WPCe 2 BPZ Courier 10cpi3|wtx6X@8;X@HP LaserJet IIISi 518 LPT318 LPT2)HPLASIII.PRSx  @HQX@23<EL ZH3|w X-#Xj\  P6G;[hXP#HP LaserJet IIISi 518 LPT318 LPT2)HPLASIII.PRSX\  P6G;HQPCG Times (Scalable)CG Times Bold (Scalable)CG Times Italic (Scalable)2!vepkKka8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# 2|Svtna2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# 2Y  Q  a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# 2  J   a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2k + a1DocumentgDocument Style StyleXqq   l ^) I. ׃  Doc InitInitialize Document Style  0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgTech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2$ya6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2"Qa1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paperP@n   $] X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheading"0\ E A.  FOOTNOTEFootnote - Appearance#PHIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd$+. 2!%&'X}(1DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date% X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style off&@@    HEADERHeader A - Appearance'LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5( 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   29%)18!*1i"+1#,n$LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5)f 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11*L 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14+ 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a Document,K\ * ă2'-Xk%.%/iD&0d&FOOTERFooter A - Appearanced-BLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indented.N X HEADING 33rd Heading Level/| XHIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold Large0B*d. 2>,1jC'2'3E)4-+HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored1 V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/margins2u H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math Invoice3 ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page Format4D.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   2058p,68-7.8X0INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice5:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macro6z 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice7+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle82w29[ 1:[f1;[1<[2SMALLSmall Typestyle9FINEFine Typestyle:LARGELarge Typestyle;EXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle<275=[2>3?X4@X4VERY LARGEVery Large Typestyle=ENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header>+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   MACNormal?,.1@df2<Ai5B 6C6Dl;Style 14Swiss 8 Pt Without MarginsA$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5B$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IICJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/TabsD )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !2j?E&=F=G|N>H>Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsEDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 FontF4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5G$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 PointH$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO 2JI?J<@K@LEStyle 7Swiss 11.5I$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 PointJ$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for AdvancedK U )a [ PfQK  dddn  ##  [[ b, oT9 !b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  QN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8PfInitial Codes for BeginninggLi )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2VMKN!POp7UPqUStyle 9Initial Codes for IntermediateM )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 Њ [ e )^ `> XifQ ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   3 )^ `> XifQ Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jf )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`+ >Page  jX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 UpdateInitial Codes for Update ModuleN )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`7 CPage  jN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O gO` ` ` Document[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gP  . 2XQeJVReVSWTpWDocument[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gQ  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gR  Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gS*    Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gT  ` ` ` 2ZUIXVXWvYX ZRight Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gU8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gVA@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gW0     Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gXJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` 2]YZZ[[D\\]Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gYS` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gZ\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g[e` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g\n` ` `  hhh@  2`]]^^__` `Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g]w` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g^F    ׃  Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g_&!"  . Technical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g`&#$  . 