Implementation of the Non-Accounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 53

[CC Docket No. 96-149, FCC 96-489]

Implementation of the Non-Accounting Safeguards of Sections 271

and 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On December 24, 1996, the Commission released a First Report

and Order which is published elsewhere in this issue. On the same day,

the Commission adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM)

seeking comment on proposed disclosure requirements to implement

section 272(e)(1). The intended effect of this FNPRM is to further the

Commission's goal of fostering competition in the telecommunications

market.

DATES: Comments are due on or before February 19, 1997 and Reply

Comments are due on or before March 21, 1997. Written comments by the

public on the proposed and/or modified information collections are due

February 19, 1997. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified information

collections on or before March 24, 1977.

ADDRESSES: Comments and reply comments should be sent to Office of the

Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room

222, Washington, D.C. 20554, with a copy to Janice Myles of the Common

Carrier Bureau, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 544, Washington, D.C. 20554.

Parties should also file one copy of any documents filed in this docket

with the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription

Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037.

In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any

comments on the information collections contained herein should be

submitted to Dorothy Conway, Federal Communications Commission, Room

234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to

[email protected], and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB,

725-17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to

[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Radhika Karmarker, Attorney, Common

Carrier Bureau, Policy and Program Planning Division, (202) 418-1580.

For additional information concerning the information collections

contained in this FNPRM contact Dorothy Conway at 202-418-0217, or via

the Internet at [email protected].

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

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted December 23, 1996 and

released December 24, 1996 (FCC 96-489). This FNPRM contains proposed

or modified information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (PRA). It has been submitted to the OMB for review under

the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are

invited to comment on the proposed or modified information collections

contained in this proceeding. The full text of this FNPRM is available

for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M St., NW., Washington, DC. The

complete text also may be obtained through the World Wide Web, at

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common Carrier/Orders/fcc96489.wp, or may be

purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International

Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M St., NW., Suite

140, Washington, DC 20037.

Paperwork Reduction Act: This FNPRM contains either a proposed or

modified information collection. The Commission, as part of its

continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general

public and OMB to comment on the information collections contained in

this FNPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public

Law No. 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same time as

other comments on this NPRM; OMB notification of action is due March

24, 1997. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection

of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions

of the Commission, including whether the information shall have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden

estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the

collection of information on the respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or other forms of information

technology.

OMB Approval Number: 3060-0736.

Title: Implementation of the Non-Accounting Safeguards of Sections

271 and 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

[[Page 2992]]

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

Estimated Total

Number of time per annual

Information collection respondents response burden

(approximate) (hours) (hours)

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

Service interval disclosure

(information disclosure

requirement)...................... 5 24 120

Annual affidavit................... 5 .5 2.5

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

Total Annual Burden: 122.5 hours.

Respondents: Business or other for profit.

Estimated costs per respondent: $0.

Needs and Uses: The FNPRM seeks comment on a number of issues, the

result of which could lead to the imposition of information

collections. The FNPRM seeks comment on certain reporting requirements

to implement the non-accounting nondiscrimination requirements of

Section 272(e)(1) of the Communications Act.

Synopsis of Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Information Disclosure Requirements Under Section 272(e)(1)

1. Background

Section 272(e)(1) states that BOCs ``shall fulfill any requests

from an unaffiliated entity for telephone exchange service and exchange

access within a period no longer than the period in which it provides

such telephone exchange service and exchange access to itself or to its

affiliates.'' In the NPRM, we sought comment on how to implement

section 272(e)(1) and specifically inquired whether reporting

requirements for service intervals analogous to those imposed by

Computer III and ONA would be sufficient. We concluded above, in Part

VI.A, that specific public disclosure requirements are necessary to

implement section 272(e)(1) effectively. We also noted that the record

does not provide sufficient detail for us to determine whether the

current ONA disclosure requirements are suitable for assessing

compliance with section 272(e)(1), or whether requirements are suitable

for assessing compliance with section 272(e)(1), or whether another

proposal, such as AT&T's proposed reporting requirements, would be a

better approach.

2. Comments

AT&T, Teleport, and MCI support the imposition of reporting

requirements to implement section 272(e)(1) and argue that the existing

ONA installation and maintenance reporting requirements are

insufficient. AT&T suggests, for example, that the service interval

reporting requirements established in the ONA proceeding measure

average response times, and would not provide an adequate mechanism for

determining whether a BOC is complying with section 272(e)(1).

