[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 94 (Friday, May 15, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27021-27035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12971]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f19b939e9d9488b1979292df969e87"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e58f878a89809ca5838686cb828a93">[email protected]</span></a>, 
and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725--17th Street, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503 or via the Internet to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6204030b0c3d3d1622030e4c070d124c050d14"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="284e49414677775c684944064d4758064f475e">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0a606865666f734a6c6969246d657c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7e141c11121b073e181d1d50191108">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 <a href="http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/
Common">http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/
Common</a> 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,

[[Page 27022]]

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Estimated              
                                                                          Number of       time per      Total   
                        Information collection                           respondents      pesponse      annual  
                                                                       (Approximately)    (annual)      burden  
                                                                                          (hours)      (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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 27024]]

    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.

[[Page 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 pre-
ordering 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 pre-ordering 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 sub-functions 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 pre-ordering 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 sub-function. 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,

[[Page 27026]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 27028]]

``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

[[Page 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,

[[Page 27030]]

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

[[Page 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 non-requesting 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

[[Page 27032]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 27034]]

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 <<a href="http://
dettifoss.fcc.gov">http://
dettifoss.fcc.gov</a>:8080/cgi-bin/ws.exe/beta/ecfs/upload.hts>.

[[Page 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 <<a href="http://
www.fcc.gov/e-file/">http://
www.fcc.gov/e-file/</a>>.

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. Secs. 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>