******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of) ) The NYNEX Telephone Companies' ) Offer of Comparably Efficient ) Interconnection to Payphone Service ) Providers ) ) Implementation of the Pay Telephone ) CC Docket No. 96-128 Reclassification and Compensation) Provisions of the Telecommunications ) Act of 1996 ) ORDER Adopted: April 15, 1997 Released: April 15, 1997 By the Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau: TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 III. SERVICE DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 IV. COMPLIANCE ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 A. CEI Plan Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 B. Other Nonstructural Safeguards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 C. Accounting Safeguards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 D. Other Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 V. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 VI. ORDERING CLAUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 I. INTRODUCTION 1. On January 3, 1997, pursuant to the requirements of the Commission's orders in the Payphone proceeding, the NYNEX Telephone Companies (NYNEX) filed a comparably efficient interconnection (CEI) plan for payphone service. In that proceeding, the Commission directed each Bell Operating Company (BOC) to file an initial CEI plan describing how it will comply with the Commission's Computer III CEI equal access parameters and nonstructural safeguards for the provision of payphone services. BOCs must make available on a nondiscriminatory basis the regulated basic services they provide to independent payphone service providers (PSPs) and to the BOCs' own payphone operations to provide payphone services. 2. The Commission gave public notice of NYNEX's CEI plan on January 8, 1997. On February 7, 1997, eight parties filed comments opposing the plan. NYNEX submitted reply comments on February 24, 1997. For the reasons discussed below, we approve NYNEX's CEI plan. II. BACKGROUND 3. The payphone rulemaking proceeding implemented Section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act). Section 276 directed the Commission to prescribe a set of nonstructural safeguards for BOC payphone service to implement the statute's requirements that any BOC: (1) shall not subsidize its payphone service directly or indirectly from its telephone exchange or exchange access service operations; and (2) shall not prefer or discriminate in favor of its payphone service. The 1996 Act provided that such safeguards must, at a minimum, include the nonstructural safeguards adopted in the Computer III proceeding. 4. In the Payphone Order, the Commission determined that the Computer III and ONA nonstructural safeguards would "provide an appropriate regulatory framework to ensure that BOCs do not discriminate or cross-subsidize in their provision of payphone service." Accordingly, the Commission required the BOCs to file "CEI plans describing how they will comply with the Computer III unbundling, CEI parameters, accounting requirements, CPNI requirements as modified by section 222 of the 1996 Act, network disclosure requirements, and installation, maintenance, and quality nondiscrimination requirements." Obtaining approval of its CEI plan is one of the criteria a BOC must meet before its payphone operations may receive compensation for completed intrastate and interstate calls using a payphone under the new compensation plan established in the payphone proceeding. 5. The Payphone Order required BOCs to "provide tariffed, nondiscriminatory, basic payphone services that enable independent [payphone service] providers to offer payphone services using either instrument-implemented 'smart payphones' or 'dumb' payphones that utilize central office coin services, or some combination of the two in a manner similar to the LECs." Those tariffs must be filed with the applicable state regulatory commission. Additionally, BOCs must file with the Commission tariffs for unbundled features or functions that are either used by a BOC's payphone affiliate to provide payphone service or offered by the BOC to unaffiliated payphone service providers (PSPs) on an unbundled basis. III. SERVICE DESCRIPTION 6. NYNEX currently offers a variety of tariffed Basic Public Access Line (Basic PAL) services in all of its state jurisdictions. According to NYNEX, these tariffed services, which vary by state jurisdiction, are currently used by unaffiliated PSPs to offer competitive payphone services using "smart" payphones and, on a limited basis, "dumb" payphones. Generally, these Basic PAL lines provide two-way or one-way originating only measured service with optional features including line side answer supervision (LSAS), billed number screening (BNS), and certain call blocking features. 7. NYNEX has supplemented its existing Basic PAL services with four additional tariffed service offerings, which hereinafter are referred to as Smart Public Access Line (Smart PAL) services: (1) One-Way Basic Coin Access Line, which provides outgoing-only message service with central office-based coin functionality, answer supervision, and certain call blocking and screening features; (2) Two-Way Basic Coin Access Line, which allows both incoming and outgoing calls and provides coin functionality, answer supervision, and certain call blocking and screening features; (3) Inmate Public Access Line, which provides outgoing-only coinless service, limited to collect calls only; (4) Charge-A-Call Public Access Line, which allows outgoing-only coinless calls to 0+ for calling card billing. 8. NYNEX represents that it will treat affiliated and non-affiliated PSPs on a nondiscriminatory basis in regard to any fraud protection and special numbering arrangements and in the installation and maintenance of basic payphone services. NYNEX also asserts that its PAL services will provide the necessary functionality for PSPs to provide their own billing and collections processes for calls completed from "smart" payphones and "dumb" payphones that utilize NYNEX's central office technology. According to NYNEX, its One-Way Basic Coin Access Line and Two-Way Basic Access Line will provide the appropriate coin signaling and supervision capability to monitor coin deposits for calls placed from "dumb" payphones. 9. NYNEX operates its payphone business on a structurally unseparated basis from its telephone operating companies, as permitted by the Payphone Order. NYNEX states that it currently provides public payphone services to end-users utilizing a combination of "smart" and "dumb" payphones that utilize certain central office coin related capabilities. NYNEX intends to use its Inmate Public Access Line to provide inmate calling services. IV. COMPLIANCE ISSUES A. CEI Plan Requirements 10. The Commission's CEI requirements were originally established in the Computer III proceeding, in which the Commission adopted a regulatory framework to govern the provision of integrated enhanced and basic services by the BOCs. As applied in the payphone context, the CEI requirements are designed to give independent PSPs equal and efficient access to the regulated basic payphone services provided by the BOCs as well as those basic services that the BOCs use to provide their own payphone services. The Commission, in its Computer III proceeding, established nine specific CEI requirements, which are discussed below. NYNEX has described in its submissions how it will satisfy each of these nine requirements. We review below NYNEX's CEI plan with respect to each of these requirements. 1. Unbundling of Basic Services 11. The Payphone Order deregulated LEC payphones and classified those payphones as customer premises equipment (CPE). In addition to providing tariffed coin service so competitive payphone providers can offer payphone services using either "smart" payphones or "dumb" payphones that utilize central office coin services, a LEC must also tariff unbundled payphone features that the LEC uses or provides on an unbundled basis. Moreover, BOCs, but not other LECs, must unbundle additional network elements when requested by payphone providers based on the specific criteria established in the Computer III and ONA proceedings. 