service is generally

indicated by repeated blockage on the

same final trunk groups. We therefore

seek comment on whether incumbent

LECs should measure whether there is

repeated blockage over the same trunk

groups for an ongoing period, such as

three consecutive months. We also seek

comment on whether incumbent LECs

should report on blockage exceeding a

certain blocking standard for both

interconnection and common trunk

group measurements. In the Bell

Atlantic/NYNEX Merger Order, for

example, the Commission required Bell

Atlantic to report on blockage exceeding

a blocking standard of B.01 for

interconnection trunks and B.005 for

common trunks. We seek comment on

whether incumbent LECs should

measure blockage exceeding these

standards.

76. We also seek comment on

methods by which parties may evaluate

whether incumbent LECs are providing

interconnection in compliance with

their statutory obligations under section

251(c)(2). With respect to

interconnection trunks, we seek

comment on the utility of comparing

blockage on interconnection trunks and

blockage on the incumbent LEC’s

interoffice trunk groups carrying its

retail customers’ traffic. In the

Ameritech Michigan 271 proceeding,

Ameritech provided data on trunk

blockage rates for both groups. The

Commission determined that a higher

percentage of interconnection trunking

groups experienced blockage than did

Ameritech’s interoffice trunking groups

serving its retail customers, suggesting

that Ameritech’s interconnection

facilities did not meet the same service

standards as those used within its own

network. We seek comment on the value

of using a comparison similar to that

used in the Ameritech Michigan 271

Order for gauging whether

interconnection trunks are provided in

a nondiscriminatory manner. We also

seek comment on which set of

interoffice trunk groups incumbent

LECs should monitor.

77. A competing carrier’s ability to

provide service to its customers may

also be affected by blockage on common

trunks located within the incumbent

LEC’s network behind the point of

interconnection. We tentatively

conclude that it is necessary to measure

common trunk blockage and seek

comment on appropriate methods to

make such measurements. Specifically,

we seek comment on whether

incumbent LECs should use the

common trunk data report established

in BellCore Special Report SR STS–

000317, ‘‘Common Trunk Transport

Group Performance Data,’’ Issue 2,

September 1990. While we recognize

that this report was intended to provide

information about common trunk

blockage to interexchange carriers

(IXCs), we seek comment on whether

this report can provide useful

information for competing carriers as

well. We also seek comment on whether

incumbent LECs generally use this

common trunk data report and whether

all the measurements in the report are

applicable to competing carriers.

Additionally, we seek comment on the

utility of requiring incumbent LECs to

report on blockage on common trunks

within their networks that connect to a

point of interconnection, as well as on

interoffice common trunks that are not

connected to a point of interconnection.

We seek comment on an incumbent

LEC’s ability to separately measure and

report on blockage over these two types

of common trunks (i.e., those trunk

groups that connect to a point of

interconnection and those that do not)

and whether information about these

two types of trunk groups will assist a

competing carrier in determining

whether it is receiving

nondiscriminatory interconnection.

78. Finally, we seek comment on

whether an incumbent LEC must
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 94 / Friday, May 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules 27031

measure call completion rates to

demonstrate that it is satisfying the

statutory requirements of section

251(c)(2). In measuring call completion

rates, an incumbent LEC would compare

the percentage of calls completed by

incumbent LEC customers to competing

carrier customers, relative to the

percentage of calls completed by

incumbent LEC customers to other

incumbent LEC customers. In the

Ameritech Michigan 271 Order, the

Commission noted that data regarding

the rate of call completion would be

useful in assessing the quality of

interconnection. We seek comment on

the utility of using this measurement to

gauge the quality of interconnection

provided by an incumbent LEC and on

the benefits of using the call completion

measurement in addition to, or instead

of, the trunk blockage measurement. We

also seek comment on the additional

costs or burdens that such a

measurement would impose on

incumbent LECs.

b. Collocation. 79. We tentatively

conclude that incumbent LECs must

measure certain aspects of providing

collocation arrangements. Section

251(c)(6) and our rules require

incumbent LECs to provide physical

and virtual collocation as a means of

interconnection or access to unbundled

network elements. Consequently, we

tentatively conclude that incumbent

LECs must provide measurements

concerning their provision of

collocation facilities to competing

carriers, including the response time for

initial requests for collocation. We also

tentatively conclude that this

measurement must be disaggregrated

between virtual and physical

collocation arrangements. The provision

of collocation arrangements involves

several steps: (1) the initial query by a

competing carrier regarding space for

collocation, and the incumbent LEC’s

response to that query; (2) the actual

ordering of the collocation arrangement

by the competing carrier; and (3) the

completion of that arrangement by the

incumbent LEC. We tentatively

conclude that incumbent LECs must

provide the following measurements: (1)