AT&T proposes a reporting scheme that is based on measures it

currently uses to monitor the quality of access services provided to it

by LECs. AT&T proposes that the BOCs report data in eleven categories,

most of which are broken down into subcategories according to the type

of access service provided. AT&T's proposal includes relatively

specific units of measure for these categories, such as, for example,

the percentage of circuits installed within each successive twenty-four

hour period, until a ninety-five percent installation level is reached.

According to AT&T, LECs currently track information in these categories

to monitor the service they provide to AT&T.

Teleport proposes a reporting format that includes eight service

categories for both installation and service performance. MCI proposes

categories based on those used in Automated Reporting Management

Information Systems (ARMIS), including additional categories for

billing disputes and payment intervals. MCI proposes quarterly

reporting broken down among the BOC, its affiliate, and all other

unaffiliated entities.

The BOCs oppose AT&T's proposal. Bell Atlantic, for instance,

states that some of the categories in AT&T's proposal ask for

information beyond the information AT&T currently requests from the

BOCs. Bell Atlantic further argues that AT&T improperly proposes that

the BOCs report on intermediate checkpoints that do not provide

information on the ultimate timeliness of the BOCs' provision of

service. Several BOCs argue that the information AT&T seeks is already

available in existing ARMIS reports. Ameritech opposes the monthly

updates proposed by AT&T, favoring quarterly updates instead. Ameritech

opposes reporting that would provide detail below a BOC's total service

region. Ameritech favors consolidating AT&T's DS0 subcategories into a

single DS0 category. PacTel argues that the disclosure of the absolute

number of requests placed by its affiliate would reveal competitively

sensitive information, and that disclosure of relative data, such as

the percentage of missed appointments and average time intervals, would

provide sufficient information to monitor BOC behavior.

BOCs also oppose Teleport's proposal. PacTel disagrees with

Teleport's suggestion that BOCs provide data for each exchange area in

their territory. PacTel also indicates that reporting on DS0 as a

separate category would unfairly disadvantage the one interexchange

carrier that dominates the DS0 market.

While the BOCs generally oppose reporting requirements, they state

that, if the Commission imposes a reporting requirement, the ONA format

should be utilized because it is currently in place and is well-

understood. PacTel provides an example of a modified ONA report that

reflects the services provided to interLATA telecommunications

providers. Ameritech indicates that it would not oppose a reporting

requirement that compares data for BOC affiliates with aggregated data

for all unaffiliated carriers.

3. Discussion

In order to implement section 272(e)(1) effectively, we concluded

that the BOCs must make publicly available the intervals within which

they provide service to their affiliates. We concluded that, without

this requirement, competitors will not have the information they

require to evaluate whether the BOCs are fulfilling their requests for

telephone exchange service and exchange access in compliance with

section 272(e)(1).

Method of information disclosure. In requiring the BOCs to disclose

information regarding the service intervals within which they provide

telephone exchange service and exchange access, we seek to avoid

imposing any unnecessary administrative burdens on the BOCs,

unaffiliated entities, and the Commission. Consequently, we tentatively

conclude that the BOCs need not submit directly to the Commission the

data that must be disclosed under section 272(e)(1). Instead, we

tentatively conclude that, upon receiving permission to provide

interLATA services pursuant to section 271, each BOC must submit a

signed affidavit stating: (1) the BOC will maintain the required

information in a standardized format; (2) the information will be

updated in compliance with our rules; (3) the information will be

maintained accurately; and (4) how the public will be able to access

the information. We

[[Page 2993]]

tentatively conclude that, if a BOC makes any material change in the

manner in which the information covered by the affidavit is made

available to the public, it must submit an updated affidavit within 30

days of the change. Further, we tentatively conclude that each BOC must

submit an annual affidavit each year thereafter, affirming that the BOC

has complied with the four requirements set out above during the

preceding year. We note that, in order to address potential complaints

alleging discrimination pursuant to section 272(e)(1), the BOCs are

likely to maintain information regarding the service they provide to

their affiliates and to unaffiliated entities, regardless of whether

they must disseminate such information publicly or file it with the

Commission. Therefore, we tentatively conclude that maintaining this

information for public dissemination will not impose a significant

additional burden on the BOCs. We seek comment on the foregoing

tentative conclusions.

We tentatively conclude that the BOCs must make such information

available to the public in at least one of their business offices

during regular business hours, and must include this information in

their annual affidavits. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

We seek comment on whether this information should also be available

electronically. For example, we seek comment on whether the BOCs should

make this information available on the Internet, or whether the

information should be available through another electronic mechanism.