29ca`b`acadbTechnical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O ga*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gb''(   Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gc&)*   Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gd4+$,     2Cfekcfcg udheTechnical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O ge&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gf&/0  . CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FilegW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded Documenthiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#2njiufjfk~gliifootnote tex#i'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#referencej;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1k&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2lI ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# 2lm}jnkokp8la1Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fm$ a2Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fn/ a3Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fo: a4Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FpE 2oqmrmsent$oa5Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FqP   a6Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fr[   a7Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Fsf  a8Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%Ftq 2qud pvrpwpxrq1, 2, 3, 6W6Numbers$1/$=('*'=d Eu .a2Agendava1AgendaAgenda Itemsw7D yP ) I. a3Agendax2uy,rzr{Us| sa1Ordery8X X-I.xa2OrderzAp X-xA.` ` a3Order{J* X-x` ` 1. a4Order|4 X- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. 1.(1)(a) i) a)I.x2Q}Iu~?vv{annotation rK&7>annotation referenceGw. "7>NGI "}OaOb#Xv P7XP##Xv P7XP#annotation tK&7>annotation textGw/ "7>NGI "~2c(d"Sh5^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoYi{xxxl888SS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS>A.SSxSSJJSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxSxSxSrSrSrS{SiSiSiSiSxSxSxSxSxS{S{SS.SSSSz]SSuSiSiSk2g/a{S{SxSxSxoSoSZ?YSYSiSiSiS{S{S{S{SxxSkI8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8JDDSSSSSS;SSSS;88VVS++SSffSSxSc]]8VS;"xxSxWxxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfi]f]oJiAlJ{SxJ8.uJo]]{JoSxJxf`SfSSiJxJofx]fffxi{8SxxxfJffff88SSSSx{SSSxxxf8`SJ8"Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYddddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdddddddd~d~d~d~ddddddddd8ddddoddd~d~d<|8tddddddlLkdkd~d~d~ddddddXCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"Ȑdhd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUvŐdȐYYCCCCŐz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC2C3"Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲdxN`xoȐCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddddddddCddddddddo8dddddϐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddxoddddddodddddddddood8doddrddoddN8ooddddoNododdddooooȐdYCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"Ȑdsd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ`ȐȐȮzȐUvŐdȐddCCCCŐzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC"Sh5^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx:J2J2H2H2YHC2C26&6262?2?2?2J2J2J2J2^HH2@,!22!!!WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHHH222!,))22X222YY2#2222Y#!!442Ydd22==Ld2d2H2;SS88Y!42^x#"ddddHHddd2Hdd4HHYYddd2YYddd Y2!!dddddH=dYHHHHHHHHHHx!d2H282YdHdC2!2H,29HNAddHHHHHHHHHHddddd.dHHHHdddddddddddddddddddHHddddddSC=NdHddd+;HHHHddddddHHH2HHdHHdddHHH,HHHH,HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!HHH!HHH!HHH!HHHHHHHHHHHHHH=?8=8C,?'A,J2H,!F,C8[8J,C2H,H=92=22?,H,C=H8N===H?J!2HHH=,====!!2222HJ222HHH=!92,!d"Sh5^18PSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Sddoxd`xx8Jo]oxdxdS]xdd]]888SS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSS??.SJoJJ?JSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.dSdSdSdSdSooJdJdJdJdJ8.8.8.8.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JdSxSxSxS]JxSdSdSdSdSoSoSoSxSdSdSdSdSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSS/SSSSSSSoS]S]S]/]/doSoSxSxSodSdSS?SSSS]S]S]SxSxSxSxSo]S]?8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8SMMSSSSSS;SSSS;88SSS..SSffSSxSYSS8SS;"xxSxSxxS哓S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SfS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxfff]f]oJfA]JxSxJ8.oJo]]oJoSxJxffSfSS]J]Joff]fffffx8Sx]]fJffff88SSSSfxSSS]]]f8`SJ821u%\՜F`"Sh5^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȰdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYddddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdddddxdxdxdxddddddddd8ddddddddododp8p8xddddxdxddLddddodododddddodpLCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddzzdddkddCddF"Ȑddd尰dCCȐzȰxCdzdodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUvŐdȐYYCCCCzzzozoYzNoYdYC8YooYdYzzdzddoYoYzzozzzzzCdoozYzzzzCCddddzdddooozCsdYC"Sh5^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88SxoxxodAPoxdx]oxxxxo888SS8S]J]J;S].8].]S]]JA8]SxSSJSSSSSSSSS8SSSSSSSS].xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSd]xSxSxSxSxSxSx]oSoSoSoSSSSSS]]S.S]SS_SS]oSoSoAo.x]x]SS{xSxS]A]S]SoSoSoSx]x]x]x]xxSoJ8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8SGGSSSSSS;SSSS;88``S++SSffSSxSi]]8`S;"xxSx`xxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xrxxxxxxxxxxPxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxSxxxxSxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfo]f]oJoAoJJxJA.Jo]]xJoSJxffSfSSoJxJofx]fffxoASxxfJffff88SSSSxSSSxxxf8fSJ8x/c81,c P7P8wC;,[hXw P7XP7zC;,sXz_ p^7XV"G($,hG P7hPH<!, ,< P7,P&z-b81,-b&_ x$&7X& 6uC;,-/3Xu&_ x$&7XXy.f81,f_ p^7  t Par[2]Eg%Right-ons#&Delete...!&Copy..."