Average Time to Respond to a

Collocation Request; (2) Average Time

to Provide a Collocation Arrangement;

and (3) Percentage of Due Dates Missed

with respect to the provision of

collocation arrangements. We seek

comment on the utility of these

proposed measurements.

80. We tentatively conclude that the

Average Time to Respond to a

Collocation Request must be determined

by computing the elapsed time from the

incumbent LEC’s receipt of a request for

collocation by a competing carrier to the

time the incumbent LEC responds to

such a request. The Average Time to

Provide a Collocation Arrangement

must be calculated from the time that

the competing carrier submits an order

for a collocation arrangement to the time

that the arrangement is made available

to the competing carrier. Finally, an

incumbent LEC must calculate the

Percentage of Due Dates Missed by

comparing the number of times it

missed a committed date for providing

collocation facilities to the total number

of confirmed due dates for collocation

arrangements during the reporting

period. We also tentatively conclude

that incumbent LECs must disaggregate

these measurements by virtual and

physical collocation arrangements. We

seek comment on these tentative

conclusions.

V. Reporting Procedures

81. We also propose model

procedures to assist states considering

how performance measurements should

be reported. These model reporting

procedures are intended to facilitate

access by competing carriers and states

to the measurements produced by the

incumbent LECs so that carriers and

states can determine whether incumbent

LECs are satisfying their statutory

obligations pursuant to section 251.

This section discusses proposals

regarding: (1) who should receive the

reports; (2) the frequency of reports; and

(3) auditing procedures.

A. Receipt of Reports

82. We seek comment on who should

receive these reports from the

incumbent LECs on a regular basis. We

believe that the main purpose of these

performance reports is to permit

competing carriers to determine

whether they are obtaining access

consistent with the requirements of

section 251. We tentatively conclude,

therefore, that only those carriers that

already obtain services or facilities from

the incumbent LEC through an

interconnection agreement, or under a

statement of generally available terms,

should have the opportunity to receive

reports. Commenters that believe that

other groups of carriers, such as those

considering whether to enter the market,

should also receive reports should

explain why the benefits of their

receiving reports outweigh the costs to

incumbent LECs.

83. In order to minimize unnecessary

costs or burdens for incumbent LECs,

we further conclude that an incumbent

LEC should provide reports to an

individual competing carrier only after

receiving a request from the competing

carrier for such reports.

84. States may also have an interest in

reviewing performance reports. With

respect to whether state officials should

receive a copy of the reports that we

propose in this NPRM, we tentatively

conclude that individual states can best

assess whether they wish to receive the

reports. While this Commission may not

need to review reports on a regular

basis, we note that the Commission

could obtain the reports upon request.

85. Finally, we seek comment on

whether reports should be filed with a

central clearinghouse so that state

commissions, other competing carriers,

or the general public can review an

incumbent LEC’s performance in

different states. We seek comment on

the benefits and costs involved in

developing such a clearinghouse. We

also seek comment on what entity

should act as a clearinghouse, e.g., a

coalition of regulators (such as NARUC)

or another organization.

86. We recognize that parties may be

concerned about disclosing confidential

measurement results if results particular

to an incumbent LEC or to an individual

competing carrier are reported broadly.

We seek comment on the need to keep

individual competing carrier

information confidential and on

whether only aggregate measurement

results be made available to other

competing carriers or to the general

public.

87. With respect to incumbent LEC

measurement results, we believe that

individual competing carriers must have

access to incumbent LEC results so that

they can make a meaningful comparison

with their own data. We seek comment,

however, on whether incumbent LEC

measurement results should be

protected from disclosure to nonrequesting competing carriers or to the

general public. If regulatory agencies

request incumbent LEC and competing

carrier measurement results, we ask

parties to comment on whether

protective measures are necessary and

to propose appropriate mechanisms to

keep those results confidential.

