[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 233 (Monday, December 4, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75657-75662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30803]



[[Page 75657]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 43

[CC Docket No. 00-229; FCC 00-399]


2000 Biennial Regulatory Review--Telecommunications Service 
Quality Reporting Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission initiates a review of the 
service quality reporting requirements for incumbent local exchange 
carriers (LECs). The Commission proposes to eliminate the current 
service quality reporting and replace these reports with a more 
streamlined, consumer-oriented, reporting system. The Commission's 
objectives are to reduce regulatory burdens on carriers, eliminate 
reporting requirements that are no longer necessary, and better serve 
consumers.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before January 12, 2001. Reply 
comments must be filed on or before February 16, 2001. Written comments 
must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the 
proposed and/or modified information collections on or before February 
2, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445-12th Street, SW, TW-
A325, Washington, D.C. 20554. In addition to filing comments with the 
Office of the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information 
collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal 
Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW, 
Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected] and to 
Edward C. Springer, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725--17th Street, 
N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Louise Klees-Wallace at (202) 418-1321 
or Mika Savir at (202) 418-0384. For additional information concerning 
the information collections contained in this document, contact Judy 
Boley at 202-418-0214, or via the Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC 
Docket No. 00-229, adopted on November 9, 2000 and released on November 
9, 2000, is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Courtyard Level, Suite 
CY-A257, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. The complete text may 
also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20036.
    This NPRM contains proposed information collection(s) subject to 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). It has been submitted to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under the PRA. OMB, 
the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment 
on the proposed information collections contained in this proceeding.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This NPRM contains a proposed information collection. The 
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork 
burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection(s) contained in 
this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public 
Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due January 3, 2001; OMB 
notification of action is due February 2, 2001. Comments should 
address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the 
Commission, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on the respondents, including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    OMB Control Number: None.
    Title: The ARMIS Service Quality Report.
    Form No.: FCC Report 43-05.
    Type of Review: New collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.
    Number of Respondents: 12.
    Estimated Time Per Response: 850.
    Total Annual Burden: 10,196 hours.
    Cost to Respondents: $0.
    OMB Control Number: 3060-0763.
    Title: The ARMIS Customer Satisfaction Report.
    Form No.: FCC Report 43-06.
    Type of Review: Proposed Revision.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.
    Number of Respondents: 8.
    Estimated Time Per Response: 720 hours.
    Total Annual Burden: 5760 hours.
    Cost to Respondents: $0.
    Needs and Uses: In the NPRM the Commission undertakes a review of 
its existing service quality requirements contained in its Automated 
Reporting Management Information System (ARMIS) FCC Report 43-05 
(Service Quality) and FCC Report 43-06 (Customer Satisfaction) 
requirements. ARMIS was implemented to facilitate the timely and 
efficient analysis of revenue requirements, rates of return and price 
caps; to provide an improved basis for audits and other oversight 
functions; and to enhance the Commission's ability to quantify the 
effects of alternative policy. Among other things, the Commission 
proposes to reduce its reporting requirements from more than 30 
categories of information down to six.

Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:

I. Introduction

    In this proceeding, the Commission proposes to streamline and 
reform the existing service quality monitoring program. The Commission 
proposes to eliminate reporting of many categories of information and 
thereby reduce the regulatory burden for carriers, as well as to modify 
how other information is reported so that it will be more useful to 
consumers and to state and federal regulators.
    The Commission undertakes a review of the existing service quality 
requirements contained in the Automated Reporting Management 
Information System (ARMIS) 43-05 Report (Service Quality) and ARMIS 43-
06 Report (Customer Satisfaction). The Commission proposes to reduce 
the reporting requirements from more than 30 categories of information 
down to six.
    The Commission also hopes to work with in partnership with the 
states. The Commission's basic role in the service quality area is to 
serve as a central clearinghouse for information. States may, and 
likely will, impose additional service quality reporting and 
performance requirements on carriers operating within their 
jurisdictions. The Commission's proposed national monitoring ``floor'' 
will represent a uniform framework.