12. The Payphone Order requires BOCs to file CEI plans that explain how they will unbundle basic payphone services. Specifically, a BOC must indicate how it plans to unbundle, and associate with a specific rate element in the tariff, the basic services and basic service functions that underlie its provision of payphone service. Nonproprietary information used by the BOC in providing the unbundled basic services must be made available as part of CEI. In addition, any options available to the BOC in the provision of such basic services or functions must be included in the unbundled offerings. 13. The basic services underlying NYNEX's payphone services consist of the Smart PAL services described above, which NYNEX uses predominately with "dumb" payphones. As previously noted, NYNEX also offers a variety of Basic PAL services that are used by unaffiliated PSPs with "smart" payphones. For purposes of this order, Basic PAL service will also be referred to as "customer owned, coin operated telephone" or "COCOT" service, and Smart PAL service will also be referred to as "coin line" service. 14. NYNEX represents that it has unbundled all basic services and functions used by its payphone operations. According to NYNEX, these services and functions constitute the minimum set of network functions required for connectivity to the network. NYNEX also represents that all basic services that it uses to provide payphone services have been tariffed, and any network functions it uses are available to all PSPs under the same rates, terms, and conditions. 15. APCC and NEPCC argue that NYNEX's CEI plan must be rejected because NYNEX has not sufficiently unbundled payphone features and functionalities from the payphone access line. APCC contends that NYNEX is required to offer the basic payphone lines for its Basic PAL and Smart PAL services, and to offer separately the features and functionalities that NYNEX proposes to offer as part of those basic payphone offerings. APCC argues that such unbundling and separate tariffing are necessary to ensure that NYNEX's payphone offerings are nondiscriminatory and free from cross subsidization. NEPCC asserts that NYNEX's bundling of certain features in its coin line service that are unbundled for its Basic PAL service is discriminatory and in violation of section 276. NEPCC also contends that, if NYNEX offers an unbundled service in one state, then it should be required to offer the unbundled service in the other states it serves as well. 16. NYNEX responds that its Basic PAL and Smart PAL offerings comply with the CEI unbundling requirement. NYNEX contends that the Commission did not require carriers to unbundle coin line features from the basic payphone line, and that such requests should be handled through the ONA request process. 17. We find that NYNEX's plan satisfies the CEI unbundling requirement contained in the payphone rulemaking proceeding. The payphone rulemaking proceeding requires BOCs to offer transmission services that enable unaffiliated PSPs to offer payphone services using either "smart" or "dumb" payphones or to offer inmate calling services. In addition, consistent with the payphone rulemaking proceeding requirements, BOCs must provide on a tariffed basis the unbundled features and functions they provide to others or to their payphone operations. NYNEX's plan satisfies those requirements. We note, however, that NYNEX may choose to unbundle additional functions and features, states may request further unbundling, and payphone providers may request additional unbundled features and functions through the ONA 120-day service request process. Any other unbundled features and functions provided by NYNEX must comply with the tariffing and CEI requirements of the payphone rulemaking proceeding, Computer III and ONA. 18. We reject the contentions of APCC and NEPCC that NYNEX must unbundle the coin supervision and other features of its Smart PAL service offerings. As noted in the Clarification Order, the payphone orders "do not require that LECs unbundle more features and functions from the basic payphone line . . . than the LEC provides on an unbundled basis." In the Clarification Order, we stated that, for example, if a BOC provides answer supervision bundled with the basic payphone line, the BOC is not required either to unbundle that service from its state tariff for payphone service, or to tariff that service at the federal level. If the LEC, however, provides answer supervision, on an unbundled basis, either to affiliated or unaffiliated PSPs, the LEC must tariff that feature in both the state and federal jurisdictions. Because NYNEX offers, and will use, the Smart PAL services on a bundled basis, it is not required to unbundle the individual features that comprise those services in its CEI plan. No further unbundling is required at this time. Independent payphone providers may seek further unbundling by making a request pursuant to the ONA process. 19. We also reject NEPCC's contention that, if NYNEX offers an unbundled service in one state, it is required to offer that unbundled service in all of the states it serves. As noted, any payphone feature that a BOC uses on an unbundled basis in a state must be offered to independent PSPs in that state. Except as required pursuant to the ONA request process, a BOC is not obligated to unbundle additional services in a state unless the state requires it to do so. 2. Interface Functionality 20. The interface functionality requirement obligates the BOC to make available standardized hardware and software interfaces that are able to support transmission, switching, and signaling functions identical to those used by the BOC's payphone operations. 21. NYNEX claims that its payphone operations will utilize the same standard interfaces and tariffed transmission offerings that are available on the same terms and conditions to all PSPs. According to NYNEX, all PSPs therefore can interconnect to the telephone network through identical standard hardware and software interfaces and access arrangements associated with tariffed basic services. NYNEX represents that the details of the interfaces for its four newly-tariffed Smart PAL services were disclosed in a network information disclosure in the December 1996 issue of the Bellcore Digest. NYNEX also asserts that its payphone operations will utilize basic services only when they are made generally available to others. 22. Telco asserts that NYNEX's statement that PSPs will obtain access to the network through existing interfaces available through NYNEX's standard network interfaces is insufficient. Telco argues that NYNEX must provide "further explanation or meaningful detail regarding the technical requirements [a PSP] must meet to connect to the network interfaces . . . ." 23. We find that NYNEX complies with the interface functionality requirement. As stated above, this requirement only obligates the BOC to make available standardized hardware and software interfaces that will be able to support transmission, switching, and signaling functions identical to those used by the BOC's payphone operations. NYNEX avers that it has met this requirement. Beyond the filing of network disclosures, which NYNEX states that it has filed, and Telco does not dispute NYNEX's claims, this parameter does not require NYNEX to provide technical details in the CEI plan explaining how PSPs will connect to NYNEX's network. 3. Resale 24. The resale requirement established in Computer III obligates a "carrier's enhanced service operations to take the basic services used in its enhanced service offerings at their unbundled tariffed rates as a means of preventing improper cost-shifting to regulated operations and anticompetitive pricing in unregulated markets." Based on the requirement in the Payphone Order and the Reconsideration Order, any basic services provided by a BOC to its payphone affiliate, as well as any payphone service provided by others, must be available on a nondiscriminatory basis to other payphone providers. 