Similarly, we ask parties to comment on

whether competing carriers that receive

incumbent LEC measurement results

should be required to limit their use and

disclosure of those results and to

propose appropriate mechanisms for

guarding against improper use.

B. Frequency of Reports

88. We also seek comment on how

frequently incumbent LECs should file

performance reports with competing

carriers once requested by those

carriers. Specifically, we seek comment
27032 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 94 / Friday, May 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules

on the costs and benefits of requiring

monthly reporting, as opposed to

reporting on a less frequent basis, such

as quarterly. We also seek comment on

how quickly an incumbent LEC should

provide a performance report after it is

requested.

C. Auditing Requirements

89. As part of a performance

monitoring mechanism, several

competing carriers proposed that

competing carriers be given a reasonable

opportunity to conduct audits of

performance reports. These commenters

have stated that periodic auditing of the

performance reports is necessary to

ensure that incumbent LECs are using

appropriate methodologies and are

accurately reporting the required

measurements. We believe, however,

that some audits may be unnecessary or

unduly burdensome for the incumbent

LEC. We therefore seek comment on the

need to conduct such audits as part of

a model performance monitoring

scheme. We also seek comment on the

types of audits that might impose undue

burdens. Finally, we seek comment on

mechanisms that will permit competing

carriers to conduct audits, when

necessary, while protecting incumbent

LECs from unduly burdensome or

unnecessary audits. In addressing this

issue, we ask parties to comment on

who should pay for the costs of the

audit.

90. In addition to audits, LCUG also

proposed that an incumbent LEC should

make available, at a competing carrier’s

request, the raw data underlying a

report at the same time it provides the

performance report to that competing

carrier.

The raw data is that data captured by

the incumbent LEC, such as the

individual stop and start times, that are

used to produce the measurement

results. The competing carrier could use

this data to validate the incumbent

LEC’s performance measurements or to

perform additional statistical tests to

determine whether there is a

statistically significant difference in the

way in which an incumbent LEC

provisions itself compared with the way

in which it provisions competing

carriers. We seek comment on whether

model reporting procedures should

include providing access to raw data at

this initial stage, rather than in the

context of an audit. We recognize that

there may be additional burdens or costs

to the incumbent LEC in providing the

raw data to a competing carrier and that

incumbent LECs may wish to keep data

regarding services and facilities they

provide to themselves confidential. We

seek comment on the types and

magnitudes of these burdens or costs.

To the extent that commenters support

regular provision of the raw data, they

should explain why the advantages of

obtaining such data outweigh these

costs.

91. Finally, we seek comment on how

long the incumbent LEC should retain

the underlying data. One party proposed

that an incumbent LEC retain the data

for two years. We seek comment on

whether this is an appropriate period for

retention, or whether such a

requirement is excessive if a competing

carrier is also permitted to obtain the

raw data on a regular basis along with

the report.

VI. Evaluation of Performance

Measurements

92. We believe that performance

measurements and reporting

requirements are necessary to ensure

that incumbent LECs provide

interconnection and access to OSS

functions and OS/DA in compliance

with the statutory requirements of

section 251 of the Communications Act.

As a practical matter, we expect that

various parties will use the information

contained in performance

measurements as bases for determining

whether an incumbent LEC is in

compliance with the applicable

statutory standards. For example,

competing carriers may review the

measurements to determine whether the

incumbent LEC is providing access in a

nondiscriminatory manner. In making

this determination, parties will

inevitably evaluate the results of these

measurements using some

preestablished set of criteria in order to

determine whether the statutory

requirements have been satisfied.

93. Although few parties raised the

issue in the initial round of comments,

several carriers have recently raised

questions about how regulators and

competing carriers can use the data

generated by performance

measurements to evaluate whether an

incumbent LEC has adhered to its

statutory obligations. We seek comment

on whether we should recommend use

of a uniform evaluation process that

relies on objective criteria. We seek

comment on whether such an approach

will inject more consistency and

predictability into determining whether

an incumbent is meeting its statutory

obligations. We believe that bringing

more consistency and predictability to

the evaluation process is supported by

the pro-competitive goals of the 1996

Act and would benefit both incumbent

LECs and competing carriers.

94. Incumbent LECs must comply

with various statutory requirements in

their provision of interconnection and

access to OSS functions and operator

services and directory assistance. We

believe that a number of methods for

evaluating performance measurements

could be used to make an objective

determination as to whether an

incumbent LEC is meeting these

statutory requirements. In particular, the

few parties that have addressed this

issue have proposed using statistical

analysis or performance benchmarks as

evaluation methodologies.

