Performance Measurements and Reporting Requirements for Operations Support Systems, Interconnection, and Operator Services and Directory Assistance

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 [email protected],

and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725--17th Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503 or via the Internet to [email protected].

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 [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking adopted April 16, 1998 and released April 17,

1998 (FCC 98-72). This NPRM contains proposed information collections

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). It has been

submitted to the OMB for review under the PRA. The OMB, the general

public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the

proposed information collections contained in this proceeding. The full

text of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available for inspection

and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center,

1919 M St., N.W., Room 239, Washington, D.C. The complete text also may

be obtained through the World Wide Web, at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/

Common Carrier/Orders/fcc9872.wp, or may be purchased from the

Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service,

Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This NPRM contains a proposed information collection. The

Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork

burdens,

[[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 http://

dettifoss.fcc.gov: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 http://

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

X. Ordering Clauses

115. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4,

201, 202, 222, 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 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