&Move/Rename...$&Find...2c X-  #Xw P[hXP#x` ` (2Before the  Federal Communications Commission  X-Washington, D.C. 20554#Xw P[hXP# ă x` `  hh@hpp  DA 962169  Y-In the Matter of hh@h)  Y- ` `  hh@h)ppCC Docket No. 9135  Yv-Policies and Rules Concerninghh@h)pp  Y_-Operator Service Access and hh@h)ppCCB/CPD File No. 9618  YH-Pay Telephone Compensationhh @h)ppCCB/CPD File No. 9625  Y1-x` `  hh@h)ppCCB/CPD File No. 9632  Y -Petitions Pertaining to Originatinghh@h)  Y -Line Screening Serviceshh@h) pp    X -  X -} MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Ã  xx 0(#(#X Y -x  Y- x` ` Adopted: December 20, 1996; Released: December 20, 1996 By the Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau:   Y5-#Xj P[hXP#EI. INTRODUCTION   Y-x` ` 1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we grant in part various requests by LECs to extend or waive the requirement that they file federal tariffs offering  Y-enhanced originating line screening ("OLS") service8 xPR-ԍxAutomatic numbering identification information indicators (ANI II) is a widely used technology that sends a twodigit OLS code along with ANI (which delivers the billing number for the originating line). Five  zP-OLS codes are currently available through this technology. See Policies and Rules Concerning Operator Service Access and Pay Telephone Compensation, CC Docket No. 9135, Third Report and Order, FCC No. 96131,  zPt-(rel. April 5, 1996) (Enhanced OLS Service Order), para. 19. Because ANI II includes an OLS code, it could  zP>-be referred to as "basic OLS service" The OLS service contemplated by the Enhanced OLS Service Order,  xP-however, provides far more information. With Flex ANI, for example, this "enhanced OLS service" can  zP-provide far more twodigit codes (0099) that indicate more clearly the nature of the originating line. Id., para. 17. by December 23, 1996. Specifically, we grant Southwestern Bell Telephone Company ("SWBT") and GTE Service Corporation ("GTE") their requested extensions from December 23, 1996, until February 28, 1997. We also grant the LECs listed in the Appendix an extension until August 1, 1997, to file such federal tariffs. Finally, as described below, we grant LECs an extension to file tariffs offering enhanced OLS service from any nondigital or nonequal access end offices until six  YO-months after the date the LEC receives a bona fide request (BFR) from an interexchange carrier ("IXC") or Operator Service Provider ("OSP") to receive enhanced OLS service from such a nondigital or nonequal access end office. " 0*0*0*" x` ` II. BACKGROUND  Y-x` ` 2. In the Enhanced OLS Service Order,#Z zPK-ԍxEnhanced OLS Service Order, para. 48. Both basic and enhanced OLS services provides an operator service provider ("OSP") or interexchange carrier ("IXC") with information concerning the subscriber's line from which a call originates. # the Commission required LECs to file federal tariffs offering certain enhanced OLS service no later than December 1, 1996.  Y-The Enhanced OLS Service Order provided that LECs could make such enhanced OLS  Y-service available through either flexible automatic numbering identification (Flex ANI)   xP, -ԍ xWhere a LEC's end office is equipped with Flex ANI, Flex ANI codes are automatically added to calls originating from that office. Generally, these codes come from a database within the end office that stores information about the access lines served by that office. This information includes a two digit code that  zP -identifies the nature of the location served by each access line (e.g., that the line serves a private pay telephone). On most calls, the Flex ANI information is automatically forwarded with each originating call through the LEC's network to the subscribing OSP or IXC. On certain calls that pass through LEC operator tandem switches, however, some LECs report that these Flex ANI codes are stripped and more basic codes are  zP-substituted. See, e.g, BellSouth Supplemental Petition at 24. Flex ANI is deemed "flexible" because new codes can be added to each end office database without the installation of new generic switch software.  or a  Yz-line information database (LIDB). z  xP-ԍ xLIDB is comprised of a variety of database services offered through regional databases called service control points (SCPs). Where LIDB is used to provide OLS service, the IXC or OSP queries the database upon receipt of a call and receives in response a two digit code that identifies the nature of the location served by the access line from which the call originates.  A number of LECs filed tariffs on or before December  Yc-1, 1996, offering enhanced OLS service.c zP-ԍxSee, e.g., Sprint Local Telephone Companies, Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Access Service, Trans. No. 16, (eff. Oct. 7, 1996). The Enhanced OLS Service Order further provided that a LEC could obtain a temporary waiver of the December 1, 1996, filing requirement if it demonstrated that it would not be "technically feasible or economically  Y -reasonable" to provide OLS service.^  zP-ԍ xEnhanced OLS Service Order, para. 27.^ In response to the large number of LECs seeking  Y -extension or other waiver of this filing requirement,Z  zPL-ԍxSee Commission Seeks Comment on Petitions Regarding Requirements to Offer Originating Line  zP -Screening and Other Services, CCB/CPD File No. 9618, Public Notice, DA 961166 (rel. July 19, 1996) (July  zP -Notice). In the July Notice, we sought comment on a petition for clarification or, in the alternative,  zP!