II. Discussion

    Categories of performance data. The Commission proposes to continue

[[Page 75658]]

reporting obligations for six categories of service quality information 
that are important to consumers. The Commission proposes to retain 
reporting for the following measures: (1) The percentage of 
installation appointments that are missed; (2) the time it takes to 
install service; (3) the percentage of lines that have problems, 
including out of service lines; (4) the time it takes to have out of 
service lines repaired; (5) the percentage of repair appointments that 
are missed; and (6) the time it takes to repair service. The Commission 
seeks comment on this proposal.
    With respect to missed installations, the Commission proposes that 
carriers continue to report the number of missed installation 
commitments and the total number of installations that occur during the 
reporting period. Through these two numbers a percentage can be 
generated that can permit appropriate comparisons among companies by 
consumers. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
    With respect to installation intervals, the Commission proposes 
that carriers continue reporting installation time because consumers 
should know how long it is likely to take a particular carrier to 
provide service. The Commission seeks comment, however, on whether 
installation intervals should be measured in a different way. An 
average completion time may not provide an accurate picture to 
consumers because outliers may skew the reported data. The Commission 
seeks comment on whether carriers should report the number of 
installation orders for service completed within a specified number of 
days, such as five working days, instead of the current average 
interval, and the total number of installation orders.
    With respect to trouble reports, or impairments on a customer's 
line, the Commission seeks comment on whether carriers should report 
only the number of initial trouble reports and number of out-of-service 
troubles occurring within the reporting period, as well as the total 
number of access lines.
    An out-of-service trouble means that a consumer cannot make or 
receive calls. In addition to the inconvenience and potential financial 
impact of such an outage, this also raises safety concerns because the 
consumer cannot make 911 emergency calls. The Commission proposes 
collecting only information on average intervals for out-of-service 
troubles. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
    A missed repair commitment occurs when a customer trouble is not 
repaired on or before the date and time commitment with the customer. 
The number of missed repair commitments should have a direct impact on 
consumers who are waiting for service problems to be fixed. The 
Commission proposes that carriers report the number of missed repair 
commitments, and the total number of repair commitments. The Commission 
seeks comment on this proposal.
    Price cap incumbent LECs currently report the average time for 
repairs. The Commission proposes to continue measuring repair intervals 
and seeks comment whether this should require an average or some other 
measure.
    The Commission seeks comment on whether there are other types of 
service quality information that consumers would find useful, and if 
so, what are the benefits, burdens and feasibility of requiring 
carriers to collect and disclose such information. The Commission seeks 
comment, for example, on whether carriers should report the length of 
time customers wait on hold before speaking to a customer service 
representative and the length of time a customer has to wait for a call 
back from a carrier. Commenters should discuss how carriers would 
collect this information.
    Broadband services. The Commission seeks comment on whether to 
