[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 21, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2991-2996]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-1389]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
dconway@fcc.gov, and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB,
725-17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to
fain__t@al.eop.gov.
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 dconway@fcc.gov.
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 dconway@fcc.gov and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk
Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725--17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20503 or
via the Internet to fain__t@al.eop.gov.
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