-reconsideration of the Enhanced OLS Service Order . MCI's petition will be addressed in a subsequent order.  zPt"-See also,  Commission Seeks Comment on Recent Petitions Regarding Originating Line Screening Services,  zP>#-CCB/CPD File No. 9625, Public Notice, DA 961763 (rel. Oct. 24, 1996) (October Notice); and Recent  zP$-Petitions for Waiver of Tariff Requirements for Originating Line Screening Services and Ex Parte Status of  zP$-Related Proceeding, CCB/CPD File No. 9632, Public Notice, DA 962038 (rel. Dec. 5, 1996) (December  zP%-Notice). On December 13, 1996, the Competitive Pricing Division denied a request for extension of the  zPf&-pleading cycle established in the December Notice. Cameron Telephone Company Motion for Extension of Time Denied, CCB/CPD File No. 9632, Public Notice, DA 962107 (rel. Dec.13, 1996). On December 16,"0'0*(('"  zP-1996, following release of the December Notice, Copper Valley Telephone Cooperative and seven other LECs filed a request for waiver of the December 1, 1996, tariff deadline. More recently, on December 19, 1996, Accipiter Communications, Inc., and 16 other LECs filed a petition for waiver of that tariff deadline. we granted requesting LECs on" 0*(( " November 29, 1996, an extension until December 23, 1996, in order to permit further  Y-consideration of the questions raised.+Z zP-ԍx See Policies and Rules Concerning Operator Service and Pay Telephone Compensation, Petitions Pertaining to Originating Line Screening Services, CC Docket No. 9135, CCB/CPD File Nos. 9618 and 9625, Order, DA No. 962000 (rel. Nov. 29, 1996).+  x` ` ]oIII. EXTENSIONS OF TIME AND WAIVERS TO PROVIDE ENHANCED OLS x` ` SERVICE  Yv-A. xPleadings x` `  YH-x` ` 3. LECs petitioning for an extension or other waiver of the December 1, 1996, tariff deadline raise a number of different issues regarding the technical feasibility and  Y -economic reasonableness of compliance with that tariffing requirement.] @  xP-ԍ xOne company, Vitelco, bases its petition for an indefinite waiver on both of these grounds. Vitelco asserts that its switches are unable to support Flex ANI technology. Vitelco maintains that "to replace switches for the exclusive purpose of obtaining Flex ANI capability is cost prohibitive." Vitelco Petition at 2. With respect to LIDB, Vitelco states that its network currently does not include an originating connection to LIDB, and that because "the Virgin Islands are an insular service area, the cost to provide an originating link to a  xP-regional LIDB database located in the continental U.S. would be a great burden for a company [its] size." Id. at 3. Vitelco's petition does not state an intention to comply with the requirement at a future date or upon receipt of a BFR.] Some LECs that have chosen to use LIDB to comply with the tariff requirement claim that it is not technically feasible for them to provide OLS service because their LIDB providers do not yet offer this service. Accordingly, these LECs request extensions until their providers develop the ability  Y -to offer LIDBbased OLS service.   xP-ԍ xCameron Petition at 12 (citing Illuminet Comments at 3); Northeast Louisiana Petition at 3; Lafourche Petition at 14; Matanuska Petition at 2; Illinois Consolidated Petition at 23; St. Joseph Petition at 23; Dubois Petition at 12; NECA Petition at 35; Rochester/Frontier Petition at 24; RTC Petition at 12; GVNW First Petition at 45; GTE Petition at 13; and Copper Valley Petition at 12. For example, many petitioning LECs contract with Illuminet to provide LIDB, but Illuminet does not anticipate making OLS service available to its  zPk -LIDB customers until October 1997. Illuminet (October Notice) Comments at 3. Other LECs contend their LIDB provider has decided  Y -not to provide OLS service and seek additional time to formulate their plans.R  xP"-ԍ xCathey Hutton Comments at 2, 5.R In addition,  Y-some LECs simply seek more time to implement LIDBbased OLS service.  xP_%-ԍ xPacific Petition at 25; US West Petition at 15; SWBT Petition at 13; GTE Petition at 13. Finally, some LECs that intend to use LIDB to provide OLS service if required seek waiver pending"y 0*((;"  Y-receipt of a BFR to provide OLS service.  zPy-ԍxSee, e.g., U S West Amended Petition at 45; Pacific/Nevada Petition at 2.  Y-x` ` 4. Among LECs that have chosen to use Flex ANI, some contend that  Y-they need more time to make Flex ANI available on some or all of their switches.hZ xP-ԍ xAliant Petition at 12; Star Telephone Petition at 1.h Like the LECs choosing LIDB, some of these LECS seek waivers asserting that it is not yet economically reasonable for them to offer OLS service and argue that the Commission should  Yv-waive the tariff filing requirement until the LEC receives a BFR to provide it. v xP -ԍ xSWBT Petition at 3; Pacific Telecom Petition at 13; GVNW Second Petition at 13; Ameritech Petition at 13; PRTC Petition at 34; NYNEX Petition at 2; and Sprint LECs Petition at 2. Moreover, SNET contends that because Connecticut prohibits private payphones in its service area, it is excused from the December 1, 1996, tariff until such time as it receives a BFR. SNET Petition at 3. Although the specific bases for petition vary, the common justification for such petitions is that the cost of adding Flex ANI to some or all of their end offices