95. Statistical analysis can help reveal

the likelihood that reported differences

in a LEC’s performance toward its retail

customers and competitive carriers are

due to underlying differences in

behavior rather than random chance.

We seek comment on whether

specifying a preferred statistical

methodology would assist in evaluating

an incumbent LEC’s performance, and

on whether a uniform statistical

methodology would assist in comparing

the performance of incumbent LECs

across regions. We seek comment on

which statistical tests, if any, the

Commission should recommend. We

believe that simple statistical tests that

are widely understood and generally

accepted would most likely be

perceived as fair and would lead to the

least disagreement concerning the

interpretation of the statistical results.

We seek comment on the use of

conventional statistical tests of the

equality of means to determine whether

observed differences in various

performance measurements between an

incumbent LEC’s own retail customers

and competing carriers are likely to

reflect actual differences in

performance. We also seek comment on

whether tests of the equality of

variances or of the equality of the

proportions of each sample that exceed

a given value would be useful. We seek

comment on whether any assumptions

associated with the statistical methods

described above might not be met by the

performance measurement data, and on

what the appropriate statistical

methodology would be in such

instances. We request comment on the

desirability of using other, more

complex forms of statistical analysis,

and on whether additional data

collection would be necessary to allow

use of these techniques.

96. In an ex parte submission AT&T

proposed using three criteria to

determine incumbent LEC compliance

with nondiscrimination obligations,

including the maximum number of

comparisons failing the statistical test

for nondiscrimination, the maximum

number of repeating measurements

failing the test, and that no extreme
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 94 / Friday, May 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules 27033

differences occur between the results for

the incumbent LEC and those for the

competing carrier. BellSouth in another

proceeding has argued that the

appropriate standard is that monthly

results for the competing carrier should

lie within three standard deviations of

the average of the incumbent LEC’s

monthly performance, and that the

results for one of the entities should not

be higher than those for the other for

three consecutive months. We request

comment on AT&T’s and BellSouth’s

proposed approaches to the use of

statistical tests in evaluating

performance data. We note that, even if

statistically significant differences

appear between results for the

incumbent LEC and the competing

carrier, these differences may be too

small to have any practical competitive

consequence and may not justify a legal

conclusion that the incumbent LEC has

discriminated against the competing

carrier. Consequently we seek comment

on whether threshold values of the

absolute difference, or the percentage

difference, in averages of performance

measures should be used in addition to

measures of statistical significance. We

request comment on whether the form

in which an incumbent LEC makes the

data available to other parties and to

regulators, for instance whether the data

should be continuous or in intervals,

should be specified, and on whether the

data should be provided in a computer

file rather than on paper.

VII. Other Issues Raised by Petitioners

97. In developing model rules, we

tentatively conclude that it is not

appropriate at this time to undertake

certain additional actions requested by

petitioners. These additional actions

include establishing performance

standards, technical standards for OSS

interfaces, and remedial measures for

non-compliant incumbent LECs.

VIII. Small and Midsized LECS

98. We seek comment on whether the

proposed model performance

measurements and reporting

requirements will impose particular

costs or burdens on small, rural, or

midsized incumbent LECs. We also seek

comment on how the proposed model

rules should be modified to take into

account any particular concerns of these

LECs. For example, certain incumbent

LECs may believe that the proposed

guidelines should be tailored to meet

circumstances relating to the areas in

which small, rural or midsized LECs are

located.

IX. Procedural Matters

A. Ex Parte Presentations

99. This matter shall be treated as a

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in

accordance with the Commission’s ex

parte rules. Persons making oral ex

parte presentations are reminded that

memoranda summarizing the

presentations must contain summaries

of the substance of the presentations

and not merely a listing of the subjects

discussed. More than a one or two

sentence description of the views and

arguments presented is generally

required. Other rules pertaining to oral

and written presentations are set forth

in section 1.1206(b) as well.