gather information and report about service quality in the provision of 
broadband and other advanced services. The Commission seeks comment on 
what information in this area consumers would find useful, and what are 
the costs and benefits of adding any new reporting requirements in this 
area.
    Disaggregation of information. Currently, carriers are required to 
report installation and repair information separately for business and 
residential customers. The Commission proposes to maintain this aspect 
of the reporting requirements. A review of data filed to date shows 
different quality of service performance in the residential market and 
business markets. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on 
maintaining this disaggregation. Permitting carriers to aggregate 
business and residential customers into one class could provide a 
misleading picture of the carrier's performance with respect to each 
group of customers.
    To depict a carrier's service quality in urban and rural areas, the 
current ARMIS service quality reports disaggregate information into 
results in ``Metropolitan Statistical Areas'' (MSAs) and ``Non-
Metropolitan Statistical Areas'' (Non-MSAs). The Commission seeks 
comment on the proposal that carriers should no longer disaggregate 
data into MSA and non-MSA categories.
    Types of reporting entities. Currently, only price cap LECs file 
the ARMIS 43-05 and 43-06 reports. The Commission does not collect 
service quality data from small incumbent LECs, including those serving 
rural areas, nor does the Commission collect this data from competitive 
LECs (CLECs). The NARUC Service Quality White Paper concludes that 
service quality data would be more meaningful for all interested 
parties, including consumers and state commissions, if all LECs--
including CLECs--reported such data. The Commission seeks comment on 
the benefits and costs of imposing the proposed service quality 
reporting requirements on these carriers. Commenters should discuss 
whether certain entities could be exempt from service quality reporting 
requirements without compromising the consumer protection objectives in 
this proceeding. Commenters also should address how imposition of these 
requirements on CLECs and smaller LECs fits into the traditional 
regulatory treatment of these entities, many of which may not have 
encountered regulatory burdens of this nature at the federal level.
    The Commission seeks comment on whether a viable alternative would 
be voluntary service quality reporting procedures for certain carriers. 
The service quality program could, for example, establish mandatory 
service quality reporting for incumbent LECs exceeding a threshold of 
lines served, such as two percent of the nation's access lines, or 
annual revenue, and allow voluntary service quality reports for all 
other carriers, including CLECs.
    The Commission seeks comment on whether carriers should be relieved 
of all mandatory reporting under certain circumstances, and if so, 
when. For instance, whether a carrier should be relieved of any federal 
reporting obligation, if there are few or no service quality complaints 
relating to that carrier pending before a state commission, or if its 
performance meets a specified benchmark for a period of time. The 
Commission seeks comment on what the appropriate benchmarks should be.
    The Commission notes that resellers and competitors that purchase 
network elements from an incumbent LEC may have no control over the 
service quality of the resold service or the purchased elements, which 
may impact their service to retail customers. Commenters should discuss 
how, if voluntary or mandatory reporting were extended to a broader 
class of carriers, service quality measures could take into account 
problems due to the conduct of the incumbent so that consumers would

