20030129Decision Memo.doc

DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
LEGAL

FROM: WELDON STUTZMAN

DATE: JANUARY 29, 2003

RE: QWEST’S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED QPAP LANGUAGE
CASE NO. USW-T-00-3

As part of Qwest’s Section 271 case and subsequent application with the Federal Communications Commission, Qwest developed a performance assurance plan (QPAP or Plan), the purpose of which is to ensure the Company will continue to meet the access and interconnection requirements of Section 271 following interLATA approval by the FCC. The QPAP provides specific standards for Qwest’s delivery of services to competitor telecommunications companies and automatic penalties, identified as either Tier 1 or Tier 2 penalties, if the standards are not met. The FCC recently approved Qwest’s entry into the interLATA market and reviewed the QPAP as part of Qwest’s application. On January 22, 2003, Qwest filed a Motion for Approval of Revised QPAP Language relating to the payment of Tier 2 penalties. Staff recommends Qwest’s motion be processed by Modified Procedure with a 14-day comment period.
In the Commission’s final decision on Qwest’s compliance with the Section 271 requirements issued June 10, 2002, the Commission discussed several issues regarding the QPAP. The facilitator for the Section 271 collaborative case had recommended payment of Tier 2 payments only “if Qwest misses the performance measures in two out of three consecutive months and subsequently misses the measures again in the calendar year.” Commission Final Decision p. 4. The Commission adopted the facilitator’s recommendation. Staff noted that some states apparently were considering requiring Tier 2 payments for each month that the performance measures were missed, but Qwest asserted it had not made that change to its Tier 2 payments in any other state. Qwest also committed, “in the event that Qwest agrees to remove the phase-in of Tier 2 payments for the QPAP in any state that participated in the ROC multi- state QPAP process,” to make the same change to the Idaho QPAP. Commission Final Decision p. 4. Tier 2 payments inure to the Commission for administrative costs related to the QPAP.
Consistent with this background, Qwest states in its Motion that the QPAP currently incorporates the recommendations of the facilitator regarding payment of Tier 2 penalties. Qwest states it has subsequently agreed to modify the Tier 2 trigger requirements in the Plans of other ROC participating states. Accordingly, Qwest proposes to revise the Idaho QPAP regarding the payment of Tier 2 penalties, now to be calculated and paid monthly based on the number of performance measurements exceeding the relevant critical values in any single month. Qwest asks that the change be effective the first day of the month approved by the Commission, rather than a different day of the month, for ease of administration.
Staff believes the change proposed by Qwest, if approved by the Commission, should be effective February 1, 2003. Staff recommends that Qwest’s Motion for Approval of Revised Language to its QPAP be processed by Modified Procedure with a 14-day comment period.
Commission Decision
Should the Motion for Approval of Revised QPAP Language filed by Qwest be processed by Modified Procedure with a 14-day comment period?

Weldon B. Stutzman

Vld/M:USWT0003_ws3
DECISION MEMORANDUM - 2 -