B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act

Analysis

100. This Notice contains either a

proposed information collection. As

part of its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork burdens, we invite the

general public and the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) to take

this opportunity to comment on the

information collections contained in

this Notice, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. Public and agency

comments are due at the same time as

other comments on this Notice; OMB

comments are due 60 days from date of

publication of this Notice in the Federal

Register. 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. Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Certification

101. As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission

has prepared the present Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

of the possible significant economic

impact on small entities by the policies

and rules proposed in the Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on

Performance Measurements and

Reporting Requirements for Operations

Support Systems, Interconnection, and

Operator Services and Directory

Assistance. Written public comments

are requested on the IRFA. Comments

must be identified as responses to the

IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines

for comments on the NPRM provided

below in Part IX. D. The Commission

will send a copy of the NPRM,

including the IRFA, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration. In addition,

the NPRM on Performance

Measurements and Reporting

Requirements for Operations Support

Systems, Interconnection, and Operator

Services and Directory Assistance and

IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be

provided in the Federal Register.

102. Need for and Objectives of the

Proposed Rule. We are issuing the

NPRM specifically seeking comment on

and presenting tentative conclusions on

proposed performance measurements

and reporting requirements intended to

measure whether an incumbent LEC is

providing nondiscriminatory access to

operations support services (OSS),

interconnection, and operator services

and directory assistance (OS/DA). We

also seek comment on the use of

performance standards and other

methods to evaluate whether an

incumbent LEC is complying with its

statutory obligations under section 251.

Finally, although we do not set forth

proposals in this area, we seek comment

on issues related to OSS interface

standards and remedial provisions.

Based on the comments received in the

NPRM, we may issue new rules.

103. Legal Basis. The legal basis for

any action that may be taken pursuant

to the NPRM is contained in sections 1,

2, 4, 201, 202, 222, 251, and 303(r) of

the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201,

202, 222, 251, and 303(r).

104. Description and Estimates of the

Number of Small Entities Affected by

the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The

RFA directs agencies to provide a

description of and, where feasible, an

estimate of the number of small entities

that will be affected by our rules. The

RFA generally defines the term ‘‘small

entity’’ as having the same meaning as

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental

jurisdiction.’’ For the purposes of this

order, the RFA defines a ‘‘small

business’’ to be the same as a ‘‘small

business concern’’ under the Small

Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632, 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
27034 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 94 / Friday, May 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules

for Standard Industrial Classification

(SIC) category 4813 (Telephone

Communications, Except

Radiotelephone) to be an entity that has

no more than 1,500 employees.

105. Although affected incumbent

local exchange carriers (ILECs) may

have no more than 1,500 employees, we

do not believe that such entities should

be considered small entities within the

meaning of the RFA because they either

are dominant in their field of operations

or are not independently owned and

operated, and are therefore by definition

not ‘‘small entities’’ or ‘‘small business

concerns’’ under the RFA. Accordingly,

our use of the terms ‘‘small entities’’ and

‘‘small businesses’’ does not encompass

small incumbent LECs. Out of an

abundance of caution, however, for

regulatory flexibility analysis purposes,

we will separately consider small ILECs

within this analysis and use the term

‘‘small incumbent LECs’’ to refer to any

incumbent LECs that arguably might be

defined by SBA as ‘‘small business

concerns.’’

106. Total Number of Telephone

Companies Affected. The United States

Bureau of the Census (the 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. 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, PCS providers,

covered SMR providers, and resellers. It

seems certain that some of those 3,497

telephone service firms may not qualify

as small entities because they are not

‘‘independently owned and operated.’’

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 either

small entities or small incumbent LECs

that may be affected by this order.

107. Local Exchange Carriers. Neither

the Commission nor the SBA has

developed a definition of small

providers of local exchange services.

The closest applicable definition under

the SBA’s rules is for telephone

communications companies other than

radiotelephone (wireless) companies.

The most reliable source of information

regarding the number of LECs

nationwide of which we are aware

appears to be the data that we collect

annually in connection with the

Telecommunications Relay Service

(TRS). According to our most recent

data, 1,371 companies reported that

they were engaged in the provision of

local exchange services. Although it

seems certain that some of these carriers

are not independently owned and

operated, or have more than 1,500

employees, or are dominant we are

unable at this time to estimate with

greater precision the number of LECs

that would qualify as small business

concerns under the SBA’s definition.

Consequently, we estimate that fewer

than 1,371 small providers of local

exchange service are small entities or

small ILECs that may be affected by this

order.