[[Page 75659]]

receive an accurate picture of the service quality provided by 
different carriers.
    Frequency of reporting. Currently, carriers file ARMIS 43-05 
reports on an annual basis. The Commission seeks comment on whether it 
would better serve the consumer protection goals to collect service 
quality information more frequently than yearly, and how the Commission 
might accomplish this. Individual states may require more frequent 
service quality reporting, e.g., quarterly. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether it should act as a federal clearinghouse for 
information gathered at the state level.
    Public disclosure of service quality data. Service quality 
information can enable consumers to compare carriers in their area and 
make informed choices between, or among, carriers. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether an effective method of publicizing service quality 
data would be for carriers to post service quality data on their web 
sites. This data would be accessible to the general public, as well as 
to state commissions and other interested parties. The Commission 
proposes that carriers would continue to file the service quality 
reports with the Commission as well, which would continue to be a 
central clearinghouse for service quality data. The Commission can 
require carriers to correct inaccurate data, collecting information at 
the federal level provides some ability to ensure that the information 
is accurate, which ultimately benefits consumers. The Commission also 
seeks comment on whether there are other public sources for service 
quality information. In particular, the extent to which the states 
collect service quality information, and whether that information is 
publicly accessible.
    Elimination of other reporting requirements--Interexchange 
carriers. In Table I of the ARMIS Report 43-05 Service Quality Report, 
the Commission currently collects information from price cap incumbent 
LECs about the installation and repair of access services provided to 
interexchange carriers. In Table III of the same report, price cap 
carriers provide information about common trunk group blockage. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether it should eliminate these 
categories of information from the service quality reporting program. 
This information reports the quality of service performed by incumbent 
LECs to interexchange carriers. The Commission seeks comment on whether 
interexchange carriers are able to monitor service quality through 
operation of their business relationships with the incumbent local 
exchange carriers.
    Elimination of other reporting requirements--the Network 
Reliability and Interoperability Council. The Network Reliability and 
Interoperability Council (NRIC) was established by the Commission to 
bring together leaders of the telecommunications industry with academic 
and consumer organizations to explore and recommend measures that would 
enhance network reliability. Carriers currently report in ARMIS 43-05, 
Table IV, the number of switches serving specified numbers of lines and 
the number of times switches are down from two minutes or longer. The 
number and duration of switch outages and interoffice transmission 
facility outages indicates the carrier's performance in providing 
continual access to the full capabilities and benefits of the network. 
This data has been gathered in ARMIS as a complement to information 
collected on large switches by the Network Reliability Council. 
Together this information has permitted regulators to monitor and 
assess network reliability, which is important to consumers because 
such outages affect service in their area. The Commission seeks comment 
on whether it should continue to collect the information contained in 
Table IV of ARMIS Report 43-05. The Commission also seeks comment on 
whether competitive pressures to achieve network reliability in today's 
marketplace have sufficiently replaced the need for reporting of 
network reliability data.
    Elimination of other reporting requirements--complaints to federal 
and state commissions. Price cap incumbent LECs currently report to the 
Commission, as part of ARMIS, the number of customer complaints made to 
federal and state regulators. The Commission seeks comment on the 
benefits and burdens of requiring companies to continue to file FCC and 
state complaint information. In addition, the Commission seeks comment 
on whether carriers should be required to report the number of 
complaints they receive directly from consumers.
    Elimination of other reporting requirements--customer satisfaction 
survey. Price cap LECs currently are required to conduct a survey of 
their customers' satisfaction and report the results of that survey in 
ARMIS Report 43-06. The Commission proposes to eliminate this 
requirement. Actual complaint information may be a better indicator of 
trends in service quality than a telephone consumer survey. The 
Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
    NARUC Service Quality White Paper. The NARUC Service Quality White 
Paper contains additional proposals for refining the Commission's 
service quality monitoring program. These include more detailed 
measurements related to maintenance and repair intervals, answer time 
performance, and network performance. The NARUC Service Quality White 
Paper also proposes that the reports be made available to the public to 
allow interested parties to assess the data, and to provide consumers 
with information about their telecommunications carriers. The 
Commission seeks comment on the proposals in the NARUC Service Quality 
White Paper.

III. Conclusion

    The Commission is committed to improving the service quality 
monitoring program to give consumers the ability to compare the service 
quality of competing carriers. At the same time, it intends to limit 
the reporting burden on carriers by reducing the categories of reported 
data. By making available timely and reliable service quality data, the 
Commission hopes to meet the needs of consumers as competition grows in 
the local exchange marketplace. The Commission hopes to facilitate 
market efficiency by ensuring that consumers have the information they 
need to make informed buying decisions.

IV. Procedural Matters and Ordering Clauses

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission 
has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) of any possible significant economic impact on small entities by 
the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments 
must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the 
deadlines for comments on this Notice. The Commission will send a copy 
of this NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.
    Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Action: The Commission 
has initiated this proceeding to determine whether it should improve 
the current service quality monitoring program. The Commission's goal 
is to ensure that the monitoring program will be uniform and provide 
the information needed to carry out statutory and policymaking

[[Page 75660]]