25. NYNEX represents that its payphone operations will procure CEI elements at the same tariffed rates, terms and conditions as it will make the elements available to other PSPs. We find that NYNEX has met the resale requirement. We are not persuaded by Telco's argument that NYNEX's plan is insufficient, because it "fails to address how it will provide resale or specify what combinations will be offered for resale, whether resale will be offered on a nondiscriminatory basis, or what mechanisms will exist to enable competitors to ensure that resale obligations are being met." We find that NYNEX's representation is sufficient to meet this CEI requirement. To the extent that Telco's objections are based on concerns that NYNEX's tariffed payphone offerings unlawfully discriminate against unaffiliated PSPs, contrary to NYNEX's express representation to the contrary, such specific, fact-based claims should be addressed in federal or state tariff proceedings or formal complaints against NYNEX. 4. Technical Characteristics 26. This requirement obligates a carrier to provide basic services with technical characteristics that are equal to the technical characteristics the carrier uses for its own payphone services. 27. According to its CEI plan, NYNEX will provide interconnection to the payphone offerings of NYNEX and its competitors through the same standard network interfaces and these interconnections are provided under tariff and support all the transmission, switching, and signaling functions used by NYNEX's payphone operations. We find that NYNEX's CEI plan comports with the technical characteristics requirement established by the Commission. To the extent that Telco obtains credible evidence that NYNEX has unlawfully discriminated against unaffiliated PSPs in the assignment of access lines, Telco may initiate a formal complaint against NYNEX. 5. Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 28. The Payphone Order requires BOCs to describe in their CEI plans how they will comply with the nondiscrimination requirements in Computer III and ONA regarding the quality of service, installation, and maintenance. This requirement ensures that the time periods for installation, maintenance, and repair of the basic services and facilities included in a CEI offering to unaffiliated PSPs are the same as those the carrier provides to its own or its affiliated payphone service operations. BOCs also must satisfy reporting and other requirements showing that they have met this requirement. 29. In its CEI plan, NYNEX represents that its installation, design, maintenance, and repair methods and procedures are highly automated and are designed to treat all customers, including PSPs, in an impartial, efficient, nondiscriminatory manner. NYNEX also represents that it will establish procedures and processes that insure that affiliated and non-affiliated PSPs are treated the same with regard to the quality and time period associated with installation, maintenance and repair of basic services. NYNEX asserts that mechanized access capabilities associated with the installation, maintenance, and repair of basic services used in the provision of NYNEX's payphone services will be made available on a comparably efficient basis to all PSPs to insure that the quality and time period associated with the installation, maintenance, and repair of basic services will be the same. NYNEX also notes that the Commission has previously found NYNEX's procedures for ordering, installing, maintaining, and repairing underlying basic services to be nondiscriminatory. 30. Several commenters argue that NYNEX must provide further detail regarding how it will provide installation and repair on a non-discriminatory basis to unaffiliated PSPs, in order for the Commission to be able to evaluate whether nondiscriminatory procedures will in fact be in place. For instance, APCC contends that NYNEX's plan must describe NYNEX's installation and repair procedures and disclose whether its payphone operations personnel will have direct access to automated service order processing systems. 31. APCC also asserts that NYNEX should explain whether it intends to share personnel between its operating company and payphone operations and, if so, the measures it will implement to ensure that the use of shared personnel will not lead to discrimination in the provision of installation, maintenance, and repair. NEPCC contends that NYNEX should be required to commit to avoid such sharing of personnel, particularly for installation, repair, and maintenance functions. In addition, APCC argues that NYNEX should identify for its payphone offerings the demarcation point between the switched network and a payphone provider's inside wire. IPANY contends that recent examples of alleged discriminatory and anticompetitive treatment of unaffiliated PSPs by New York Telephone cast doubt on NYNEX's pledge to treat competing PSPs in a nondiscriminatory manner. For example, IPANY alleges that NYNEX requires independent PSPs that own curbside payphones in New York to pay the expense of installing conduit to the payphone from the manhole even though NYNEX has never charged its own payphone operations for similar installation. 32. In reply, NYNEX states that it will update existing procedures and processes and will train personnel to ensure that NYNEX's payphone operations will be treated in the same way as nonaffiliated PSPs by the same customer service organizations that deal with nonaffiliated PSPs for the provision, maintenance, and repair of network services. According to NYNEX, this will include the use of the same means of communication (e.g., paper, facsimile, and systems) and information requirements to initiate, manage, and monitor the status of network service requests and trouble reports. NYNEX also represents that costs associated with the use of telephone company network service technicians and installation and repair organizations by NYNEX's payphone operations will be appropriately allocated under Parts 32 and 64 of the Commission's rules. NYNEX asserts that the concerns of discriminatory installation and maintenance service raised by IPANY are outside the scope of this proceeding and are being addressed in the state regulatory arena. NYNEX also contends that New York Telephone's conduct in the examples cited by IPANY was consistent with New York state law. Finally, NYNEX states that, in the deregulated payphone environment, New York Telephone's payphone operations will be subject to the same special construction, installation and other charges as nonaffiliated PSPs. 33. We find that NYNEX has met the installation, maintenance, and repair requirement. We conclude that NYNEX's description of the procedures that it will employ to ensure nondiscriminatory treatment of its own payphone operations and those of unaffiliated PSPs is sufficient for us to conclude that its CEI plan satisfies this parameter. We also reject APCC's argument that NYNEX must provide further explanation about personnel sharing in order to ensure that there will be no discrimination against unaffiliated PSPs and NEPCC's argument that NYNEX should commit to refrain from sharing personnel. In the Payphone Order, we specifically declined to require BOCs to provide payphone CPE through a structurally separated affiliate. More importantly, we find that NYNEX sufficiently describes the procedures it has adopted to address concerns about discrimination, even with shared personnel. NYNEX represents that its installation, design, maintenance, and repair methods and procedures are highly automated and are designed to treat all customers, including PSPS, in an impartial, efficient, nondiscriminatory manner. NYNEX also represents that the customer service organizations that NYNEX will use to provide these functions will be the same for the nonaffiliated PSPs as well as the affiliated PSPs, and that it will train personnel responsible for network services to treat affiliated and nonaffiliated PSPs in a nondiscriminatory manner. Moreover, NYNEX asserts that the time intervals for providing installation, maintenance and repair will be the same for all PSPs. Finally, we note that the Commission's rules require BOCs to allocate properly the costs, including costs associated with the use of personnel, between regulated and nonregulated operations. We also note that, pursuant to section 64.904 of the Commission's rules, LECs that file CAMs are required to have an independent audit performed annually. 