solely to provide the required OLS  Y1-service is prohibitive."1 xP-ԍxThe LECs' projected peroffice cost of upgrading the switches and installing Flex ANI varies widely. Whereas Flex ANI technology is installed one end office at a time, LIDB requires implementation of technology companywide. The cost of installing "companywide" LIDB is nevertheless lower per end office than that of upgrading switches to facilitate Flex ANI. SNET estimates full implementation of Flex ANI would cost $1.7 million and that LIDBOLS service would cost $400,000. SNET Petition at 4. USTA maintains that carriers that do not have Flex ANI software resident in their switches could incur costs of up to $100,000 per switch to install it. Even where Flex ANI software is resident in the switch, the activation cost per switch is less than $10,000, USTA still contends it would not be economically reasonable to require such carriers to activate Flex  zP-ANI to offer OLS service if demand for this service is low or nonexistent. USTA (October Notice) Comments at 2. " Some of the LECs that already have Flex ANI installed at some of their end offices submit that the limited demand for OLS service demonstrates that it would not be economically reasonable to require upgrade of their remaining offices in order to  Y -install Flex ANI unless and until a BFR for OLS service is received.  l xP -ԍ xAmeritech maintains that it has installed Flex ANI in 400 of its 671 end offices, but has received only 34 requests for OLS service all from the same interexchange carrier. Ameritech Petition at 13. PRTC contends that it has installed Flex ANI in 7 of its 32 central offices and has not yet received a single request for OLS service. Likewise, BellSouth maintains that it has converted 752 of 880 of its end office switches to provide  zP) -Flex ANI, but it has never received a request for OLS service. BellSouth (October Notice) Comments and  xP -Petition at 23. NYNEX requests a waiver of the requirement for 68 nondigital switches that are nearly all scheduled to be replaced within the next two years. NYNEX claims that because it has not received any orders for OLS service on these switches, the alleged $1.2 million cost of installing Flex ANI on these switches outweighs any expected benefits. NYNEX Petition at 23.  Similarly, smaller LECs that use older, less sophisticated switches face significant expense to upgrade them in" >0*(({ "  Y-order to install Flex ANI.  xPy-ԍxNECA requests waiver for any nonequal access LEC that currently contracts with LIDB providers that have chosen not to upgrade their LIDB System to offer OLS service. NECA Petition at 2. Based on subsequently provided information, it appears that only 2 of NECA's members have switches which are currently not equipped to use Flex ANI and subscribe to a LIDB provider that will not provide OLS service. NECA further maintains that the switches used by nonequal access carriers do not contain Flex ANI capability. On behalf of 44 carriers, Cathey, Hutton supports NECA's waiver, and further requests that these LECs be provided with enough time to evaluate their available options for providing OLS service and choose the methodology that will provide the service in the most economical manner. USTA also urges the Commission not to require nonequal access carriers to offer OLS service until those carriers convert to equal access and they  zP -receive a BFR for such service. USTA (October Notice) Comments at 4. USTA argues that where a LEC service area is nonequal access, there are no operator service providers (OSPs) who could benefit from OLS service. Because there are no OSPs that could benefit from the service, USTA urges the Commission not to  zP -require it. USTA (October Notice) Comments at 3. Likewise, GVNW, on behalf of its client companies, requests an indefinite waiver for those companies which have not converted to equal access until such time as they receive a BFR for equal access or until the LEC makes the investment in equal access for other business purposes when Flex ANI can then be provided. GVNW Petition No. 1 of 2 at 3.  Other petitioners claim no demand for OLS service is  Y-anticipated. zP-ԍxSee, e.g., SNET Petition at 15. SNET contends that implementation of either method of OLS service would be a waste of resources because Connecticut presently has no privatelyowned payhones. Several of these petitioners claim that they can offer OLS service within nine  Y-months of a BFR.Fn xP-ԍ xSNET Petition at 6.F x` `  Y-x` ` 5.  APCC disputes claims that there is no demand for enhanced OLS service and maintains that the reason independent payphone providers have not requested it is  Yv-because they have not been informed of its availability.cv zP%-ԍ xAPCC (October Notice) Reply Comments at 4.c AT&T does not oppose requests for brief extensions of time, such as SWBT's request for a 90 day extension, but opposes extensions for longer periods, especially requests from several LECs to defer the offering of  Y1-enhanced OLS service generally until nine months after receipt of a BFR.c1 zPr-ԍ xAT&T (October Notice) Reply Comments at 3.c APCC maintains that timely offering of such OLS service through Flex ANI may be imperative for IXCs to comply with the compensation and nondiscrimination provisions of the Commission's recent  Y -Payphone Order.X\ " zP!