responsibilities. The Commission notes that as competition develops in 
the local exchange market, consumers will benefit from the ability to 
compare carriers' service quality. This should in turn lead to the 
availability of higher quality services for consumers.
    Legal Basis: The legal basis for the action as proposed for this 
rulemaking is contained in sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 303(r), and 403 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 
154(j), 201(b), 303(r), and 403.
    Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to which 
the Proposed Action May Apply: Currently, only price cap incumbent 
local exchange carriers (LECs) file service quality reports, the 
Automated Reporting Management Information System (ARMIS) 43-05 Report 
(Service Quality) and the ARMIS 43-06 Report (Customer Satisfaction). 
The Commission seeks comment on whether additional carriers, e.g., all 
LECs, should comply with the proposed service quality reporting 
requirements and if compliance should be on a mandatory or voluntary 
basis. Below is a detailed description of the types of entities that 
could be required to comply with the proposed reporting requirement 
(either on a mandatory or voluntary basis).
    The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. To estimate the number of 
small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, we first 
consider the statutory definition of ``small entity'' under the RFA. 
The RFA generally defines ``small entity'' as having the same meaning 
as the term ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' 
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the 
Small Business Act, unless the Commission has developed one or more 
definitions that are appropriate to its activities. Under the Small 
Business Act, a ``small business concern'' is one that: (1) Is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria established by the 
Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA has defined a small 
business for Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories 4812 
(Radiotelephone Communications) and 4813 (Telephone Communications, 
Except Radiotelephone) to be small entities when they have no more than 
1,500 employees.
    The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers 
of common carrier and related providers nationwide, appears to be data 
the Commission publishes in its Trends in Telephone Service report. See 
FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, Trends in 
Telephone Service, Table 19.3 (March 2000). According to data in the 
most recent report, there are 4,144 interstate carriers. Id. These 
carriers include, inter alia, local exchange carriers, wireline 
carriers and service providers, interexchange carriers, competitive 
access providers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, 
providers of telephone toll service, providers of telephone exchange 
service, and resellers.
    The Commission has included small incumbent LECs in this present 
RFA analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the RFA is one 
that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard 
(e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer 
employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' See 5 
U.S.C. 601(3). The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA 
purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of 
operation because any such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. See 
letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to William 
E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 27, 1999). The Commission has therefore 
included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although this RFA 
action has no effect on the Commission's analyses and determinations in 
other, non-RFA contexts.
    Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected. The United States 
Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) reports that, at the end of 1992, 
there were 3,497 firms engaged in providing telephone services, as 
defined therein, for at least one year. See United States Department of 
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 Census of Transportation, 
Communications, and Utilities: Establishment and Firm Size, at Firm 
Size 1-123 (1995) (1992 Census). This number contains a variety of 
different categories of carriers, including local exchange carriers, 
interexchange carriers, competitive access providers, cellular 
carriers, mobile service carriers, operator service providers, pay 
telephone operators, personal communications services (PCS) providers, 
covered specialized mobile radio (SMR) providers, and resellers. It 
seems certain that some of those 3,497 telephone service firms may not 
qualify as small entities or small incumbent LECs because they are not 
``independently owned and operated.'' See 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(1). For 
example, a PCS provider that is affiliated with an interexchange 
carrier having more than 1,500 employees would not meet the definition 
of a small business. It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that 
fewer than 3,497 telephone service firms are small entity telephone 
service firms or small incumbent LECs that may be affected by the 
decisions and rules proposed in the Notice.
    Wireline Carriers and Service Providers. The SBA has developed a 
definition of small entities for telephone communications companies 
other than radiotelephone companies. The Census Bureau reports that, 
there were 2,321 such telephone companies in operation for at least one 
year at the end of 1992. See 1992 Census at Firm Size 1-123. According 
to SBA's definition, a small business telephone company other than a 
radiotelephone company is one employing no more than 1,500 persons. See 
13 CFR 121.201, SIC Code 4813. All but 26 of the 2,321 non-
radiotelephone companies listed by the Census Bureau were reported to 
have fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, even if all 26 of those 
companies had more than 1,500 employees, there would still be 2,295 
non-radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small incumbent 
LECs. It seems certain that some of these carriers are not 
independently owned and operated, but we are unable at this time to 
estimate with greater precision the number of wireline carriers and 
service providers that would qualify as small business concerns under 
SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 
2,295 small entity telephone communications companies other than 
radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the decisions and 
rules proposed in the NPRM.
    Local Exchange Carriers, Interexchange Carriers, Competitive Access 
Providers, and Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a definition of small LECs, interexchange carriers (IXCs), 
competitive access providers (CAPs), or resellers. The closest 
applicable definition for these carrier-types under SBA rules is for 
telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) 
companies. According to recent Trends in Telephone Service data, 1,348 
incumbent carriers reported that they were in the provision of local 
exchange services. See FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis 
Division, Trends in Telephone Service, Table 19.3 (March 2000). 
According to the most recent Trends in Telephone Service data, 212 CAP/
CLECs carriers and 10