108. Description of Projected

Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other

Compliance Requirements. We are

seeking comment on requiring all

incumbent LECs to report on all the

measurements. These proposed

measurements seek to measure access

provided by an incumbent LEC to all

five OSS functions, as well as to

interconnection and OS/DA. We also

seek comment on how often incumbent

LECs should provide these

measurements, whether and for how

long they should retain the

measurement data, and whether the

incumbent LEC should perform any

statistical analysis of the measurement

data. Finally we seek comment on

reporting procedures, including: (1)

whether an incumbent LEC must report

separately on performance to itself, any

local exchange affiliate, competing

carriers in aggregate, and individual

competing carriers; (2) whether an

incumbent LEC should only provide

performance monitoring reports to an

individual competing carrier after

receiving a request from the competing

carrier for such reports on a regular

basis; (3) how frequently an incumbent

LEC should provide performance

monitoring reports; (4) whether to

accord confidential treatment to

individual competing carrier

information and incumbent LEC retail

information; (5) whether an incumbent

LEC should make available upon the

request of a competing carrier or

regulator raw data underlying a report;

and (6) whether competing carriers

should be entitled to ask for and obtain

audits of the data underlying

performance reports.

109. Steps Taken to Minimize

Significant Economic Impact on Small

Entities and Significant Alternatives

Considered. In Part VIII of the NPRM,

we seek comment on the expenses

involved with the proposed reporting

requirements and the particular burdens

they would impose on small, rural, or

midsized LECs, if any. In Part VIII, we

also seek comment on possible

alternatives to these proposed

measurements and reporting

requirements. We note that certain

incumbent LECs might propose ways in

which the Commission should tailor its

proposals to meet circumstances

relating to the areas in which small,

rural or midsized LECs are located.

110. Federal Rules that May

Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the

Proposed Rule. None.

D. Comment Filing Procedures

111. To file formally in this

proceeding, you must file an original

and four copies of all comments, reply

comments, and supporting comments.

Please note, however, that comments

and reply comments may be filed

electronically. If you want each

Commissioner to receive a personal

copy of your comments, you must file

an original and nine copies.

112. Comments and reply comments

must include a short and concise

summary of the substantive arguments

raised in the pleading. Comments and

reply comments must also comply with

section 1.49 and all other applicable

sections of the Commission’s rules. We

also direct all interested parties to

include the name of the filing party and

the date of the filing on each page of

their comments and reply comments.

All parties are encouraged to utilize a

table of contents, regardless of the

length of their submission.

113. Parties are also asked to submit

comments and reply comments on

diskette. Such diskette submissions

would be in addition to and not a

substitute for the formal filing

requirements addressed above. Parties

submitting diskettes should submit

them to Janice Myles of the Common

Carrier Bureau, 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Room 544, Washington, D.C., 20554.

Such a submission should be on a 3.5

inch diskette formatted in an IBM

compatible form using MS DOS 5.0 and

WordPerfect 5.1 software. The diskette

should be submitted in ‘‘read only’’

mode. The diskette should be clearly

labeled with the party’s name,

proceeding, type of pleading (comment

or reply comments) and date of

submission. The diskette should be

accompanied by a cover letter.

114. You may also file informal

comments or an exact copy of your

formal comments electronically via the

Internet. To file electronic comments in

this proceeding, you may use the

electronic filing interface available on

the FCC’s World Wide Web site at

<http://dettifoss.fcc.gov:8080/cgi-bin/

ws.exe/beta/ecfs/upload.hts>.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 94 / Friday, May 15, 1998 / Proposed Rules 27035

Only one copy of electronically-filed

comments must be submitted. Further

information on the process of

submitting comments electronically is

available at that location and at <http:/

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

X. Ordering Clauses

115. Accordingly, it is ordered that,

pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4, 201, 202,

222, 251, and 303(r) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 154,

201, 202, 222, 251, and 303(r), a notice

of proposed rulemaking is adopted

116. It is further ordered that the

Commission’s Office of Public Affairs,

Reference Operations Division, SHALL

SEND a copy of this Notice of proposed

rulemaking, including the Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration, in

accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, see 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–12971 Filed 5–14–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 98050115–8115–01; I.D.

032498A]

RIN 0648–AK86

Fisheries Off West Coast States and in

the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast

Groundfish Fishery; Compensation for

Collecting Resource Information

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed emergency rule;

request for comments.