-ԍ x APCC (October Notice) Comments at 34 (citing Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Report and Order, FCC 96388, CC  zPQ#-Docket No. 96128, (rel. September 20, 1996) (Payphone Order).X APCC states that Order will increase demand from PSPs and IXCs for screening services. Accordingly, APCC opposes waivers that would permit delays in  Y -universal implementation of Flex ANI to provide OLS service.9 F zP&-ԍ Id. at 4.9 " 0*((y"Ԍ Y-B.xDiscussion x` `   Y-x` ` 6.  In the Enhanced OLS Service Order, the Commission required LECs to file tariffs offering enhanced OLS service but provided that LECs could obtain a temporary waiver if it was not currently technically feasible or if it was not economically reasonable for LECs to offer such services.  Ya-x` ` 7. We conclude, first, under the standards established by the Commission, that certain temporary waivers are justified for those LECs that have chosen to provide enhanced OLS service through LIDB but whose LIDB system or LIDB provider is not yet ready to offer enhanced OLS service capability. We find that it would not be economically reasonable to require these LECs to make other arrangements to provide enhanced OLS service for a limited period of time before their LIDB system or vendor is able to offer enhanced OLS service. Upgrading end offices to FLEX ANI, for example, would be unnecessarily costly in order to provide enhanced OLS service on a temporary basis. Similarly, requiring such LECs to enter new contracts with other LIDB providers solely to offer OLS service on a temporary basis is not a practical alternative. Accordingly, we will grant these LECs a waiver to allow them additional time to provide enhanced OLS service through their current LIDB systems or LIDB providers. We grant SWBT and GTE their requests for a threemonth extension to offer enhanced OLS service using LIDB. For other LECs who have sought extensions in light of their plans to employ LIDB to provide enhanced OLS service, we find that an extension until August 1, 1997 will afford reasonable time for those LECs to arrange either to obtain enhanced OLS service capability through LIDB or to provide enhanced OLS service through Flex ANI, while not unduly compromising the public interest objectives of provision of enhanced OLS service. Arguments in favor of extensions beyond August 1, 1997, are conclusory and do not counterbalance the public interest benefits of making enhanced OLS service available, as required by the Commission. SNET has not shown, for example, that it is economically unreasonable for it to participate in the provision of enhanced OLS service. We find its bare allegations regarding the lack of private payhones in Connecticut unpersuasive, particularly in view of SNET's projected relatively modest companywide cost of upgrading its LIDB system to  Y9-provide this service.N9 zP-ԍxSee n. 16, supra.N We urge carriers and LIDB providers to undertake steps to ensure that OLS service becomes available through LIDB in advance of that date so that carriers can promptly file federal tariffs making it available. Accordingly, we will grant these LECs a waiver until August 1, 1997, to file tariffs offering enhanced OLS service.  Y -x` ` 8.  We will also grant a waiver until August 1, 1997, to those LECs seeking waiver or extension of the tariff filing requirement for end offices where they plan to offer enhanced OLS service through Flex ANI. The record indicates that, while it is technically feasible to add Flex ANI to most, if not all, LEC end offices, adding this technology to all such end offices can entail significant expenditures. This extension will"j$Z0*((%" afford these carriers additional time to make the necessary arrangements without unduly delaying the provision of enhanced OLS service. This extension to August 1, 1997, will also facilitate administration of, and compliance with, enhanced OLS service requirements because LECs must meet the same deadline regardless of whether they ultimately choose to provide enhanced OLS service through LIDB or Flex ANI. Thus, under the foregoing waivers, all LECs that have requested an extension, whether they choose to provide OLS service through LIDB or Flex ANI, are afforded an extension until August 1, 1997. These LECs are listed in the attached Appendix. x  Y1-x` ` 9.  Finally, the record also indicates that there are a limited number of LECs that are unable to provide enhanced OLS service at some end offices through LIDB because their LIDB provider has affirmatively chosen not to provide it, and for whom providing enhanced OLS service through Flex ANI from those end offices could be costly because the end office is a nonequal access office or a nondigital office. In light of the significant costs that the LECs estimate would be required to upgrade these offices, we conclude it would be economically unreasonable in those circumstances for a LEC to incur the costs of an end office upgrade in order to provide enhanced OLS service in the absence of a request from an IXC or OSP to obtain OLS service from that end office. Accordingly, we will grant a waiver to these LECs to permit them to file a tariff offering enhanced OLS service no later than six months after the date that the LEC receives a BFR to provide enhanced OLS service from an end office that is either nondigital or nonequal access. This will assure that enhanced OLS service is provided where it is requested while avoiding significant upgrade expenditures where there is no