[[Page 75661]]

other LECs reported that they engaged in competitive local exchange 
services. Id. It seems certain that some of these carriers are not 
independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees; 
however, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision 
the number of these carriers that would qualify as small business 
concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, the Commission estimates 
that there are fewer than 1,348 small incumbent LECs, 212 small entity 
CAPs, and 10 other small entity LECs that may be affected by the rules 
proposed in the Notice.
    Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a 
definition of small entity specific to the Rural Radiotelephone 
Service. See 47 CFR 22.99. A significant subset of the Rural 
Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio Systems 
(BETRS). See 47 CFR 22.757, 22.759. The Commission will use the SBA's 
definition applicable to radiotelephone companies, i.e., an entity 
employing no more than 1,500 persons. See 13 CFR 121.201, SIC Code 
4812. There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural 
Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that almost all of 
them qualify as small entities under the SBA's definition.
    Description of Proposed Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements: The focus of this proceeding is whether the 
Commission should require LECs to report certain service quality 
information in a more consumer-friendly format instead of the format of 
the current ARMIS reports. Historically, service quality reporting was 
limited to the price cap LECs. With the emergence of competition in the 
local exchange market, service quality information on competitive LECs 
would permit consumers to compare carriers in their area. The Notice 
seeks comment on the costs and benefits of imposing new service quality 
reporting requirements on all LECs. The NPRM seeks comment on whether 
the Commission should modify its service quality reporting requirements 
by reducing the quantity of data requested and if all LECs should 
report this information on a mandatory or voluntary basis.
    Commenters should discuss whether state commissions currently 
require LECs to provide the proposed service quality information. If 
LECs--other than price cap incumbent LECs--are required to file this 
service quality information with a state commission, is there an 
additional cost in preparing and filing the service quality data with 
the Commission? Commenters should discuss the costs to small entities 
of preparing the proposed service quality reports for federal reporting 
purposes.
    The NPRM sets out in detail, and seeks comment on, the types of 
carriers that should report, frequency of reports, and data to be 
reported. The NPRM seeks comment on whether there are other types of 
service quality information that consumers would find useful, and if 
so, what are the benefits, burdens and feasibility of requiring 
carriers to collect and disclose such information. Under the proposal, 
there would be fewer categories of data reported but more carriers may 
be required to report. Commenters should address the benefit of giving 
consumers access to service quality data from all carriers providing 
local exchange service in their area, including small entities, and 
discuss the increased cost, if any, to smaller LECs.
    Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered: The RFA requires an 
agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered 
in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or 
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use 
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 5 
U.S.C. 603(c).
    One of the goals in this proceeding is to consider whether 
consumers should have access to service quality information that can be 
used to make comparisons between the incumbent LEC and other carriers 
in their area. Service quality information is of limited use if the 
consumers do not have comparable information on all carriers in their 
area, including any small entities that might provide service. With the 
emergence of competition in the local exchange market, accurate service 
quality information on all LECs would permit consumers to compare 
carriers. The Notice seeks comment on the costs and benefits of 
imposing new service quality reporting requirements on all LECs and on 
whether all LECs should be required to report service quality data. 
Under this scenario, small entities may be required to report service 
quality data. The Commission is seeking to balance the consumers' need 
for information with the reporting burden on the industry, particularly 
small entities. Commenters should discuss how the imposition of service 
quality reporting on carriers other than price cap incumbent LECs may 
be burdensome, and the costs of compliance. Commenters should discuss 
whether certain entities should be exempt from service quality 
reporting requirements and how that could be done without compromising 
the goals in this proceeding.
    One alternative would be to limit service quality reporting to the 
incumbent LECs. This alternative, however, would not permit consumers 
to compare service providers in their area. The Commission observes 
that the effective functioning of competitive markets is predicated on 
consumers having access to accurate information. Thus, revising the 
current service quality reporting requirements may be essential to 
allow consumers to compare service quality among or between carriers 
and make informed choices. A second alternative would be to make 
service quality reporting voluntary for certain carriers. Commenters 
advocating limiting service quality reporting to price cap LECs should 
discuss how consumers would have access to service quality data on all 
LECs in their area if only the price cap LECs were required to file 
service quality reports. Another alternative would be to limit service 
quality reporting to carriers whose performance fell below a specified 
performance benchmark. This alternative would reduce reporting burdens 
for carriers, including small carriers, that do not have significant 
service quality problems.
    This proposed reporting requirement is less than the current 
service quality reporting requirement (now limited to price cap LECs). 
Commenters should discuss whether the proposed reporting requirements 
should be streamlined for small entities and how this could be done 
without compromising the goals in this proceeding. Commenters should 
address any cost savings to small entities resulting from such 
streamlining.
    Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rule: None.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This NPRM contains a proposed information collection. As part of 
its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, the Commission 
invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the information 
collections contained in the Notice as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law No. 104-13. Public and agency 
comments