34. With respect to IPANY's complaints of past alleged nondiscriminatory conduct by New York Telephone, we do not believe that the pendency of these issues before the New York Commission requires us to find that NYNEX's plan does not satisfy our CEI requirements. Rather, in our view, these matters are better addressed in the state regulatory context. The record in this proceeding shows, according to both NYNEX and IPANY, that discussions are currently underway among New York Telephone, IPANY, and the New York Public Service Commission on the issues raised in IPANY's comments. 35. Finally, we conclude that NYNEX has sufficiently identified the demarcation point to determine when maintenance becomes the payphone provider's responsibility and is not part of the access network service. NYNEX states that the demarcation point will be "located within 12 inches of the terminal equipment side of the protector, or if there is no protector within twelve inches of the point where the telephone wiring enters the premises." PSP payphones located on pedestals or other types of freestanding locations will have the demarcation point in the pedestal. NYNEX further represents that the demarcation point for affiliated and non-affiliated PSPs will be established consistent with state and federal rules. 6. End User Access 36. With regard to payphone services, this parameter requires the BOC to provide to all end users the same network capabilities to activate or obtain access to payphone services that utilize the BOC's facilities. This parameter also requires the BOC to provide all end users equal opportunities to obtain access to basic network facilities. 37. NYNEX represents that affiliated and nonaffiliated PSPs' end users (i.e., the transient public and inmates at correctional facilities) will have access to the same underlying tariffed services through the use of the payphone services provided by the individual PSP. NYNEX maintains that the same network-based dialing and signaling capabilities will therefore be available to affiliated and non-affiliated PSP end users. Telco argues that NYNEX's description of how it will provide end user access is too vague and that NYNEX must specify how end users will obtain access. We find that NYNEX is not required to provide the information requested by Telco in order to satisfy this CEI parameter. We find that NYNEX's CEI plan comports with the end user access requirement established by the Commission. 7. CEI Availability 38. This requirement obligates a carrier's CEI offering to be available and fully operational on the date that it offers its corresponding payphone service to the public. The requirement also obligates the carrier to provide a reasonable time prior to that date when prospective users of the CEI offering can use the CEI facilities and services for purposes of testing their payphone service offerings. Past decisions also have referred to this as the 90-day notice requirement. 39. The payphone rulemaking proceeding established the following tariffing requirements for LECs. LECs must file tariffs in the states for basic payphone services that enable independent PSPs to offer payphone services using either smart or dumb payphones and for any unbundled features that the LECs provide to their payphone operations or to others. LECs are not required to file tariffs for the basic payphone line for smart and dumb payphones with the Commission. As stated in the Clarification Order, LECs are required to file federal tariffs for payphone-specific, network-based features and functions "only if the LEC provides them separately and on an unbundled basis from the basic payphone line, either to their own operations or to others . . . ." 40. The Clarification Order also granted all LECs a limited waiver of the federal tariffing requirements for unbundled features and functions that a LEC must meet before it is eligible to receive payphone compensation. Pursuant to this waiver, LECs must file interstate tariffs for unbundled features and functions within 45 days of the release date of the Clarification Order. In addition, each individual BOC was required to file by April 10, 1997, a written ex parte document advising on the status of intrastate tariffs for the features and functions that it has not yet federally tariffed, and stating that it commits to filing federal tariffs for such features and functions within 45 days of the release date of that Order. 41. NYNEX represents that its payphone service operations will offer payphone services on a region-wide basis and it will use a combination of its Smart PAL and Basic PAL services, which are available to other carriers under the same rates, terms, and conditions and at the same time to all PSPs. NYNEX further represents that, in the event that it plans to introduce a new underlying basic service or unbundled feature, it will provide notice and a testing capability to PSPs at least ninety days before using such services in the provision of its own payphone services. NYNEX filed with its CEI plan state tariffs for the Smart PAL services that it will offer in each of the states in which it provides local telephone services. Generally, these tariffs also include the Basic PAL services that NYNEX currently offers in those states. 42. APCC and NEPCC contend that NYNEX's CEI plan must be rejected because NYNEX did not file the required federal tariffs. They contend that, pursuant to the Reconsideration Order, NYNEX must file tariffs for unbundled features at both the state and federal level, and that the only service for which a federal tariff is not required is the basic line for smart and dumb payphones. In response, NYNEX contends that it is in compliance with the payphone rulemaking proceeding's federal tariffing requirement, as implemented by the Clarification Order. In an ex parte filing, NYNEX represents that it will file federal tariffs, in accordance with the requirements of the Clarification Order, for the following unbundled features: line side answer supervision, direct dial screening, operator number screening, and terminating number screening. 43. APCC also contends that NYNEX must be required to disclose how many of its payphones in each jurisdiction are subscribed to Basic PAL service and how many are subscribed to coin line service. APCC further argues that, because NYNEX's tariffs for coin line services offer such services subject to the availability of facilities, NYNEX must be required to disclose where coin line service is not available and whether it has any payphones currently installed in those areas. NEPCC contends that, if NYNEX has any payphones in those areas, it must convert them to Basic PAL service. AT&T argues that, at minimum, NYNEX's CEI plan must be amended to clarify that Smart PAL service will be available to independent PSPs at every central office where such service is provided to NYNEX's payphone operations, and to reflect such conditions of availability in its tariffs. 44. NYNEX responds that, at present, its payphone operations will subscribe only to NYNEX's Smart PAL services, rather than its Basic PAL services. NYNEX responds to AT&T's request for clarification by stating that its Smart PAL services will be available to non-affiliated PSPs in all central offices where such services are provided to NYNEX's payphone operations. 45. We find that NYNEX's plan complies with the CEI availability requirement. We reject the arguments of APCC and NEPCC that NYNEX must file a federal tariff for all payphone service features and functions except for the basic access line for Basic PAL and Smart PAL service. As stated in the Clarification Order, BOCs need only submit federal tariffs for payphone-specific, network-based features and functions if the BOC provides them separately and on an unbundled basis from the basic payphone line either to its payphone operations or to others. Because NYNEX will use, and offer, the features and functions of its Smart PAL services on a bundled basis, NYNEX need not unbundle those features and thus need not file a separate federal tariff for them at this time. As noted, NYNEX has committed to file federal tariffs for the unbundled payphone features offered in conjunction with its Basic PAL services. 