[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 
[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