[[Page 75662]]

are due January 3, 2001. Written comments must be submitted by OMB on 
the proposed information collections on or before February 2, 2001. 
Comments should address (a) whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on the respondents, including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

C. Ex Parte Presentations

    This is a permit-but-disclose rulemaking proceeding subject to 
``permit-but-disclose'' requirements under Sec. 1.1206 of the 
Commission's rules, as revised. See 47 CFR 1.1206. Additional rules 
pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in 
Sec. 1.1206.

D. Comment Period

    Pursuant to the applicable procedures set forth in Secs. 1.415 and 
1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested 
parties may file comments on or before January 12, 2001. Reply comments 
are to be filed on or before February 16, 2001. Comments filed through 
the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>. Generally, only one copy of an 
electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking 
numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, commenters 
must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or 
rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the 
transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal 
Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking 
number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-
mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should 
send an e-mail to [email protected], and should include the following words 
in the body of the message, ``get form your e-mail address>.'' A sample 
form and directions will be sent in reply.
    Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four 
copies of each filing. If participants want each Commissioner to 
receive a personal copy of their comments, an original plus nine copies 
must be filed. All filings by paper must be sent to the Commission's 
Secretary: Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20554.
    Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their 
comments on diskette. Diskettes should be submitted to: Ernestine 
Creech, Accounting Safeguards Division, Federal Communications 
Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. The required 
diskette copies of submissions should be on 3.5 inch diskettes 
formatted in an IBM compatible format using Word or compatible 
software. Each diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter and 
should be submitted in ``read only'' mode. The diskette should be 
clearly labeled with the commenter's name, proceeding (CC Docket No. 
00-229), type of pleading (comment or reply comment), date of 
submission, and the name of the electronic file on the diskette. The 
label should also include the following phrase ``Disk Copy--Not an 
Original.'' Each diskette should contain only one party's pleadings, 
preferably in a single electronic file. In addition, parties who choose 
to file by paper must send diskette copies to the Commission's copy 
contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th 
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Comments and reply comments will 
be available for public inspection during normal business hours in the 
FCC Reference Information Center, Courtyard Level, Suite CY-A257, 445 
12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

E. Authority

    The action is authorized under the Communications Act of 1934, 
sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 303(r), and 403, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 
201(b), 303(r), and 403, as amended.

F. Ordering Clauses

    Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 
303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 303(r), and 403, this notice of proposed 
rulemaking is hereby adopted.
    The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information 
Center, shall send a copy of this notice of proposed rulemaking, 
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30803 Filed 12-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U