46. We also conclude that NYNEX is not required to identify in its CEI plan specific geographic areas where Smart PAL service is not available or to state whether NYNEX has any payphones in such areas or what type of service, Smart PAL or Basic PAL, is being provided. NYNEX's New York state tariff provides that Smart PAL services are furnished from suitably equipped central offices, subject to the availability of facilities. NYNEX represents that its Smart PAL services will be available to non-affiliated PSPs in all central offices where such services are provided to NYNEX's payphone operations. We find that the state tariffs together with representations made by NYNEX provide adequate information concerning the availability of its Smart PAL services for purposes of our CEI plan requirements. We also find no basis in our CEI requirements or the payphone orders for directing NYNEX to identify how many of its payphones are subscribed to Basic PAL and how many are subscribed to Smart PAL for purposes of satisfying our CEI requirements. 47. Finally we waive on our motion the 90-day notice requirement for NYNEX's provision of Smart PAL services. Therefore, NYNEX may continue to provide Smart PAL services through the use of the CEI offering described herein for such services without first providing ninety days for unaffiliated carriers to test such services. This waiver is reasonable in this context because, unlike the provision of a new enhanced service, NYNEX has been offering payphone services using its Smart PAL services for some time. To bar NYNEX from continuing to use its Smart PAL services to provide payphone service for a period of ninety days could result in a suspension of service. NYNEX is not, however, relieved of its obligation to permit unaffiliated PSPs upon request to conduct testing of NYNEX's Smart PAL offerings. For purposes of approving NYNEX's CEI plan, we simply waive the requirement that NYNEX's payphone operations may not use NYNEX's Smart PAL services before such testing is accomplished. If and when other basic payphone services are deployed, NYNEX must make testing capability available to unaffiliated PSPs at the same time that such capability is available to NYNEX's payphone operations, which NYNEX has committed to do. 8. Minimization of Transport Costs 48. This requirement obligates carriers to provide competitors with interconnection facilities that minimize transport costs. NYNEX asserts that it will charge affiliated and non-affiliated PSPs the same tariffed rates for basic payphone services. We find that NYNEX's CEI plan comports with the minimization of transport costs requirement. 9. Recipients of CEI 49. This requirement prohibits a BOC from restricting the availability of its CEI offering to any particular class of customer or PSP. 50. NYNEX avers that all of the basic services that it will use to provide its payphone services are offered under existing tariffs to all PSPs and customers. We find that NYNEX has proposed to provide service to CEI recipients in compliance with the Commission's requirements. B. Other Nonstructural Safeguards 51. In addition to the CEI requirements established in Computer III, and applied to BOC provision of payphone services in the Payphone Order, a BOC that provides payphone services must comply with requirements regarding the use of customer proprietary network information (CPNI), disclosure of network information, and nondiscrimination reporting. 1. Customer Proprietary Network Information 52. The Payphone Order requires NYNEX to explain how it will comply with the Computer III CPNI safeguards, to the extent they are not inconsistent with section 222 of the 1996 Act, as amended. Although the requirements of section 222 became effective immediately upon enactment, the Commission has initiated a proceeding to consider regulations interpreting and specifying in more detail a telecommunications carrier's obligations under this provision. The Commission has concluded that its existing CPNI regulations remain in effect, pending completion of the CPNI rulemaking, to the extent they do not conflict with section 222. 53. In its CEI plan, NYNEX represents that, until such time as the Commission issues regulations in the CPNI rulemaking, it will comply with the requirements of section 222 and with any existing Commission CPNI requirements that are not inconsistent with section 222. NYNEX also states that, absent customer consent, the marketing and sales personnel in its payphone operations will be restricted from access to the CPNI associated with other customers or PSPs. In addition, any aggregate customer information derived from such data provided to NYNEX's payphone operations will be made available to other carriers or persons on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions upon reasonable request. 54. APCC and Telco claim that NYNEX's CEI plan does not offer sufficient information concerning how NYNEX will comply with CPNI requirements, but rather merely states that NYNEX will follow existing procedures, except where inconsistent with Section 222. APCC contends that NYNEX should explain how it will protect, under nondiscriminatory conditions, the CPNI of PSPs, as well as the CPNI of NYNEX's existing customers, including current customers of semi-public payphone service. APCC argues that, since the existing tariffed semi-public service is being terminated, NYNEX's payphone personnel have no more right to access and use the CPNI of semi-public service end users that any other PSP. APCC also contends that the deregulation of semi-public service presents PSPs with a potential marketing opportunity to replace NYNEX as the payphone service provider for these customers. APCC argues that semi-public customers should be provided notice and a meaningful opportunity to replace NYNEX with another payphone service provider. It contends that NYNEX must disclose how it will provide such notice in a neutral fashion, including giving such customers an opportunity to authorize disclosure of CPNI on a nondiscriminatory basis to interested payphone providers without preference to NYNEX's payphone operations. 55. NYNEX urges us to reject APCC's argument that the Commission apply special rules to semi-public payphone location providers on the ground that its claim constitutes an untimely request for reconsideration of the payphone orders. 56. In providing payphone services, NYNEX must comply with the Commission's pre-existing Computer III CPNI requirements, to the extent that they are consistent with section 222 of the Communications Act, as amended, and any regulations adopted by the Commission pursuant to section 222. NYNEX represents that it will comply with section 222 and all CPNI requirements adopted in the Commission's CPNI rulemaking proceeding. Accordingly, we find that NYNEX's plan comports with CPNI requirements. In reaching this conclusion, we do not address issues raised by APCC relating to the CPNI associated with semi-public payphones. Issues relating to the interpretation of section 222, and how it relates to the Computer III CPNI rules, are being addressed in the CPNI rulemaking, and therefore will not be considered here. We do, however, reject APCC's request that we require NYNEX to inform site owners about competitive options for semi-public payphone service, because no such requirement was adopted in the Payphone Order or in the Reconsideration Order, or is otherwise required by our CEI rules. 2. Network Information Disclosure 57. The Payphone Order requires NYNEX to disclose to the payphone services industry information about network changes and new network services that affect the interconnection of payphone services with the network. NYNEX must make that disclosure at the "make/buy" point, that is, when NYNEX decides whether to make or to procure from an unaffiliated entity any product whose design affects or relies on the network interface. NYNEX must provide that information to members of the payphone services industry that sign a nondisclosure agreement, within 30 days after the execution of the nondisclosure agreement. NYNEX also must publicly disclose technical information about a new or modified network service twelve months prior to the introduction of that service. 