SUMMARY: This action, authorized by the

Magnuson-Stevens Act, proposes

provisions by which a vessel owner or

operator who has collected resource

information according to a NMFSapproved protocol may be compensated

with the opportunity to harvest fish in

excess of current vessel limits and/or

outside other restrictions. This action is

intended to improve the types and

amounts of scientific information

available for use in stock assessments

and management of the Pacific coast

groundfish fishery. It is necessary to

implement this action under the

Magnuson-Stevens Act emergency

rulemaking authority so that NMFS may

contract with commercial fishing

vessels to conduct resource surveys

during the summer of 1998. The Pacific

Fishery Management Council (Council)

is considering an amendment to the

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery

Management Plan (PCGFMP) that would

continue this compensation initiative

beyond 1998.

DATES: Comments will be considered if

received on or before June 5, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to William

Stelle, Jr., Administrator, Northwest

Region, (Regional Administrator) NMFS,

7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA

98115; or William T. Hogarth,

Administrator, Southwest Region,

(Regional Administrator) NMFS, 501

West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long

Beach, CA 90802–4213. Other

information relevant to this proposed

emergency rule is available for public

review during business hours at the

Office of the Administrator, Northwest

Region, NMFS. Copies of the

environmental assessment/regulatory

impact review are also available from

that address. Send comments regarding

the burden estimate or any other aspect

of the collection-of-information

requirements in this proposed

emergency rule, including suggestions

for reducing the burden, to one of the

NMFS addresses and to the Office on

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB), Washington, DC 20503 (ATTN:

NOAA Desk Officer).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William L. Robinson at 206–526–6140.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS is

proposing an emergency rule and

requesting comments on the proposal to

allow owners or operators of vessels that

collect resource information to be

compensated with the opportunity to

harvest fish in excess of current vessel

limits and/or outside other restrictions

[hereinafter ‘‘compensated with fish’’].

The Council recommended at its

November 1997 meeting in Portland,

OR, that NMFS proceed with this

proposal immediately so that NMFS

may so contract with commercial

fishing vessels to conduct resource

surveys during the summer of 1998.

The fishing industry, environmental

groups, and NMFS have actively

explored various ways to expand and

improve information used in

management of the groundfish fishery

and to involve the fishing industry in

gathering that information. Part of this

effort involves finding more creative

means of compensating a fishing

vessel’s owner or operator with fish for

participating in collecting resource

information. On October 11, 1996, the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) was amended

to authorize the Secretary of Commerce

(Secretary) to use the private sector to

provide vessels, equipment, and

services necessary to survey fishery

resources and to pay for these surveys

through the sale of fish taken during the

survey or, if the quality or amount of

fish is not adequate, on a subsequent,

commercial fishing trip (sec. 402(e)).

Section 303(b)(11) of the MagnusonStevens Act enables the Secretary to

‘‘reserve a portion of the allowable

biological catch of the fishery for use in

scientific research.’’ A vessel that is

chartered by NMFS to conduct resource

surveys becomes a ‘‘scientific research

vessel’’ as defined at 50 CFR 600.10, and

it may not conduct commercial fishing

on the same trip during which a

resource survey is conducted.

Background

These provisions must be

implemented as quickly as possible in

order to include compensation with fish

as a component of contracts NMFS will

award to commercial fishing vessels to

conduct resource surveys during the

summer of 1998. Stock assessments for

the Dover sole/thornyhead/trawl-caught

sablefish (DTS) complex are

controversial and have resulted in

serious concern over the amount and

accuracy of survey data. NMFS is

committed to addressing these concerns.

However, Federal fiscal constraints have

precluded gathering the information

needed. This is further compounded by

the unavailability of the NOAA ship

Miller Freeman, the principle vessel

used for conducting resource surveys in

this fishery, during much of 1998.

Implementation of these provisions

would enable NMFS to expand

sampling in the annual slope survey

which provides data for the stock

assessments for these and other

groundfish species. There is inadequate

time to amend the PCGFMP to provide

for using fish as compensation (and

subtracting the compensation fish from

acceptable biological catch (ABC))

before the slope survey is scheduled to

begin on August 1, 1998. Therefore,

NMFS is proposing this rule under the

Secretary’s emergency rulemaking

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act

so that these provisions may be

implemented in time to support the

1998 slope survey. Concurrently, the

Council is preparing an amendment to

the PCGFMP for later implementation.