demand for this service. A six month period should provide sufficient time for LECs to upgrade once a BFR is received. This waiver applies to any LEC with respect to each nonequal access or nondigital end office,  Y-regardless of whether that LEC has requested a waiver. xP:-ԍxAbsent this waiver, Section 1.3 of the Commission's Rules would compel these LECs to file separate  zP-petitions seeking waiver of the December 23, 1996 filing deadline. See 47 C.F.R.  1.3. This will assure that our OLS service tariff requirements do not impose an unreasonable economic impact on small LECs, who are most likely to have nondigital or nonequal access end offices and for whom upgrade expenditures could have a greater relative impact than such expenditures would have on larger LECs. Because the scope of this proceeding is limited to making OLS service available to IXCs and OSPs to facilitate prevention toll fraud, we will limit eligibility to make BFRs to IXCs and OSPs. x` `  Y -x` `  10. We are not persuaded by arguments that waivers of indefinite or lengthy duration should be granted, or that no carrier should be required to file a tariff for  Y-OLS service unless a BFR is received. Apart from the specific arguments discussed above, we find LECs have made only generalized allegations in support of these requests, which do not show the technical infeasibility or economic unreasonableness of providing OLS service in a timely fashion as envisioned by the Commission. Accordingly, we deny these requests and limit our waivers to those described above. "h$"0*((%"Ԍ Y-x` `  11.  In addition, we are also aware that some LECs have neither tariffed  Y-enhanced OLS service in accordance with the Enhanced OLS Service Order  nor requested waiver of that filing requirement. To enable such LECs to bring themselves promptly into  Y-compliance with the Enhanced OLS Service Order, we extend, on our own motion, the tariff filing deadline through January 8, 1997, to enable such LECs to file the necessary tariff revisions.  Yc-x` `  12.  Finally, we find that the limited waivers we grant here will not unduly hamper the efforts of IXCs to use enhanced OLS service to protect against toll fraud or the implementation of percall payphone compensation. On the first issue, we note that some  Y -LECs state that they plan to continue to offer current ANI as part of Feature Group D.r  zP -ԍxPacific/Nevada Bell (October Notice) Reply Comments at 13.r Thus, our waivers will permit current toll fraud mechanisms to remain in place while providing limited extensions for certain LECs to provide enhanced OLS service. On the second, our waivers also permit the provision of enhanced OLS service within the time frames contemplated by the Commission for possible use in connection with percall  Y -compensation requirements for payphone service providers established in the Payphone  Y-Order.|Z xP-ԍxRequirements concerning percall compensation are set forth in that order and are not the subject of this  zPi-proceeding. See Payphone Order, Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Order on Reconsideration, CC Docket No. 96128, FCC  zP-96439 (rel. Nov. 8, 1996). In the Payphone Order the Commission required IXCs to provide compensation to payphone service providers ("PSPs") for calls originating from payphones. For an interim period, the Commission allowed IXCs to compensate PSPs on a flat rate basis; beginning October 7, 1997, IXCs are required to compensate PSPs on a per call basis.  x` ` UIV. ORDERING CLAUSES YS- x` `  hh@h  Y<-x` `  13.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the requests for extension or other waiver of the December 1, 1996, tariff filing deadline for enhanced originating line screening service filed by the local exchange carriers listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED to the extent discussed above and are otherwise DENIED.  Y-x` `  14.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.3 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.3, that all local exchange carriers are granted a waiver to file tariffs offering enhanced originating line screening service from any nondigital or  Y-nonequal access end office from six months from the date of a bona fide request to provide that service from such an end office.  YX- x  YA-x` ` 15.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.3 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.3, that all local exchange carriers that have not filed  Y-required tariffs offering enhanced originating line screening service and that have not sought"0*((" extension or other waiver of that tariff filing requirement, ARE GRANTED a waiver of that filing requirement until January 8, 1997. x` ` hh x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  Yv-x#Xw P[hXP# x` `  hh x` `  hhA. Richard Metzger, Jr. x` `  hhDeputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau " 0*((@ "  Y-x` ` Appendix (filing dates in parenthesis) x` ` Southern New England Telephone Company (SNET) (7/3/96) x` ` Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT) (91996)(#` x` ` Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell (Pacific/Nevada) (101596) x` ` BellSouth Corp./BellSouth Telecommunications (10/31/96), Supplement to x` `  (11/7/96), Amended (12/5/96) x` ` NYNEX Telephone Companies (NYNEX) (10/11/96) x` ` GTE Service Corporation (10/11/96) x` ` Rochester Telephone Corp./Frontier Telephone