58. In the Payphone Order, the Commission waived the notice period for disclosure of network information relating to the "basic network payphone services" in order to ensure that payphone services are provided on a timely basis consistent with the other deregulatory requirements of that order. Pursuant to this waiver, network information disclosure on the basic network payphone services must have been made by the BOCs no later than January 15, 1997. 59. As described above, NYNEX asserts that it made the necessary network disclosure for its new network interface in December 1996. NYNEX represents that all other underlying network services or features that its payphone operations may use are available under existing tariffs. It also represents that it will continue to comply with the existing, and any revised, network information disclosure requirements. We find therefore that NYNEX's CEI plan comports with the Commission's network information disclosure requirements. 3. Nondiscrimination Reporting 60. In the Payphone Order, we directed the BOCs to comply with the Computer III and ONA requirements regarding nondiscrimination in the quality of service, installation, and maintenance. Specifically, BOCs are required to file the same quarterly nondiscrimination reports, and annual and semi-annual ONA reports, with respect to their basic payphone services that they file for other basic services to ensure that the BOCs fulfill the commitments made in their CEI plans with respect to the nondiscriminatory provision of covered service offerings, installation and maintenance. 61. NYNEX represents that it will establish procedures and processes that will ensure that the time periods and quality of service associated with the installation, maintenance, and repair of basic services that are used in the provision of NYNEX's payphone services are the same as those experienced by non-affiliated PSPs. It also commits to modify its quarterly Enhanced Services ONA Nondiscrimination Parity Report to provide installation and maintenance performance data on basic network services provided to affiliated PSPs. Finally, NYNEX commits to address its provision of payphone services in its annual affidavit attesting that NYNEX has followed the appropriate and approved nondiscrimination procedures outlined in its ONA Plan relative to the provision of enhanced services. We find that NYNEX's CEI plan comports with the Commission's nondiscrimination reporting requirements. C. Accounting Safeguards 62. In the Payphone Order and the Accounting Safeguards Order, the Commission concluded that it should apply accounting safeguards identical to those adopted in Computer III to BOCs providing payphone service on an integrated basis. Pursuant to Computer III, the BOCs must adhere to certain accounting procedures to protect ratepayers from bearing misallocated costs. These safeguards consist of five principal elements: (1) the establishment of effective accounting procedures, in accordance with the Commission's Part 32 Uniform System of Accounts requirements and affiliate transactions rules, as well as the Commission's Part 64 cost allocation standards; (2) the filing of cost allocation manuals (CAMs) reflecting the accounting rules and cost allocation standards adopted by the BOC; (3) mandatory audits of carrier cost allocations by independent auditors, who must state affirmatively whether the audited carriers' allocations comply with their cost allocation manuals; (4) the establishment of detailed reporting requirements and the development of an automated system to store and analyze the data; and (5) the performance of on-site audits by Commission staff. NYNEX must comply with these accounting safeguards. We note that the approval granted to NYNEX in this order is contingent upon the CAM amendments associated with NYNEX's provision of payphone service going into effect. D. Other Issues 1. Sufficiency 63. APCC, NEPCC and Telco generally assert that NYNEX's CEI plan insufficiently describes how NYNEX intends to comply with the CEI parameters; therefore, these parties request that the Commission require NYNEX to either amend or refile its plan. As discussed above, however, we find that NYNEX adequately complies with each of the required parameters. 2. Tariffing Issues 64. APCC, NEPCC, and IPANY raise various objections to the content of NYNEX's state tariffs. For instance, IPANY asserts that NYNEX's prices for its Smart PAL and Basic PAL services in its New York state tariffs are discriminatory and that NYNEX should be prohibited from offering its payphone operations any special rates not effectively available (because of volume or term conditions) to unaffiliated PSPs. NYNEX responds that these state tariff issues fall outside the scope of this proceeding, because the Commission has delegated to the states the responsibility of ensuring that the BOCs' state tariffs are in compliance with section 276. NYNEX also claims that any discount or individual contract basis offerings will be state-tariffed offerings, subject to state commission review and available to all PSPs on a nondiscriminatory basis. 65. We agree with NYNEX that the state payphone tariff proceedings are the appropriate fora to address complaints concerning rates or terms and conditions in NYNEX's state tariffs. The Commission stated in the Reconsideration Order that it would "rely on the states to ensure that the basic payphone line is tariffed by the LECs in accordance with the requirements of section 276." That order required that the tariffs for these LEC services must be: (1) cost based; (2) consistent with the requirements of section 276 with regard, for example, to the removal of subsidies from exchange and exchange access services; and (3) nondiscriminatory. In addition, the order established that "[s]tates must apply these requirements and the Computer III guidelines for tariffing such intrastate services." The order further stated that "[w]here LECs have already filed intrastate tariffs for these services, states may, after considering the requirements of this order, the Report and Order, and section 276 conclude: (1) that existing tariffs are consistent with the requirements of the Report and Order as revised herein; and (2) that in such case no further filings are required." Finally, the Commission noted that "[s]tates unable to review these tariffs may require the LECs operating in their state to file these tariffs with the Commission." 3. Screening Codes 66. Several parties contend that NYNEX is required, pursuant to the Reconsideration Order, to provide PSPs using COCOT lines with screening code digits that uniquely identify their lines as payphone lines. APCC asserts that if NYNEX transmits a unique code only on its coin lines, which are primarily used only by NYNEX's own payphone operations, and not on its COCOT lines, which are primarily used by unaffiliated PSPs, NYNEX is discriminating in favor its payphone division by providing it a great advantage in the collection of per-call compensation from interexchange carriers. In addition, MCI maintains that NYNEX does not provide screening code digits that can be "transmitted by PSPs for all access methods and from all locations." 67. NYNEX responds that it will not discriminate in the provision of screening code digits. Regardless of the identity of the PSP, all traffic originated on Basic PAL and Smart PAL lines will transmit ANI coding digits "27" and "07," respectively. NYNEX explains that a screening code discretely identifying the COCOT line as a payphone will be provided to interexchange carriers through the use of a Line Information Database. NYNEX contends that this approach satisfies the screening code requirements established by the Commission. 68. We find that the issue of whether NYNEX is providing screening information in compliance with the requirements established in the payphone rulemaking proceeding to be outside the scope of the CEI review process and is more appropriately raised in that proceeding or in other proceedings. 