We also seek comment on other methods to facilitate the access and use

of this information by unaffiliated entities, including small entities.

Service categories and units of measure. We seek comment on whether

the BOCs should maintain the information described below in a

standardized format, and seek comment on whether the format in the

attachment would be appropriate. Parties favoring an alternative format

should submit examples of their proposals.

We seek comment on whether we should require the BOCs to maintain

information in the following service categories: (1) successful

completion according to desired due date, measured in a percentage; (2)

time from the BOC-promised due date to circuit being placed in service,

measured in terms of the percentage installed within each successive

twenty-four hour period until ninety-five percent complete; (3) time to

firm order confirmation, measured in terms of the percentage received

within each successive twenty-four hour period until ninety-five

percent complete; (4) time from PIC change requests to implementation,

measured in terms of percentage implemented within each successive six

hour period until ninety-five percent complete; (5) time to restore and

trouble duration, measured in terms of the percentage restored within

each successive one hour interval until ninety-five percent of

incidents are resolved; (6) time to restore PIC after trouble incident,

measured by percentage restored within each successive one hour

interval until ninety-five percent restored; and (7) mean time to clear

network and the average duration of trouble, measured in hours. We seek

comment on whether any additional categories proposed by commenters

should be included.

We have sought comment on whether the BOCs should disclose the

interval between the due date promised by the BOC and the time a

circuit is actually placed in service, measured in terms of the

percentage of circuits installed within each successive twenty-four

hour period. We have sought comment on a category that differs from

AT&T's proposed category, which would measure a BOC's response time in

relation to a customer's desired due date, because we recognize that

the BOCs have no control over a customer's requested due date. We have

proposed this category because the BOCs have control over the due date

they promise at the time an order is placed. Further, the amount of

delay in installing a circuit, and not just whether a due date was

missed, may be a significant source of difficulty to a customer.

Because our service category differs from the service category proposed

by AT&T, we seek comment on whether any corresponding changes to the

unit of measure are warranted.

We seek comment on whether we should require the BOCs to disclose

the BOC-promised due date itself, i.e., the length of the interval

promised by the BOCs to their affiliates at the time an order is

placed. Parties favoring such a disclosure should provide a detailed

description of the appropriate unit of measure and level of aggregation

for these disclosures.

We seek comment on whether our proposed service categories and

units of measure for these categories are more appropriate to implement

section 272(e)(1) than the categories currently included in the ONA

installation and maintenance reports or than PacTel's proposed

modification of ONA installation and maintenance reports. Our proposal

addresses the provision of exchange access to interLATA service

providers, unlike ONA reports, which address the provision of ONA

unbundled elements to enhanced service providers. The units of measure

in our proposal are more precise than the ONA intervals. We therefore

seek comment on whether these measures will provide a better guide for

unaffiliated entities and the Commission to determine whether the BOCs

are complying with section 272(e)(1).

We recognize that our proposal is patterned after arrangements

regarding the provision of access between interexchange carriers and

LECs. We seek comment on whether these categories will also provide

sufficient information to ISPs, and whether our proposal is sufficient

to implement the nondiscriminatory provision of telephone exchange

service in accordance with section 272(e)(1).

We do not believe that the requirements proposed here will impose a

significant additional administrative burden on the BOCs, particularly

because under our existing price cap rules, the BOCs must track service

intervals for end-users as part of their service quality reporting

requirements. Nevertheless, we seek comment on whether, and to what

extent, the industry or state regulators currently collect data using

the service categories and units of measure included in our proposal,

and the need for the BOCs to modify their current tracking systems to

comply with our proposal.

Several BOCs argue that extensive reporting of their affiliates'

requests could cause competitive harm to their affiliates.

Specifically, PacTel argues that relative data such as the percentage

of missed appointments and average time intervals provide sufficient

information to monitor BOC behavior, and that the disclosure of

absolute figures for the number of orders placed by an affiliate would

reveal competitively sensitive proprietary information. We seek comment

on whether our proposal, which uses percentages and averages and does

not require disclosure of the absolute number of BOC affiliate

requests, adequately protects the competitive interests of BOC

affiliates. Any party favoring other levels of aggregation should

provide a specific alternative proposal and explain why that

alternative proposal is sufficient to implement section 272(e)(1). The

party should also explain how its alternative proposal addresses

commenters' concerns regarding the inadequacy of ONA installation and

maintenance reporting requirements.