Cos. (10/14/96)(#` x` ` N.E. Louisiana Telephone Company, Inc. (101596) joined by: x` `  The Chillicothe Telephone Company x` `  Delcambre Telephone Company, Inc. x` `  Campti Pleasant Hill Telephone Company x` ` Aliant Communications Co. (101596) x` ` GVNW Inc. Management (GVNW) (10/15/96), (10/24/96) on behalf of: x` `  AlhambraGrandfork Telephone Co. x` `  Ayrshire Farmers Mutual Telephone Company x` `  CR Telephone Company x` `  Cass County Telephone Company x` `  Citizens Telephone Company x` `  East Ascension Telephone Company x` `  Egyptian Telephone Cooperative Assn. x` `  El Paso Telephone Company x` `  Flat Rock Telephone Company x` `  Grafton Telephone Company x` `  Gridley Telephone Company x` `  Harrisonville Telephone Company x` `  Home Telephone Company x` `  Kerman Telephone Company x` `  La Harpe Telephone Company x` `  Leaf River Telephone Company x` `  Madison Telephone Company x` `  McNabb Telephone Company x` `  Montrose Mutual Telephone Company x` `  Moultrie Independent Telephone Company x` `  Oneida Telephone Exchange x` `  Roosevelt County Rural Telephone Corp. x` `  Sierra Telephone Company x` `  Shawnee Telephone Company x` `  Union Telephone Company x` `  Wabash Telephone Company x` `  Webb Dickens Telephone Corporation x` `  West River Telecommunications Coop."#' 0*((P("Ԍx` `  Woodhull Community Telephone Company x` `  Yates City Telephone Company x` `  Yelm Telephone Company  Y-x` ` Lafourche Telephone Co. (101596)pp x` ` Puerto Rico Telephone Co. (101596) x` ` US West Communications (US West) (10/15/96) amended (11/19/96) x` ` National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. (NECA) (10/15/96) x` ` Ameritech Operating Companies (Ameritech) (101796) x` ` Star Telephone, Inc. (101896) x` ` Sprint Local Telephone Companies (10/24/96) x` ` Virgin Islands Telephone Co. (10/28/96) x` ` Illinois Consolidated Telephone Company (11/1/96) x` ` Cameron Telephone Company (11/15/96) joined by: x` `  Cameron Telephone Company Texas x` `  Elizabeth Telephone Company x` `  Twin Lakes Telephone Cooperative Corporation x` ` Cathey Hutton & Associates (10/31/96) on behalf of: x` `  Alenco Communications, Inc. x` `  Arkansas Telephone Company, Inc. x` `  Beehive Telephone Company, Inc. x` `  Big Bend Telephone Company, Inc. x` `  Blossom Telephone Company, Inc. x` `  Brazos Telephone Cooperative, Inc. x` `  Brazos Telecommunications, Inc. x` `  Cap Rock Telephone Cooperative, Inc. x` `  Central Arkansas Telephone Coop. x` `  Chickasaw Telephone Company x` `  China Telephone Company x` `  Comanche County Tel. Co., Inc. x` `  Community Telephone Company, Inc. x` `  Cumby Telephone Cooperative, Inc. x` `  E.N.M.R. Telephone Cooperative, Inc. x` `  Eastex Telephone Cooperative, Inc. x` `  Five Area Telephone Coop., Inc. x` `  Georgetown Telephone Company x` `  Goodman Telephone Company, Inc. x` `  Lipan Telephone Company x` `  MidPlains Rural Tel. Coop., Inc. x` `  Muenster Telephone Corp. of Texas x` `  North Central Telephone Cooperative, Inc. x` `  North Texas Telephone Company x` `  Oklahoma Telephone & Telegraph x` `  Ozark Telephone Company x` `  Peoples Telephone Coop., Inc."#' 0*((P("Ԍx` `  Pioneer Telephone Cooperative, Inc. x` `  Plant Telephone Company x` `  Reserve Telephone Company, Inc. x` `  Riviera Telephone Company, Inc. x` `  Santa Rosa Telephone Coop., Inc. x` `  Scott County Telephone Company x` `  Seneca Telephone Company, Inc. x` `  Shidler Telephone Company x` `  South Arkansas Telephone Company x` `  Southwest Arkansas Tel. Coop., Inc. x` `  Standish Telephone Company  Y -'x` `  Star Telephone Company x` `  Valliant Telephone Company x` `  West Plains Telecommunications, Inc. x` `  WesTex Telephone Cooperative, Inc. x` `  West Texas Rural Tel. Coop., Inc. x` `  XIT Rural Telephone Coop., Inc. x` ` DuBois Telephone Exchange, Inc. (November 18, 1996) x` ` Matanuska Telephone Association, Inc. (11/6/96) x` ` Pacific Telecom, Inc. (11/8/96) x` ` RT Communications, Inc. (11/27/96) x` ` St. Joseph Telegraph and Telephone Com. (11/12/96) joined by: x` `  Gulf Telephone Company x` `  Florala Telephone Company x` ` Copper Valley Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (12/16/96) joined by: x` `  Northland Telephone Company of Vermont x` `  Northland Telephone Company of Maine x` `  Sidney Telephone Company x` `  Sunflower Telephone Company, Inc. x` `  Bluestem Telephone Company x` `  Odin Telephone Exchange, Inc. x` `  Big Sandy Telecommunications, Inc. x` ` Accipiter Communications, Inc. (12/19/96) joined by: x` `  Cassadaga Telephone Corporation x` `  Chautauqua & Erie Telephone Corporation x` `  Colorado Valley Telephone Cooperative, Inc. x` `  Deerfield Farmers' Telephone Company x` `  Dunkirk & Fredonia Telephone Company x` `  Farmers Telephone Cooperative, Inc. x` `  Germantown Telephone Company, Inc. x` `  Hart Telephone Company x` `  Lackawaxen Telephone Company x` `  Lincolnville Telephone Company, Inc. x` `  Margaretville Telephone Company, Inc."#' 0*((P("Ԍx` `  MidMissouri Telephone Company x` `  MidRivers Telephone Cooperative x` `  New Paris Telephone, Inc. x` `  Northeast Florida Telephone Company, Inc. x` `  Perry Spencer Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc. !I  x` `  Poka Lambro Telephone Cooperative, Inc. !I  x` `  Rhinelander Telephone Company, Inc. x` `  Ringgold Telephone Company x` `  Smithville Telephone Company x` `  Tidewater Telecom, Inc. x` `