4. Numbering Assignments 69. According to APCC and NEPCC, the Payphone Order requires LECs to assign line numbers to payphones on a nondiscriminatory basis. APCC contends that NYNEX should be required to reallocate the numbers assigned to the existing base of payphones, without charge, so that an equal percentage of LEC payphones and PSPs are assigned 8000 and 9000 series numbers. In reply, NYNEX asserts that it will apply the same number assignment process for NYNEX's payphone operations and nonaffiliated PSPs and will not reserve any special block of numbers for its payphone operations. 70. We agree with APCC that the Payphone Order requires LECs to provide numbering assignments on a nondiscriminatory basis; it did not, however, require LECs to reallocate existing number assignments. NYNEX states that it will assign payphone numbers on a nondiscriminatory basis. We conclude that no further showing is required by NYNEX in the context of its CEI plan. 5. Dialing Parity 71. MCI asserts that NYNEX does not explain how it will comply with the dialing parity requirements in the Payphone Order, including access to operator service, directory assistance, and directory listings. 72. The Payphone Order concluded that the dialing parity requirements adopted pursuant to section 251(b)(3) of the Communications Act should extend to all payphone location providers. NYNEX must, of course, comply with these requirements. We conclude, however, that NYNEX is not required as part of the CEI process to demonstrate how it will comply with these dialing parity requirements. In the Payphone Order, the Commission specified that a BOC's CEI plan must describe how it will conform to the CEI parameters with respect to the specific payphone services it intends to offer and how it will unbundle those basic payphone services. Therefore, MCI's request that NYNEX detail how it will comply with the dialing parity requirement is outside the scope of this CEI review proceeding. 6. Uncollectibles 73. AT&T asserts that NYNEX must explain its treatment of uncollectibles due to fraud. AT&T contends that, to the extent NYNEX establishes a policy of foregoing uncollectibles due to fraud for its payphone service affiliates, the same treatment must be accorded to non-affiliates. NYNEX responds that it does not intend to establish any policy of foregoing uncollectibles due to fraud that would discriminate between its payphone operations and nonaffiliated PSPs. 74. We find that, while the Payphone Order generally requires that fraud protection must be available on a nondiscriminatory basis, it does not establish any specific requirements for uncollectibles. Because the issue of the treatment of uncollectibles appears to raise principally accounting matters, that issue will be addressed in the review of NYNEX's CAM. 7. Operator Services 75. APCC and NEPCC contend that NYNEX's CEI plan fails to address whether NYNEX's intraLATA operator services are part of its deregulated payphone services. APCC argues that, if operator services are part of NYNEX's regulated operations, NYNEX must show that it is not subsidizing its payphone operations or discriminating between its payphone operations and unaffiliated PSPs in the provision of operator services. For example, if NYNEX is offering a commission to its payphone operations for presubscribing its payphones to NYNEX's operator services, then such commissions must also be available to unaffiliated PSPs on the same terms and conditions. IPANY contends that it is not clear from NYNEX's CEI plan whether certain services, such as repair referrals and coin refunds, will be provided by NYNEX to PSPs subscribing to its Basic PAL services. NYNEX responds that all of the regulated services provided by NYNEX to PSPs -- including any operator or switch-based services -- will be provided on a nondiscriminatory basis. 76. Operator services are tariffed regulated services, which must be offered to affiliated and nonaffiliated PSPs on a nondiscriminatory basis. We note that, in the Reconsideration Order, the Commission declined to require LECs to make available, on a nondiscriminatory basis, any commission payments provided to their own payphone divisions in return for the presubscription of operator service traffic to the LEC, because the Commission concluded that the level of 0+ commissions paid pursuant to contract on operator service calls was beyond the scope of section 276 and the Payphone proceeding. We conclude that NYNEX has sufficiently addressed the concerns raised by APCC, NEPCC, and IPANY. 8. Inmate Calling Services Issues 77. The Inmate Calling Service Provider Coalition (ICSPC) raises a number of issues related to the provision of inmate calling services (ICS). ICSPC contends that NYNEX should be required to identify the network support and tariffed services its regulated operations will provide to its ICS operations. ICSPC also argues that NYNEX must disclose whether its regulated operations will provide its ICS operations with inmate call processing and call control functions and information for fraud protection and the validation of called numbers. ICSPC contends that such services or information must be provided to other carriers on a nondiscriminatory basis. In addition, ICSPC asserts that NYNEX should be required to disclose whether its payphone operations will be responsible for the costs of ICS calls for which NYNEX's payphone operations do not receive compensation. According to ICSPC, NYNEX's failure to describe its provision of ICS in detail prevents the Commission from determining whether NYNEX has complied with the requirements of section 276. 78. ICSPC also asserts that NYNEX must show that any call processing and call control system used for its ICS is being provided on a deregulated basis, regardless of whether that system is located at a central office or at a customer premises. According to ICSPC, to the extent NYNEX's call processing and call control systems dedicated to ICS are located in NYNEX's central offices, NYNEX must provide physical or virtual collocation to other providers. ICSPC also contends that NYNEX must disclose information on interfaces between NYNEX's equipment dedicated to ICS and its regulated network support services, so that other providers can utilize the same interface if they wish. 79. In a subsequent ex parte filing, ICSPC argues that section 276 requires the BOCs to treat collect call processing for ICS as part of their nonregulated ICS operations because collect calling is fundamental to ICS. According to ICSPC, if a BOC's ICS operation "hands off" collect calls to its network-based operator services division for processing and that division assumes the responsibility and risk associated with billing and collecting for those calls, then the BOC is essentially providing ICS as a regulated service and is still subsidizing that service, contrary to the prohibition in section 276. 80. In response, NYNEX contends that its CEI plan shows that NYNEX will provide ICS on a deregulated basis, as required by the Commission and by section 276. NYNEX further contends that the underlying network services used to interconnect NYNEX's ICS are available on a tariffed basis to all PSPs under the same prices, terms, and conditions. Although the equipment used to provide NYNEX's ICS is presently located on the customers' premises, NYNEX contends that it is permitted to locate such equipment within its switching centers without providing such collocation capability to nonaffiliated carriers. NYNEX asserts that no network based functionalities used for fraud control and validation in the context of ICS will be uniquely available to NYNEX's PSP operations. With respect to uncollectibles, NYNEX asserts that its treatment of uncollectibles will be the same for calls that originate on NYNEX ICS payphones and other pay telephones. 