Frequency of Updates and Length of Retention. We seek comment on

how

[[Page 2994]]

often the BOCs should be required to update the data that they must

maintain. For example, we seek comment on whether the BOCs should

update the data quarterly or monthly. Parties should substantiate their

positions by comparing the amount of underlying data used to produce

ONA reports or other reports that are prepared on a quarterly basis,

with the amount of data that will be used to produce the information in

our proposal. We also seek comment on how long the BOCs must retain the

data that they must maintain.

Levels of Aggregation. Because section 272(e)(1) states that the

BOCs must fulfill requests for unaffiliated entities in the period of

time that the BOCs provide service to ``itself or to its affiliates,''

we seek comment on whether the BOCs should aggregate their own requests

and the requests of all of their affiliates for each service category,

or whether they should maintain data for each affiliate and themselves

separately. We seek comment on whether the BOCs should maintain

separate data for each state in their service regions. Parties favoring

other levels of aggregation, such as by BOC region, or by exchange

area, should provide detailed support for their proposals.

We seek comment on whether the BOCs should provide the information

required in service categories four and six, described above, by

carrier identification code (CIC). We seek comment on whether the BOCs

should provide the information required by service category seven in

two subcategories: DS1 Non-Channelized and DS0. We seek comment on

whether information in all other service categories should be broken

down into three subcategories: DS3, DS1, and DS0. We also seek comment

on whether, in the alternative, we should further divide the DS0

subcategory into DS0 Voice Grade and DS0 Digital, as suggested by AT&T.

Consistency with other reporting requirements. We seek comment on

the extent of overlap, if any, between the disclosure requirements we

propose in this Further NPRM and reporting currently required by state

commissions. We also seek comment on whether the information provided

under ARMIS form 43-05 provides sufficient information to implement

section 272(e)(1), as several BOCs suggest, or whether further

disaggregation of the ARMIS service categories is necessary, as MCI

suggests. Parties that favor relying on ARMIS data alone, rather than

imposing an information disclosure requirement under section 272(e)(1),

should explain why ARMIS reports are sufficient, given that ARMIS

reports must be filed on an annual basis and that they focus on

services provided to the end-user, rather than services provided

between carriers. Any parties contending that sufficient information to

enforce section 272(e)(1) is available from other sources should

explain, in detail, the categories and units of measure included in

these alternative sources as compared with our proposal. Finally, we

note that much of Teleport's proposal appears directed toward the

implementation of local competition by incumbent LECs, and therefore

does not address service intervals provided by the BOCs. Teleport has

raised many of these same proposals in its petition for reconsideration

of the First Interconnection Order 61 FR 45476 (August 29, 1996). We

tentatively conclude, therefore, that we should limit the scope of the

proposals considered in this docket to requirements necessary to

implement the service interval requirements of section 272(e)(1). We

seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

B. Procedural Matters

1. Ex Parte Presentations

This is a non-restricted notice-and-comment rulemaking proceeding.

Ex parte presentations are permitted, in accordance with the

Commission's rules, provided that they are disclosed as required.

2. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, (RFA) as amended,

requires an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in notice-and-

comment rulemaking proceedings, unless we certify that ``the rule will

not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a

significant number of small entities.'' A ``small entity'' is an entity

that is ``independently owned and operated, * * * not dominant in its

field of operation,'' and meets any additional criteria established by

the Small Business Administration (SBA). SBA regulations define small

telecommunications entities in SIC code 4813 (Telephone Companies

Except Radio Telephone) as entities with fewer than 1,500 employees.

This proceeding pertains to the BOCs which, because they are dominant

in their field of operation and have more than 1,500 employees, do not

qualify as small entities under the RFA. We now note as well that none

of the BOCs is a small entity because each BOC is an affiliate of a

Regional Holding Company (RHC), and all of the BOCs or their RHCs have

more than 1,500 employees. We therefore certify, pursuant to section

605(b) of the RFA, that the rules, if promulgated, will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Secretary shall send a copy of this Further NPRM, including this

certification and statement, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration. A copy of this certification will also

be published in the Federal Register.

3. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

This Further NPRM contains either a proposed or modified

information collection. As part of its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the

information collections contained in this Further NPRM, as required by

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law No. 104-13. Public and

agency comments are due at the same time as other comments on this

Further NPRM; OMB comments are due 60 days from date of publication of

this NPRM in the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether

the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality,

utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of information on the

respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

4. Comment Filing Procedures

Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and

1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Secs. 1.415, 1.419, interested

parties may file comments on or before February 19, 1997, and reply

comments on or before March 21, 1997. To file formally in this

proceeding, you must file an original and six copies of all comments,

reply comments, and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner

to receive a personal copy of your comments, you must file an original

and eleven copies. Comments and reply comments should be sent to Office

of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street,

NW., Room 222, Washington, DC 20554, with a copy to Janice Myles of the

Common Carrier Bureau, 1919 M Street, NW., Room 544,

[[Page 2995]]

Washington, DC., 20554. Parties should also file one copy of any

documents filed in this docket with the Commission's copy contractor,

International Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite

140, Washington, DC 20037. Comments and reply comments will be

available for public inspection during regular business hours in the

FCC Reference Center, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 239, Washington, DC

20554.

Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise

summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments

and reply comments must also comply with Section 1.49 and all other

applicable sections of the Commission's Rules. We also direct all

interested parties to include the name of the filing party and the date

of the filing on each page of their comments and reply comments. All

parties are encouraged to utilize a table of contents, regardless of

the length of their submission. Parties may not file more than a total

of ten (10) pages of ex parte submissions, excluding cover letters.

This 10 page limit does not include: (1) written ex parte filings made

solely to disclose an oral ex parte contact; (2) written material

submitted at the time of an oral presentation to Commission staff that

provides a brief outline of the presentation; or (3) written materials

filed in response to direct requests from Commission staff. Ex parte

filings in excess of this limit will not be considered as part of the

record in this proceeding.

Parties are also asked to submit comments and reply comments on

diskette. Such diskette submissions would be in addition to and not a

substitute for the formal filing requirements addressed above. Parties

submitting diskettes should submit them to Janice Myles of the Common

Carrier Bureau, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 544, Washington, D.C., 20554.

Such a submission should be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in an IBM

compatible form using MS DOS 5.0 and WordPerfect 5.1 software. The

diskette should be submitted in ``read only'' mode. The diskette should

be clearly labelled with the party's name, proceeding, type of pleading

(comment or reply comments) and date of submission. The diskette should

be accompanied by a cover letter.

Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified

information collections are due February 19, 1997, and reply comments

must be submitted not later than March 21, 1997. Written comments must

be submitted by the OMB on the proposed and/or modified information

collections on or before 60 days after date of publication in the

Federal Register. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a

copy of any comments on the information collections contained herein

should be submitted to Dorothy Conway, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20554, or

via the Internet to [email protected] and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk

Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725--17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20503 or

via the Internet to [email protected].

C. Ordering Clauses

It is further ordered that pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4, 201-205,

215, 218, 220, 271, 272, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934,

as amended, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 151, 152, 154, 201-205, 215, 218, 220, 271,

272, and 303(r) the further notice of proposed rulemaking is adopted.

The collections of information contained within are contingent upon

approval by the Office of Management and Budget.

It is further ordered that the Secretary shall send a copy of this

further notice of proposed rulemaking, including the regulatory

flexibility certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration, in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of

the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Secs. 601 et seq.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 53

Bell Operating Companies, Communications common carriers, InterLATA

services, Separate affiliate safeguards, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

Attachment.--Format for Information Disclosures Pursuant to Section 272(e)(1)

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

Service category Types of access Outcome for BOC and BOC affiliates

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

(1) Successful Completion According DS3 and above. ....................................

to Desired Due Date (measured in a DS1.

percentage). DS0.

(2) Time from BOC Promised Due Date DS3 and above. ....................................

to Circuit being placed in service DS1.

(measured in terms of percentage DS0.

installed within each successive 24

hour period, until 95% installation

completed).

(3) Time to Firm Order Confirmation DS3 and above. ....................................

(measured in terms of percentage DS1.

received within each successive 24 DS0.

hour period, until 95% completed).

(4) Time from PIC Change request to By CIC (10XXX). ....................................

implementation (measured in terms

of percentage implemented within

each successive 6 hour period,

until 95% completed).

(5) Time to Restore and trouble DS3 and above. ....................................

duration (percentage restored DS1.

within each successive 1 hour DS0.

interval, until resolution of 95%

of incidents).

(6) Time to restore PIC after By CIC (10XXX). ....................................

trouble incident (measured by

percentage restored within each

successive 1 hour interval, until

resolution of 95% restored).

(7) Mean time to clear network / DS1 Non-Channelized.

average duration of trouble DS0.

(measured in hours).

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

[[Page 2996]]

[FR Doc. 97-1389 Filed 1-17-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P