81. Section 276 specifically defines payphone service to include the provision of inmate telephone service in correctional institutions. In the Reconsideration Order, we clarified that the requirements of the Payphone Order apply to inmate payphones that were deregulated in an earlier order. Thus, NYNEX is required to reclassify as unregulated assets all of its payphone assets related to its provision of ICS, with the exception of the loops connecting the inmate telephones to the network, the central office "coin service" used to provide the ICS, and the operator service facilities used to support the ICS. In addition, NYNEX is required to offer on a tariffed basis any basic payphone service or network feature used by its payphone operations to provide ICS. 82. We conclude that NYNEX's CEI plan comports with our CEI requirements with respect to its provision of ICS. NYNEX avers that it will deregulate all of its payphone equipment, including that used for ICS, and that the underlying network services used to interconnect NYNEX's ICS are available on a tariffed basis to all PSPs under the same terms, prices, and conditions. As previously noted, NYNEX will use its newly-tariffed Inmate PAL service to provide inmate calling services. Although we agree with ICSPC that any call processing and call control equipment related to NYNEX provision of ICS must be reclassified as deregulated CPE, regardless of whether that equipment is located in a customer premises or a NYNEX central office, NYNEX represents that it has done so. We also note that NYNEX has committed to make any network-based functionalities it uses for its provision of ICS available to all PSPs on a nondiscriminatory basis. More specifically, NYNEX states that PSPs can obtain the same fraud control and CLEC validation information available to NYNEX through NYNEX's LIDB database. In the alternative, a PSP can obtain such information via NYNEX's Operator Services, which NYNEX offers to all carriers on a tariffed basis. We find no support in the Payphone Order or Reconsideration Order for ICSPC's contention that NYNEX is required to provide collect calling as a nonregulated service when used with inmate payphones. 83. We conclude that the other issues raised by ICSPC related to the provision of ICS either have already been addressed in this Order or are beyond the scope of this proceeding. We find that there is no requirement in the Commission's rules, and the ICSPC has cited no authority, that obligates NYNEX to allow collocation of nonaffiliated providers' call processing and call control equipment in a central office. As previously noted, the issue of NYNEX's treatment of uncollectibles will be addressed in the review of NYNEX's CAM. Finally, with regard to the disclosure of interface information, we have already concluded that NYNEX's CEI plan comports with the Commission's network information disclosure requirements. 9. Primary Interexchange Carrier Selection 84. Oncor asserts that, in order for NYNEX's CEI plan to comply with the "spirit" of the Commission's CEI requirements, the plan must address various issues concerning the payphone primary interexchange carrier (PIC) selection process. AT&T also asserts that NYNEX's CEI plan should describe how NYNEX will ensure that the PIC selection process for payphones will be performed on a nondiscriminatory basis. In reply, NYNEX contends that the PIC selection issue is outside the scope of this CEI proceeding. It also represents that it will process all customers' PIC selections in a nondiscriminatory manner. 85. We conclude that NYNEX is not required as part of the CEI process to demonstrate how it will administer the PIC selection process for payphones. In the Payphone Order, the Commission specified that a BOC's CEI plan must describe how it will conform to the CEI parameters with respect to the specific payphone services it intends to offer and how it will unbundle those basic payphone services. The payphone rulemaking proceeding, however, did not require the BOCs to describe how they will administer the PIC selection process in their CEI plans, as requested by AT&T and Oncor. Therefore, arguments raised by parties regarding NYNEX's role as PIC administrator are beyond the scope of this proceeding. 10. Call Rating 86. APCC contends that, in order to meet the Commission's CEI requirements, NYNEX must provide a coin line service that allows unaffiliated PSPs to set their own end user rates for local and intraLATA calls, as well as to establish the length of initial and overtime periods. APCC therefore requests the Commission to require NYNEX to develop a more flexible rating feature for its coin line service. NYNEX responds that call rating is not a CEI plan review issue. We agree. The Payphone Order did not require the BOCs to provide to unaffiliated PSPs an unbundled call rating feature for coin line services. In addition, on reconsideration of the Payphone Order, in response to a request that the Commission require access to, inter alia, call rating capabilities, the Commission specifically declined to require further unbundling of payphone services beyond those established in the Payphone Order. As previously noted, independent PSPs may seek additional unbundling through the 120-day ONA process. State regulatory commissions also may impose further unbundling requirements. 11. Selection of Operator Services Provider 87. APCC requests that the Commission require NYNEX to amend its CEI plan to provide that all nonemergency operator assisted calls will be sent to the provider selected by the PSP. APCC argues that, under section 276, PSPs are entitled to select the operator service provider (OSP) for intraLATA calls, including local, operator-assisted calls, and therefore that, to the extent NYNEX does not permit OSP selection for its coin line service, its CEI plan is inconsistent with section 276. NYNEX responds that this issue is outside of the scope of this proceeding. NYNEX also represents that it will comply with the OSP selection requirements established in the Payphone Orders. We concur with NYNEX that APCC's request goes beyond the scope of this proceeding, which is limited to determining whether NYNEX's CEI plan complies with the Commission's Computer III CEI requirements. 12. Interim Compensation Scheme 88. Telco argues that apart from the numerous deficiencies in NYNEX's CEI plan, the Commission should refrain from allowing NYNEX or any BOC to participate in the interim compensation scheme outlined in the Payphone Order. We find that this argument is beyond the scope of this CEI proceeding. Moreover, the interim compensation rules were addressed at length in the payphone rulemaking proceeding. 13. Semi-Public Service Issues 89. APCC maintains that, to the extent that NYNEX's payphone operations continue to offer a "semi-public-like" payphone service that involves charging location providers for lines and usage on their payphones, NYNEX must disclose how such a service will be supported by its network operations and how charges for the service will be treated on the subscriber's bill. We find these semi-public service issues to be beyond the scope of the CEI review process. 14. Miscellaneous Other Issues 90. IPANY raises other issues relating to NYNEX's payphone operations. IPANY claims that NYNEX's CEI plan must be amended to reflect that any commissions paid to NYNEX's payphone operations must be made available on the same basis to non-affiliated PSPs. IPANY also contends that NYNEX's CEI plan must address NYNEX's accounting treatment for the cost of a conduit connection between a manhole and a public payphone pedestal. We find that these issues are beyond the scope of this proceeding. V. CONCLUSION 91. We conclude that NYNEX's CEI plan for its payphone services complies with the Commission's Computer III requirements. Accordingly, in this Order, we approve NYNEX's CEI plan to offer payphone service, as described herein. We also grant NYNEX a waiver of the testing requirement for the provision of its Smart PAL service as described above. VI. ORDERING CLAUSE 92. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 201, 202, 203, 205, 218, 222, and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i) and (j), 201, 202, 203, 205, 218, 222, and 276, and authority delegated thereunder pursuant to Sections 0.91, 0.291 and 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, and 1.3, NYNEX's Comparably Efficient Interconnection Plan to Payphone Services Providers IS APPROVED, subject to the requirements and conditions provided herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION A. Richard Metzger, Jr. Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau