WPCQ 2MBVRK Z#|Xy.X80,IX\  P6G;P"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN>?Footnote;Íčfootnote tex#<'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#header=Ax 4 <D  #FxX  Pg9CXP# reference>;#FxX  Pg9CXP#2E?~T@@iAA^;CBODitemizeX1?&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2@I ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# heading 3AF` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# footer!B!!#d\  PCP#2PHC}FDFEGFGa1Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FC$ a2Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FD/ a3Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FE: a4Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FFE 2hKGHH+IIIJJa5Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FGP   a6Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FH[   a7Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FIf  a8Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FJq 2NKKL(LMLN_Ma1IndentedLeft-indented textK6n ? I.Xa2IndentedLeft-indented textL?C ? A.` ` a3IndentedLeft-indented textMHP ? ` ` 1. a4IndentedLeft-indented textNQp- ? ` `  a.` '2:QO:NPNQORmPa5IndentedLeft-indented textO[ܽ ? ` `  '(1) hh-a6IndentedLeft-indented textPdK ? ` `  'hh-(a)4a7IndentedLeft-indented textQl݇ ? ` `  'hh-4i)h:a8IndentedLeft-indented textRu-b ? ` `  'hh-4:a)ppA2SSslQTQURV1Sa1InterrogatoresStarts with A. at margin, 1 at first indentSUZZI.HeadingChapter HeadingTJ d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersU>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheadingV0\ E A.  2;WWdSX]TYrUZ1 VHIGHLIGHT 1Italics and BoldldeddW+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and DateX X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style offY@@    LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5Z 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   2n[[1mW\1X]1Y^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__[`d!\aj\b\BLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indented_N X HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold Large`B*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscoreda V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/marginsbu 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   2"dcE@_d-`e8af8bINVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math Invoicec ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatdD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoicee:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macrofz 4p, $0$002ggTdhXei[Mfj[fINVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoiceg+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal TypestylehSMALLSmall TypestyleiFINEFine Typestylej2ik[5gl[gm[gnFhLARGELarge TypestylekEXTRA LARGEExtra Large TypestylelVERY LARGEVery Large TypestylemENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Headern+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   2rpoXipSjqjrk1odfStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Marginsp$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5q$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIrJ )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 2sslptrurv|8sStyle 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabss )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginstDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Fontu4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5v$ )^ `> XifQ 2zwsxty&uzuStyle 5Dutch Bold 18 Pointw$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5x$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Pointy$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for Advancedz 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 2{z|} ~l!Style 8PfInitial Codes for Beginningg{i )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 Style 9Initial Codes for Intermediate| )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 Module} )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 Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font~ 27݌toc 1toc 1` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#toc 2toc 2` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#29ivtoc 5toc 5` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#toc 6toc 6` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7 toc 8toc 8` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#2kŠtoc 9toc 9` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#index 1index 1` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toatoa` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#2vlvmcaptioncaption _Equation Caption_Equation Caption page numberpage number1#XP\  P6QXP#2e(vvvyfootnote referencefootnote reference heading 4heading 4 heading 5heading 5 heading 6heading 6 2v!vl xyheading 7heading 7 heading 8heading 8 Document 8Document 8 Document 4Document 4  2Ӫl#lllgDocument 6Document 6 Document 5Document 5 Document 2Document 2 Document 7Document 7 2˱#lARight Par 1Right Par 1` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 2Right Par 2` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Document 3Document 3 Right Par 3Right Par 3` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#2u9WRight Par 4Right Par 4` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 5Right Par 5` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 6Right Par 6` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 7Right Par 7` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#25(ż$$Right Par 8Right Par 8` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Document 1Document 1` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 5Technical 5` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 6Technical 6` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2lgl$?lcTechnical 2Technical 2 Technical 3Technical 3 Technical 4Technical 4` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 1 2$$%I Technical 7Technical 7` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 8Technical 8` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#WP Heading 2WP Heading 244#6X@C@##Xv6X@CX@#WP Heading 1WP Heading 144#6X@C@# #Xv6X@CX@#2vrltoa headingtoa heading` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#endnote referenceendnote reference footnote textfootnote text` hp x (#4 <DL!#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#4 <DL!` hp x (#head1 #'d#2p}wC@ #2w+footnote refK&7>footnote referenceGw) "7>NGI "+WXDefault ParaK&7>Default Paragraph Fontw+ "7>NGI "([(\endnote refeK&7>endnote referenceGw- "7>NGI "+_+`annotation rK&7>annotation referenceGw. "7>NGI "OaOb#Xv P7XP##Xv P7XP#2,[annotation tK&7>annotation textGw/ "7>NGI "2c(d2G2*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "8ij@  3G3*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "Akl@` ` `  ` ` ` 4G4*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "Jmn` ` ` @  ` ` ` 2H^ 5G5*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "Sop` ` `  @  6G6*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "\qr` ` `  @hhh hhh 7G7*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "est` ` `  hhh@ hhh 8G8*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "nuv` ` `  hhh@  2zpKk9G9*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "wwx` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 10G0*(Q&7tDocument Style Gl0 "7t GI "GH` ` ` 11G1*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "4I$J     12G2*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "*KL    2l9b13G3*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "'MN   14G4*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "&OP   15G5*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "&QR  . 16G6*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "&ST  . 2#:17G7*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "&UV  . 18G8*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "&WX  . 19G9*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "8YZ@  20G:*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "A[\@` ` `  ` ` ` 2X21G;*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "J]^` ` ` @  ` ` ` 22G<*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "S_`` ` `  @  23G=*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "\ab` ` `  @hhh hhh 24G>*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "ecd` ` `  hhh@ hhh 2<25G?*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "nef` ` `  hhh@  26G@*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "wgh` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 27wSg K6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJmn` ` @  ` `  28wSg L6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ESop` `  @  2)X29wSg M6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\qr` `  @hh# hhh 30wSg N6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Eest` `  hh#@( hh# 31wSg O6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Enuv` `  hh#(@- ( 32wSg P6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ewwx` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2p[{33wSg R6w Document Style=(H8g Rܺ*HںwSg E{|` ` ` 34wSg S6w Technical Document Styleg Sܺ*HںwSg E4}$~     35wSg T6w Technical Document Styleg Tܺ*HںwSg E*    36wSg U6w Technical Document Styleg Uܺ*HںwSg E'   2r|37wSg V6w Technical Document Styleg Vܺ*HںwSg E&   38wSg W6w Technical Document Styleg Wܺ*HںwSg E&  . 39wSg X6w Technical Document Styleg Xܺ*HںwSg E&  . 40wSg Y6w Technical Document Styleg Yܺ*HںwSg E&  . 23J41wSg Z6w Technical Document Styleg Zܺ*HںwSg E&  . 42wSg [6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   43wSg \6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 44wSg ]6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  2h45wSg ^6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  46wSg _6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 47wSg `6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 48wSg a6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 2b49wSg b6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 50wSg c6w Document Style=(H8g cܺ*HںwSg EF *  ׃  51wSg d6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  52wSg e6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  2Z"53wSg f6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 54wSg g6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 55wSg h6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 56wSg i6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2vp%E57wSg j6w Document Style=(H8g jܺ*HںwSg E` ` ` 58wSg k6w Technical Document Styleg kܺ*HںwSg E4$     59wSg l6w Technical Document Styleg lܺ*HںwSg E*    60wSg m6w Technical Document Styleg mܺ*HںwSg E'   2<F61wSg n6w Technical Document Styleg nܺ*HںwSg E&   62wSg o6w Technical Document Styleg oܺ*HںwSg E&  . 63wSg p6w Technical Document Styleg pܺ*HںwSg E&  . 64wSg q6w Technical Document Styleg qܺ*HںwSg E&  . 2S65wSg r6w Technical Document Styleg rܺ*HںwSg E&  . 66wSg s6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   67wSg t6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 68wSg u6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  2o269wSg v6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  70wSg w6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 71wSg x6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 72wSg y6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 2XK K7 Ky.X80,IX\  P6G;Py.\80, [\4  pG;7jC:, Xj\  P6G;XP7nC:,Xn4  pG;Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx\4  pG;.8wC;,J|Xw PE37XP /V"G($,J}hG PE37hP06uC;,SE;Xu&_ x7XX<?xxx,cx6X@`7X@YWqWWN(((<<(5<5<5(<development of such services was consistent with the Commission's responsibilities under  X- x=Sections 1 and 7 of the Communications Act.` ou {O4- x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification Service Caller ID, Report and Order and  yO-Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 9 FCC Rcd 1764 (1994) ("First Report and Order"). ` The Commission found that CPN transmission  x[could bring consumers more rapid and efficient service and encourage the introduction of new  X-technologies and services to the public."ou {O` -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 1766.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#я  X_-  x7. Despite the commercial benefits of CPN passage and the called party's right to know  xLwho is calling, the Commission stated that CPN passage could intrude upon the privacy of the  X1- x=calling party if the latter's number was passed when that party wanted to remain anonymous.1ou yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э May 5, 1995 Order at 11706.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ј  xLAs a consequence, the Commission implemented a federal policy governing CPN passage that protected the reasonable privacy expectations of both the calling and called parties.  X -  |x8. Section 64.1601(b) of the Commission's rules Dou yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э 47 U.S.C.  1601(b).#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ю requires carriers to recognize *67 as  xa request that they not pass the calling party's number. This requirement permits subscribers to  xblock their numbers from passage through the public switched network by dialing *67 before  x.placing a call ("per call blocking"). Section 64.1601(b) also requires that carriers recognize *82  xas a request that CPN be transmitted on an otherwise blocked line. Per call unblocking allows  xsubscribers with permanently blocked lines to allow passage of CPN on a per call basis. We  xxchose different blocking and unblocking codes to prevent callers using permanently blocked lines  X4-from inadvertently releasing their numbers.4ou yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э May 5, 1995 Order at 11729.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ђ  X- III. ISSUES  X-  X- xA. LECs without blocking and unblocking capabilities  X-x` ` Background  Xe-  x9.PARAGRAPH NO.PARAGRAPH NO.PARAGRAPH NO. As noted above, our Caller ID rules require carriers with SS7 capability and SS7 call  xset up functionality to pass CPN and provide per call blocking (*67) and per call unblocking"Nd 0*%%ZZ"  x(*82) capability. Based on today's technology, in order to offer the blocking and unblocking  X-capabilities, carriers must use CLASS)Zou yOb- x#X\  P6G;ɒP#эCLASS FOOTNOTECLASS FOOTNOTECLASS FOOTNOTE Custom Local Access Signaling Services ("CLASS)"), a registered trademark of Bellcore, is a set of CPN {O*-based services, such as caller ID, auto call return, and selective call forwarding. See SS7 Basics, by Toni Beninger, Intertec Publishing Corp., Chicago, IL, 1991. software over an existing SS7 platform.  X-  "x 10. In the December 1, 1995 Order, we stayed until January 1, 1997 the effective date  xof the Caller ID rules for LEC switches that did not have CLASS) software. We issued the stay  x[in response to waiver petitions from several LECs, including small rural LECs, that claimed that  xproviding blocking and unblocking capability on their switches was technically and/or  X_- xeconomically infeasible._ou yO - x<ԍ Waivers were requested by BellSouth, Cameron Telephone Co., Cascade Telephone Co., PTI, Utelco, Inc., and Valley Telephone Cooperative, Inc. December 1, 1995, Order at 13806. Those carriers stated that in some cases the *82 unblocking software  xfor their switches had not been developed, and they argued that the cost of providing the blocking  xland unblocking functions was excessive in light of the small number of lines served. On  xkDecember 23, 1996, the Commission stayed until further notice the blocking and unblocking  X -requirements./ Bou yO- xZ#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification Service Caller ID, Memorandum Opinion and Order (1996)(CC Docket No. 91281), released December 23, 1996 ("December 23, 1996 Order")./  X -  x 11. The December 1, 1995 Order included the Fourth NPRM in which we proposed that  xLLEC switches not equipped with CLASS) would not have to transmit CPN to interconnecting  X - xLcarriers on interstate calls. ou yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э December 1, 1995 Order at 13809.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѣ We further proposed that LECs without CLASS) software could  xonly pass the CPN if they could provide the blocking and unblocking capabilities specified in  Xy- x\Section 64.1601(b) of the Commission's rules.y* ou {OT-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#р The Commission based its proposals on its  xxunderstanding of the technical and economic difficulties that carriers then confronted in acquiring  XK- xCLASS) software.K ou {O-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#р Finally, we requested comment on the economic feasibility of obtaining  xblocking and unblocking capabilities, and on the desirability of an exemption the applicability of  X-which would depend upon the number of access lines served.N ou {O"-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 13809.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ъ "0*%%ZZ "  X-x` `  Comments  X-  |x 12. Most commenters support the proposals set forth in the Fourth NPRM. The LEC  X- x/AlliancefXou yO4- x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э The LEC Alliance consists of Contookcook Valley Telephone Company on behalf of its affiliate, Merrimack  xCounty Telephone Company, Lincolnville Telephone Company, Tidewater Telecom, Inc., and Valley Telephone Cooperative, Inc.f submits comments on behalf of carriers that serve rural areas in New Hampshire,  xMaine, and Texas. These carriers argue that the decision to purchase CLASS) software should  X- xbe left to a LEC's business judgment rather than a federal mandate.ou {O& -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See LEC Alliance Fourth NPRM comments at 2.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#Ѵ The LEC Alliance also  xstates that LECs could face economic hardship if they were forced to purchase CLASS)  X_-software for a switch serving an area where there was no demand for CLASS) services._zou {O -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See id. at 45.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ђ  X1-   x 13. Northern Telecom ("Nortel"), supporting CPN passage, states that "[T]he Commission  xshould encourage the widescale deployment of Caller ID services. The public interest will be  x@advanced by the availability of the enhanced capabilities made possible by CCS/SS7  X - xLtechnology." ou yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Nortel Fourth NPRM comments at 3.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ј Nortel also states that it could provide an alternative to the bundled CLASS)  xLsoftware package on a licensed basis, but observes that this alternative would require a Nortel  X - xDMSseries switch with "a sufficiently recent version of the generic operating software." ou {O -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 2. See also Nortel Fourth NPRM comments at n. 3.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѻ The  xSprint LECs, however, disagree that an absolute requirement to pass CPN is warranted, and state  x\that "it is not economically feasible for the Sprint LECs to provide blocking and unblocking  Xy-capabilities where CLASS) software is not needed."y. ou yOX-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Sprint LECs Fourth NPRM comments at 2.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѝ  XK-  x 14. The Sprint LECs support an exemption from the requirement to obtain blocking and  xxunblocking capabilities for LECs serving fewer than 2,000 access lines, as suggested in the Fourth  X- x=NPRM. ou {O -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See id. at 3.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѐ The LEC Association and the LEC Alliance do not support an access line threshold  X- xzbecause they support an exemption for all LECs without CLASS) software. P ou {O#-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See LEC Association Fourth NPRM comments at 3 and LEC Alliance comments at 45.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP# Conversely,  xNortel does not support the access line suggestion because it favors requiring CLASS)" 0*%%ZZ'"  X-deployment by all SS7ready LECs.!ou {Oy-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See Nortel Fourth NPRM comments at 3.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#Ѣ  X-x` `  Discussion  X-  0x15. Our Caller ID policies and rules must protect the reasonable privacy expectations of  x=end users. As a consequence, LECs without any blocking and unblocking capabilities in their  xjswitches are prohibited from passing CPN. Further, consistent with the decision not to require  xLECs to purchase SS7, we do not require LECs that have not implemented CLASS) software or alternative blocking and unblocking capabilities to obtain such capabilities.  X -  x16. The record supports our conclusions that LECs need not be required to purchase  xblocking and unblocking software, but that, to the extent that a LEC passes CPN, that LEC must  xprovide blocking and unblocking capabilities. For example, the LEC Alliance states that "[s]uch  xKa policy recognizes the prudence of deploying network functionality in response to demonstrable  x]customer need, and is otherwise consistent with Commission recognition that, in certain  X -circumstances, CLASS) software deployment may be economically infeasible."" Zou yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э LEC Alliance Fourth NPRM comments at 3.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ў  Xy-  |x17. The lack of a blocking and unblocking requirement on all SS7ready LECs will not  xsignificantly impede our goal of maximizing CPN passage. According to the LEC Association  xKcomments, fewer than one half of one percent of the nation's total access lines are served by SS7  X4- xready switches that lack CLASS) software.#Z4ou {O- x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See LEC Association comments at 3, "[T]he total number of access lines affected by the waivers granted in  xh[the December 1, 1995 Order] is approximately 664,817 which represents less than one half of one percent of the nation's total access lines (approximately 0.42% based on 1994 total access lines as compiled by USTA)." Thus, we find that the overwhelming majority of  xSS7ready LEC switches have blocking and unblocking capabilities, and therefore must observe CPN passage rules.   x18. In contrast, Nortel argues that widespread deployment of CLASS) software is in the  xpublic interest and that the cost of providing blocking and unblocking software is not unduly  xZburdensome on the LECs because carriers "may potentially" recover the cost through charges for  X- xCaller ID, auto call return, and other CLASS) services.$ ou {OP!-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#р The exemption we adopt applies to  xall LECs without blocking and unblocking software, although we had considered limiting the  xexemption to LECs with fewer than a certain number of access lines. We find, however, that the  xrecord provides insufficient evidence for selecting a specific access line threshold. We find,  xinstead, that the financial incentives to deploy CLASS) software where economically feasible,"7$0*%%ZZ"  xand the small number of access lines now lacking access to CLASS) services, justify an  xexemption from the blocking and unblocking requirements for LECs without blocking and  xunblocking software. For the same reasons, we conclude that this exemption should not depend  X-on the number of lines served by the switch lacking the blocking and unblocking software.%zou {O4- x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See, e.g., LEC Association Fourth NPRM comments at 2. See also LEC Association Fourth NPRM comments at 4:  B  Given the incentives to deploy CLASS) features where possible, and the small number of  Pcompanies affected, the Commission need not be concerned that the absence of an access line  limitation will delay the implementation of functionalities necessary to provide CPN transport and thus encourage the growth of CPNbased services.  X-x B. Payphones  X_-x` ` Background   X1-x` `  1. BellSouth Petition for Further Reconsideration  X -x` `   X -  x19. In the MO&O on Reconsideration,& ou yO- x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э The May 5, 1995 Order also contained a Memorandum and Opinion and Order on Reconsideration ("MO&O  yO-on Reconsideration").#Xj\  P6G;ynXP# the Commission affirmed its requirement that  xpayphone service providers ("PSPs") must provide per call blocking and per line unblocking  X - x capabilities on payphones, effective January 1, 1997.' b ou {O-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 11739.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѐ We found that those features were  xnecessary because payphone users have the same, if not higher, privacy expectations as residential  xtelephone users. We also stated that CPN passage from payphones created risks to calling parties  X- xyin certain circumstances (e.g., a payphone user at a domestic violence shelter who may need to  xiblock that number for safety concerns). The Commission acknowledged that the record regarding  xthe scope of such risks was limited, but stated that the arguments raised in the comments did not  XM- xjustify a Commission Caller ID policy that ignored the privacy interest of payphone users.2(M ou {O-ԍ Id.2 On  X6-December 23, 1996, the Commission stayed until further notice the effective date of the rules.)6 ou yOm -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э December 23, 1996 Order.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#я  X-  Nx20. BellSouth filed a petition for reconsideration*ou yO#- xY#X\  P6G;ɒP#э BellSouth Petition for Partial Further Reconsideration and Partial Initial Reconsideration filed on July 5, 1995  yO$-("BellSouth Petition").#Xj\  P6G;ynXP# of the MO&O on Reconsideration, in"n*0*%%ZZ"  xywhich it stated that payphone users do not need blocking and unblocking capabilities because  xtheir CPN is rarely passed on interstate calls made from payphones. BellSouth further states that  xits network cannot transmit to the PSN the CPN on operatorassisted calls placed from payphones,  xand that in order to pass the CPN on operatorassisted calls it would have to invest in additional  X-software, (i.e., Operator SS7).  Xx-x` ` 2. Third NPRM  XJ-  {x21. With the May 5, 1995 Order, the Commission also adopted a Third NPRM proposing  xthat the Commission's Caller ID rules apply to independent payphone providers ("IPPs"), but  xZexpressed concerns that the IPPs might incur excessive costs in implementing payphone blocking  X - xZand unblocking capabilities.+" ou yO~ - xԍ The bulk of IPPs provide service through "smart payphones" that provide service functionalities through  xwintelligence residing within the payphone unit. By contrast, LEC payphones typically have been "dumb payphones"  x;because they rely on operation functionalities that reside in the central office. LECs, however, are deploying smart  {O-payphones as well. See GTE Third Notice reply comments at 56. We noted that the record that had been developed did not contain  xmuch information on this issue. We therefore sought comment on the costs of retrofitting  xdeployed payphones to support blocking and unblocking capabilities and also sought to determine the number of IPPs already with those capabilities.  X -  X-x` ` Comments  X{-   Xd-x` ` 1.  y"t  BellSouth Reconsideration   x22. Several commenters, including Southwestern Bell Telephone Company ("SWBT")  x!and U S WEST, support BellSouth's contention that the cost of providing blocking and  xunblocking capabilities is excessive considering the few instances in which CPN is passed from  xpayphone lines. SWBT asserts that it would have to spend $6.8 million to provide blocking and  X- xunblocking options on its payphone lines.,ou yO=-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э SWBT Third NPRM comments at 2.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ћ These parties further argue that the CPN is not  xcurrently passed on the vast majority of interstate coinoriginated calls due to the use of Multi X- xFrequency ("MF") Signaling, which does not support CPN passage, by the operator trunk.I-Bou {O- xy#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Ex parte letter from BellSouth, SWBT, U S WEST, Ameritech, NYNEX and Cincinnati Bell ("the Joint  {Oi -LECs") to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, dated August 29, 1996 ("Joint LEC Ex Parte Letter").I  xThese commenters state that they would have to invest in Operator Signaling System Seven  x("OSS7"), rather than MF Signaling, in order to enable CPN passage to the PSN from payphone lines. "P -0*%%ZZ"Ԍ X-  !x23. Ameritech.ou yOy-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Ameritech Third NPRM Comments at 1.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#њ and the FBI contend that the Commission's decision that all PSPs offer  X- xjblocking and unblocking capabilities is overly broad./Xou yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") Third NPRM comments at 2. #Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѹ The FBI states that solutions exist that  X- xcould, on an ad hoc basis, address privacy needs, without harming public safety.0ou {Ok-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. #Xj\  P6G;ynXP#у It states that  xper line blocking could be offered when a specific payphone line requires such privacy  X- xprotection.1zou {O -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 5.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ц U S WEST states that blocking arrangements should be decided by the payphone  X-location owner and PSPs, rather than by this Commission.2 ou yOL -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э U S WEST at 8.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#х  Xa-  x24. The FBI states that blocking capabilities at payphones would undermine its  XJ- xinvestigative efforts.3Jou yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э FBI Third NPRM comments at 2.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#є It argues that payphones, by their very nature, offer anonymity, and CPN  xblocking would provide "little additional" protection to the noncriminal user. The FBI contends  xythat payphone users have reduced privacy expectations when compared to users of residential  X -service.4 , ou {O-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 2.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ц  X -  x25. Several advocacy groups against domestic violencel5z ou {OF- x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Several groups filed ex parte letters opposing arguments raised in BellSouth's petition for reconsideration.  xThe groups include the Women's Center of Montgomery County (Pennsylvania), the New Mexico Domestic Violence  xLEGAL HELPline, Womansplace, New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic & Sexual Violence, the New Jersey  xxCoalition for Battered Women, the New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Inc., the Rhode Island  xCoalition Against Domestic Violence, the Rockland Family Shelter, Support Inc., the Texas Council on Family  xViolence, the Women's Advocacy Project, Women Against Abuse, Women's Services, Inc., and the YWCA Spouse Abuse Center.l oppose BellSouth's request that  xMthe blocking and unblocking requirement not apply to payphones. These parties state that  xyblocking options at payphones will provide an important safety device for persons in domestic violence shelters who may need to block their numbers when using a payphone. "d 50*%%ZZ"  X-x` ` 2. Third NPRM  X-  mx26. Nortel, APCC6ou yOK-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э American Public Communications Council ("APCC").#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѧ, Intellicall, and other commenters, state that the cost of providing  xblocking and unblocking capabilities at payphones would be unreasonably high for IPPs. APCC  xMand Intellicall estimate that the industry would spend $25 million to $30 million to replace or  X- x{reprogram their systems to acquire Caller ID blocking and unblocking capability.7Xou yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Intellicall Third NPRM comments at 9.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ќ Some  Xv- xcommenters argue that all PSPs should be treated identically.8vou {O - xԍ See, e.g., BellSouth Petition at 7, USTA reply comments to the BellSouth Petition at 2, and Nortel reply comments to the BellSouth Petition at 3. SWBT states that payphone users  xcannot differentiate between LECowned payphones and IPPowned payphones, and therefore  xcustomer confusion would result if certain payphones had blocking and unblocking capabilities  X1-while others did not.91Bou yO$-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э SWBT Third NPRM comments at 2. #Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ї  X -  x27. Intellicall states that it strongly disagrees with those commenters asserting that the  X - xCommission's blocking and unblocking requirements should apply uniformly to all PSPs.: ou yOo-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Intellicall Third NPRM comments at 89.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ў It  xadds that IPPs cannot generally implement blocking and unblocking through changes at the  X - xLcentral office, but instead must undertake major, and costly, reprogramming or retrofitting.; b ou {O-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 1011.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ъ It  xfurther states that IPPs do not offer Caller ID services and that most LECs already provide  X-blocking on their pay telephones.< ou {O5-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#р  Xb-  x28. USTA contends that implementing per call blocking and unblocking capabilities on  x<payphones raises serious concerns that warrant further consideration. It states that the transient  x-nature of payphone users, the substantial costs of implementing blocking, and the interest of law  xenforcement officials in avoiding blocking make it unclear that the Commission's decision will  X-serve the public interest.= ou yO="-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э USTA BellSouth Petition reply at 12.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ќ  X-  Nx29. Finally, APCC states that the IPPs would face significant "indirect" costs due to the" =0*%%ZZ"  X- x[depletion of available memory space on their payphones.>ou yOy-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э APCC Third NPRM comments at 7.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѕ APCC argues that "a large portion  xxof the memory capacity of existing [payphone] units has already been used to accommodate other  X- x. . . requirements, such as changes in the industry numbering plan."?Xou {O-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#р It further argues that "the  xaddition of *67 and *82 capabilities would require a very substantial amount of remaining  xmemory space." APCC also states that it is especially concerned about older payphone models because they typically have less memory space than newer payphone models.  X_-x` ` Discussion   X1-x` ` 1. BellSouth Petition for Reconsiderationpp x` `  V -x` `  a. Efficiency Concerns  X -  X -  {x30. BellSouth has submitted new information regarding its technical capabilities, the low  xCPN passage rate from payphones, and the economic factors associated with installing blocking  X - x<and unblocking functionalities at payphones that causes us to reverse our earlier decision.@ ou yOB-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э SWBT and U S WEST, and other carriers, support BellSouth's arguments.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#Ѽ We  x<conclude that we should grant BellSouth's petition for reconsideration of our payphone decision, and hold that payphone lines are not subject to our Caller ID rules.  XK-  x31. BellSouth, SWBT and other LECs also stated that their payphone lines use MF  xSignalling on operatorassisted calls, and that MF trunks do not pass CPN. In order to pass the  xCPN on operatorassisted calls to the PSN, these carriers would have to install SS7related  xsoftware and hardware. U S WEST states that it would cost $19 million to equip its payphone  xlines with SS7 capability. BellSouth states that it would have to spend $84 million to convert  X- xits operator services trunk system to SS7 technology.AZzou {O- x[#X\  P6G;ɒP#э In an ex parte letter from Ben Almond to William Caton, Acting Secretary, dated November 19, 1996,  x<BellSouth stated that it would have to convert 300,000 operator trunks at a cost of $280 per trunk. U S WEST predicts that the cost per trunk is $400 and that it has approximately 50,000 trunks. The decision not to require investment  x\in OSS7 is consistent with the policy set forth in the First Report & Order and in the May 5,  x1995 Order, in which we did not require carriers to invest in SS7 technology in order to enable delivery of the calling party number.  Xe-  x32. Because many PSPs do not pass the CPN to the PSN on operatorassisted calls, we  xfind that the ability to block and unblock is not essential to providing calling party privacy on"N A0*%%ZZ"  X- xthese phones, in most circumstances.NBou {Oy-ԍ Joint LEC Ex Parte Letter at 1.N BellSouth, U S WEST, SWBT, and others state that  x.interstate payphoneoriginated toll calls must be charged to a calling card, credit card, prepaid  xcard, or must be "setup" with operator assistance. They further state that none of these call "set xup" mechanisms pass CPN to the called party. SWBT adds that CPN is only passed to an  X- x=interconnecting carrier on interstate intraLATAyCZou yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Local Access and Transport Area ("LATA").y nontoll calls, which represent an "extremely  X- xminute percentage" of the total calls placed from payphones.Dou {O( -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See Ex parte letter from Michael Bennett of SWBT to William F. Caton, dated April 12, 1996. #Xj\  P6G;ynXP# Because our Caller ID rules only  x apply to interstate calls for which CPN is transmitted, we find that it is not cost effective to  xrequire PSPs to provide blocking features at all payphones for the small volume of interstate  xZintraLATA calls that originate at those phones. We further conclude that there is no need for the  xunblocking functionality on payphone lines because payphone lines do not generally have per line blocking.  X -x` `  b. Blocking and Unblocking of CPN Passage  X -  lx 33. The Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate argues that blocking options could  xprovide an important safety mechanism for persons in domestic violence shelters who may need  X- xto block their numbers when using a payphone.E|ou yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate ("PAOCA") Third NPRM comments at 3.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP# SAGE adds that victims of domestic violence  xirequire absolute confidentiality, and that any breach of this confidentiality, particularly disclosure  Xd- xiof the shelter location, could endanger shelter staff and residents.Fd ou yO!-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Survivors Against Abuse and Growing in Education ("SAGE") Third NPRM comments at 3.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP# We acknowledge the validity  xxof the privacy concerns raised by these parties, but also note that safety can be achieved through  X6- x<means narrower than requiring blocking and unblocking of interstate calls on all payphones. For  xexample, payphone location owners could arrange for a carrier to activate per line blocking on  xtheir payphone units. Another solution is to make available an administrative line equipped with  xper line blocking whenever privacy is required. We also note that payphone users can place  x<interstate calls from payphones through an operator. Finally, we conclude that it is more efficient  xfor individuals and groups to rely on these kinds of safeguards than to require all PSPs to perform costly upgrades, particularly since CPN is rarely passed from these lines.  X-x` ` 2. Third Notice  XR-  x!34. We further hold that IPPs will not be subject to our blocking and unblocking  xrequirements. We find that requiring different rules for IPPs and LECs would be inconsistent"; F0*%%ZZ"  X- xLwith our decision in the Pay Telephone Reclassification Order.GXou yOy- xX #X\  P6G;ɒP#э Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications  yOA- x;Act of 1996  CC Docket No. 96128, FCC 96388, (rel. Sept. 20, 1996) ("Pay Telephone Reclassification Order");  yO -Recon. Order on Reconsideration, FCC 96439 (rel. Nov. 8, 1996). In that decision we sought to  x2advance the goals of Section 276 of the Communications Act, as amended by the  xTelecommunications Act of 1996, by adopting rules that will promote competition among  xpayphone service providers and promote the widespread deployment of payphone services to the  X- xbenefit of the general public.Hou yO= -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Pay Telephone Reclassification Order at 3.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѧ As Intellicall notes, if we subject IPPs, but not LECs, to Caller  xID privacy requirements, IPPs will be placed at a competitive disadvantage. APCC estimates that  x.the IPP industry would spend $25 million to $40 million to retrofit its payphones so they could  X_- xoffer blocking and unblocking capabilities.I_xou yO -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э APCC Third NPRM Comments at 9.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѕ We find that these costs, if imposed solely on the  xZIPPs, could harm competition in the payphone market and may hinder the widespread deployment of payphone services.  X -  x"35. We are not persuaded by Intellicall's contention that IPPs and LECs warrant disparate  xtreatment. Intellicall states that LECs have more lucrative cost recovery options, and should  X - x=therefore pay for installation of blocking and unblocking features at IPP payphones.J ou yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Intellicall Third NPRM comments at 7.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ќ In light  xof the Pay Telephone Reclassification Order, we find that Intellicall's proposition now would place the LECs at a competitive disadvantage.  X-  Xy-  Xb-xC. Private Branch Exchanges, Centrex and Plexar  X4-x ` ` Background  X-  !x#36. In the Third NPRM the Commission proposed that PBXs capable of delivering CPN  xto the PSN be required to offer the ability to block and unblock CPN passage to telephone users  xserved by such systems. The rationale for this proposal was that PBX users have no diminished  xKprivacy expectations compared to nonPBX users, and thus the PBX users should have access to  X- xblocking and unblocking capabilities.Kou yO!-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э May 5, 1995 Order at 11742.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ђ In the October 30, 1995 Order, the Commission stayed  X- xlthese requirements as applied to Centrex and PlexarL( ou yOl$-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Plexar is a SWBT Centrex service.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ј services until further notice.M ou yO- x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification Service Caller ID, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13819 (1995) ("October 30, 1995 Order"). The" M0*%%ZZQ"  xCommission agreed with commenters that there should be symmetry in the application of our  X- xLrules regarding these services and PBX systems,N ou {O-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 13820.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ъ which perform many of the same functions,  X-e.g., stationtostation dialing and direct inward dialing.  X-x` ` Comments  Xx-  x$37. The majority of commenters strongly oppose our proposal to require installation of  Xa- xxblocking and unblocking capabilities in PBX systems.O"aou {O - xxԍ See generally, SWBT Third NPRM comments, TIAUPED Third NPRM comments, Ad Hoc Third NPRM  yO - xwcomments, Nortel Third NPRM comments, BellSouth Third NPRM comments, GTE Third NPRM reply comments,  xMCI Third NPRM comments, AT & T Third NPRM comments, NYNEX Third NPRM reply comments, TCA Third NPRM reply comments, and ACUTA Third NPRM comments. Ad HocPaou yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э The Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee ("Ad Hoc"). #Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѱ states that most deployed PBX  xLsystems are not capable of passing CPN to the PSN, and thus enforcing our rules against PBX  X3- x-owners would not further our goals of nationwide CPN passage.Q3, ou yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Ad Hoc Third NPRM Comments at i.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ї Ad Hoc and MCI further state  X - xthat deployed PBXs cannot generally support blocking and unblocking functionalities.R ou {O-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 13; MCI comments at 12.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ќ  xBellSouth states that it would have to spend seven million dollars to equip its 5ESS switches to  X - xcomply with the Commission's proposal.S N ou yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э BellSouth Third Notice comments at 3.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ќ NYNEX also states that it lacks "the capability to  xprovide per call blocking and unblocking on PBX service for certain switch types and would  X -incur significant costs to institute such capability."uT ou yOO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э NYNEX Third NPRM reply comments at 3.u  X-  0x%38. MCI states that PBXs use private dialing plans, not the North American Numbering  X{- xPlan ("NANP") that is used by the public switched network.U{nou yO!-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э MCI Comments at p. 12.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ю MCI adds that the number  x<transmitted by the PBX to the public switched network would be meaningless unless PBX dialing  XM- xMplans are incorporated into the NANP.VMou {O$-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#р Ad Hoc estimates that retrofitting costs would be"MV0*%%ZZ"  X- xapproximately $20,000 per PBX.Wou yOy-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Ad Hoc Third NPRM comments at 13.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ј Commenters acknowledge the need for privacy at PBX  xsystems, but they argue that the PBX owner should be the one to choose privacy options for its  X-users.XXou {O-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See, e.g., GTE Third Notice Reply comments at 4.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѳ  X-x&39. SAGE supports blocking options at PBXs and noted that PBXs may be employed in:  S2 PP places where callers have a strong need for blocking protection, such as a hotel,  X_- S2motel or domestic violence shelter. Likewise, providers of legal and counseling  S2services located in offices with PBX systems may wish to use blocking  S23mechanisms to protect themselves and their clients. The parties state that the  S22important policy considerations which the Commission appropriately highlighted  X -in [the May 5, 1995 Order] apply with equal force in the PBX . . . setting.Y  yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э SAGE Third NPRM comments at 5.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѕ  PP   X -     x'40. Finally, SWBT notes that Centrex systems, like PBXs, are private systems in which  xthe customer chooses the dialing codes for various features, and that some SWBT Plexar  X - xcustomers currently use *8 for a group call pickup or similar function.Z zou yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э SWBT Third NPRM comments at 3.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѕ Thus, according to  xiSWBT, extending the *82 unblocking requirement to these systems would inconvenience existing  Xy-users and SWBT requests that the use of "#082" for per call unblocking be permitted.[y ou {O4-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#р     XK-x ` ` Discussion  X-   x(41. In the Third NPRM, we tentatively concluded that any PBX systems capable of CPN  X- xpassage must provide blocking and unblocking options. Based upon the new information in the  X- xrecord before us, we now require that PBX systems that do pass the end user CPN must provide  xblocking capability within one year of the release date of this order. We find that this rule will  ximpose no undue burdens on owners or operators of those PBXs that cannot pass the end user  x.CPN. We also set a compliance date of one year from the release date of this order for carriers  X- xkto institute blocking capability where necessary for its PBX service, i.e., LEC switches must  x<recognize *67 per call blocking requests from PBXs that pass end user CPN. For newlydeployed  xPBXs that pass end user CPN, carriers shall institute blocking capability on the PBX lines within  xone year of the date of release of this order, or within six months of the initiation of service to the PBX, whichever is later."?[0*%%ZZ"Ԍ  X-  Ox)42. Taking into account MCI's comments,\ou {Ob-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See para. 38, supra.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ї we emphasize that if a PBX is capable of  x=sending the end user CPN to the PSN, as opposed to an administrative or other number that is  xknot the end user's telephone number, and if the PBX owner or operator chooses to pass the  xformer CPN, then the PBX must have some form of blocking capability available for each user.  xWe recognize that some modern PBXs that have the capability of passing CPN also have the  xability to suppress it. Activation of the latter option by the PBX owner would preclude any need for end user blocking capability.  X1-  ?x*43. Finally, we extend our PBX rule to Centrex systems based on our concern that caller  xMprivacy be protected when the caller desires it to be and when the CPN would otherwise be  xpassed from those systems. Such systems that currently use *6 or *8 codes for other  X - xLfunctionalities, however, may continue to do so, but then must accomplish per call blocking or  xjper line unblocking in some other manner. This obligation, as well as the obligation to educate  xpurchasers of Centrex services, falls upon the carrier and must be met within one year of the date of release of this order.  X-  Xb- xD. Hotel and Motel Lineshh  X4-x` ` Background  X-  ^x+44. In the May 5, 1995 Order, the Commission reaffirmed its conclusion that effective  x=December 1, 1995, carriers must offer callers placing calls from telephones in hotels and motels  xthe ability to block and unblock passage of their CPN. It reached that conclusion because  xcommenters had failed to demonstrate why hotel and motel telephone users had lower  xexpectations of privacy protection than other telephone users. The Commission further noted that  x[the record contained no evidence that hotel or motel telephones present unique problems with respect to the Caller ID rules.  XN-  Nx,45. On July 5, 1995, BellSouth filed for reconsideration of our decision that callers using  xhotel and motel lines must be able to block and unblock passage of their CPN. BellSouth  xcontends that such callers' privacy expectations can be protected without requiring that all hotel  xLand motel lines have blocking and unblocking capability. BellSouth states that, in most cases,  xthe number presented to the called party will be the hotel's or motel's main number rather than  x.that of the line from which the call originated. Thus, to maintain anonymity, a caller need only  xrefrain from disclosing his or her name or room number. Moreover, BellSouth argues that  xjpersons with heightened safety needs cannot inadvertently reveal their numbers. It notes that  x.telephone lines equipped with the *67 feature prevent the calling party's number from passing""Z\0*%%ZZ!"  xKto an interconnecting carrier, while lines that do not have the *67 feature return a fast busy signal  xrather than allow the call to go through. BellSouth states that the fast busy signal would "remind" the caller to use an alternative calling arrangement, such as operatorassisted dialing.  X-  x-46. Finally, BellSouth argues that the cost of providing blocking and unblocking  xcapabilities on hotel and motel lines outweighs the benefits because many hotels and motels use  xkPBX systems that cannot pass the CPN to the PSN. It further argues that many callers from  xxtelephones in hotels and motels use calling cards, or other operatorassisted services, and in such cases the callers' CPN is not passed to the PSN.  X -  ?x.47. In the October 30, 1995 Order,] ou yO -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э October 30, 1995 Order at 13819. #Xj\  P6G;ynXP#Ѱ the Commission stayed the application of the Caller  xID rules for hotel and motel lines until January 1, 1997 based on the petitioner's and  xcommenters' argument that carriers would be forced to make costly and inefficient network  xupgrades if the Commission required carriers to offer blocking and unblocking capabilities from  X - x=hotel and motel lines before it decides how the Caller ID rules should apply to PBX systems.^ Xou {O-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 1381913820.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѐ  xZCarriers noted that many hotels and motels use PBX systems, and that the Commission's decision  xwith respect to the applicability of the Commission's rules to owners of PBXs will affect hotel  xand motels as well. On December 23, 1996, the Commission issued a further stay of the blocking  Xb-and unblocking requirements for PBXs._bou yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э December 23, 1996 Order.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#я  X4-x ` ` Comments  X-   x/48. NYNEX argues that the privacy expectations of payphone users are reduced when  xcompared with those of residential subscribers. NYNEX and SWBT argue that guests calling  xfrom hotels and motels typically use calling cards, the use of which leads to blocking of CPN  X-passage to the PSN.`zou yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э NYNEX comments at 3, n. 9.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ё  X-  Mx049. Advocates against domestic abuse, on the other hand, argue that blocking features are  X|- xneeded to protect the safety of domestic abuse victims.a| ou yO7"-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э SAGE and Sisters Overcoming Abusive Relationships ("SOAR") at 2.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѷ These parties state that victims of  xdomestic abuse sometimes hide in hotels and motels and could experience bodily harm if calls from hotel and motel lines cannot be blocked. "7a0*%%ZZ"Ԍ X-x ` ` Discussion  X-   x150. The comments submitted in response to the BellSouth Petition for Reconsideration  xyand the Third NPRM have persuaded us that the public interest will best be served if hotel and  xmotel lines are subject to our Caller ID rules, with one significant exception. SWBT states the  x["vast majority of hotel and motel stations are served by PBX systems, which cannot recognize  xblocking codes." In this order we exempt PBXs from blocking and unblocking requirements if  x/they do not pass the CPN to the PSN. Consistent with that decision, we conclude that it is  x[appropriate that hotels and motels that employ such PBXs should not be required to retrofit or  xMreprogram their PBX systems to offer blocking capabilities, which could cost approximately  x$20,000 per PBX, and that the lines or trunks serving such PBXs also not be required to comply  X - xzwith our Caller ID rules.b ou {O| -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See paragraph 38, supra.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ћ If hotels or motels do not use PBX systems, then carriers serving  xKthese hotel or motel lines must provide blocking and unblocking capabilities on these lines within one year of the date of this order.  X -  X-xE. Party lines  Xb- x` ` Background   X4-x` ` 1. BellSouth Petition for Reconsideration  X-   x251. In the May 5, 1995 Order, we affirmed our conclusion that Caller ID rules apply to  xparty lines. In affirming that conclusion, we rejected LEC claims that party line users have  X- x<reduced privacy expectations in making phone calls than do other telephone service users.cZou yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э May 5, 1995 Order at 11739.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ђ We  xalso stated that carriers must provide blocking and unblocking capabilities on party lines by  xJanuary 1, 1997. BellSouth requests that we reconsider our decision to require that party line  xcustomers be able to block and unblock passage of their CPN. The carrier states that in order  xyto provide blocking and unblocking capabilities for party lines, each 5ESS switch serving party  Xe- xline customers would have to be upgraded.deou yO -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э BellSouth Petition at 16.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѐ BellSouth further notes that only 0.17% of its  XN- xLaccess lines are served by party lines and the service is being phased out.eNzou {Oy"-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#р On December 23,  x1996, the Commission issued a stay of the blocking and unblocking requirements as they apply"7 e0*%%ZZ"  X-to party lines, until further notice.fou yOy-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э December 23, 1996 Order.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#я  X-x` ` 2. GTE Petition  X-  3x352. GTE asks that we clarify whether it must provide blocking and unblocking  xcapabilities on fourparty lines. The carrier states that it would have to make a significant  xfinancial investment in order to offer Caller ID on fourparty lines. GTE states that cost  X_- x=estimates are not available, but that it anticipates that the investment will not be "de minimis."  X3- x` ` Comments   X -  x453. U S WEST supports BellSouth's argument that party lines would require expensive  X - xupgrades.g Xou yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э U S WEST at 4.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#х U S WEST states that it would have to spend $4.2 million to prepare its 5ESS  xswitches to provide blocking and unblocking capabilities on party lines. Many carriers note that  xthey are phasing out party lines. U S WEST states that it, like BellSouth, has few subscribers  X - xto party line service.h ou {OB-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 8.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ц SWBT expects to have eliminated party line service by the effective date  xof the Commission's requirements, but nonetheless concurred that costly service modifications  xKshould not be required for a service that is being phased out. Nortel notes that vendors will need  xto develop and test blocking and unblocking software because currently it may not be possible  XM-to upgrade some switches to support blocking and unblocking features.iMzou yOx-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Nortel Third NPRM Comments at 4.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ї  X-  |x554. Finally, many commenters agree with BellSouth that party line customers' privacy  X-expectations are lower than those users of other telephone service subscribers.j ou {O-ԍ See NYNEX Third NPRM reply comments at n. 9, Joint LEC Ex Parte Letter at 3.  X- x` ` Discussion  X-  x655. Neither BellSouth nor other commenters have presented new evidence that would  xwarrant a modification of the Caller ID rules regarding party line service. BellSouth raises  xarguments based upon claims that carriers were phasing out party line service and that party line  x=users had a lower expectation of privacy than other telephone service users. The Commission"gj0*%%ZZ"  X- xconsidered, and rejected, these arguments in its May 5, 1995 Order.kou yOy-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э May 5, 1995 Order at 11739.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ђ Additionally, GTE has  xxsubmitted no evidence to support its contention that fourparty lines should be treated differently  xfrom other subscriber lines. We therefore find that carriers with SS7 and CLASS) capability  xLmust provide per call blocking and per call unblocking capabilities on all party lines within one year of the release of this order.  Xv-  x756. We will not modify our rules merely because the carriers may have to complete  x<switch upgrades to offer blocking and unblocking capabilities on party lines. Many carriers must  xupgrade their switches to comply with other Commission rules and policies, and the commenters  xLhave failed to show that the upgrades needed to offer blocking and unblocking capabilities on party lines are significantly different from these other upgrades.  X -  X -xF. Automatic Call Return Services  X -x ` ` Background   Xy-  x857. In the Second Report and Order,lyXou yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э The Second Report and Order was issued as part of the May 5, 1995 Order.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѿ the Commission concluded that its Caller ID rules  xshould apply to automatic call return ("ACR") services and adopted a rule to implement that  XK- xconclusion.mKou yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э 47 C.F.R.  64.1601(b).#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ё If the called party invokes the call return service and the original calling party  xrequested that CPN not be passed, ACR must be disabled so that it does not allow the called  xparty to learn the number of the telephone from which the calling party placed his or her call  X- x("ACR blocking").nxou {O/-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#р The Commission had reasoned that call return service might enable the  xcalled party to glean information about the calling party that the calling party apparently did not  xwish to reveal. Such a disclosure would be inconsistent with our intent to protect the calling  xparty's privacy. Additionally, the Commission stated that requiring ACR blocking enables  xgroups, such as victims of domestic abuse, to prevent their telephone numbers from being  xkrevealed without their consent. The Commission recognized that disabling ACR services is  xLtechnically possible, although carriers may incur some expense in configuring their services to do this.  X7-  @x958. On July 5, 1995, BellSouth filed for reconsideration of our decision in the Second  xReport and Order that ACR services should be blocked when the original calling party requested"  n0*%%ZZ"  xprivacy. In the October 30, 1995 Order we stayed the application of the Caller ID rules to call  xreturn services until January 1, 1997. The Commission noted that the petitioner and commenters  xhad provided new information and persuasively argued that carriers could incur unnecessary costs  xif the Commission required carriers to implement ACR blocking prior to having addressed issues  X- xjraised in the BellSouth Petition.oou yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э October 30, 1995 Order at 13820.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѝ On December 23, 1996, the Commission issued a further stay  X-until further notice of the ACR blocking requirement.pXou yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э December 23, 1996 Order.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѕ  X_-x` `  Comments  X1-  "x:59. Several of the Bell Operating Companies ("BOCs") agree with BellSouth that the  xCommission should not require disabling of call return on interstate calls when the initiating  X - xparty's CPN is marked private.q ou {O- x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See, e.g., SWBT comments in response to the BellSouth Petition at 6. See generally Joint LEC Ex Parte Letter. These parties argue that returning such a call does not violate  x\the calling party's privacy, and that the caller's number is not revealed (unless and until it is  X - xdisplayed on the call return customer's bill).r Bou {O-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#р They also assert that current technology cannot  xsupport different call return blocking methodologies for interstate and intrastate calls within the  X - xsame LATA absent significant investment.s ou {O,-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#р Thus these BOCs also requested that any federal  xrequirement apply to all interstate traffic once interstate/interLATA calls are capable of being  Xy- xreturned using the call return feature.tyf ou {O-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See generally Joint LEC Ex Parte Letter.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѫ SWBT states that since its introduction ACR has been  xused almost exclusively for intrastate calls, and no state commission has required this service to  XK- xbe disabled for calls marked private.uK ou {O-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See SWBT comments in response to BellSouth Petition at 6.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#Ѷ BellSouth estimates that it would cost at least $16 million  xto upgrade its network in order to comply with this requirement, independent of requirements  X- xLrelating to payphones, hotel and motel lines, and party line service.v ou yOX!-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э BellSouth reply comments to BellSouth Petition at 10, n. 19.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѳ It argues that the ability  x-of emergency service personnel to contact a caller who became disconnected may be jeopardized  X-by such a blocking requirement.wou yO$-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э BellSouth Petition at 20.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ѐ"w0*%%ZZ'"Ԍ X-ԙx` `  Discussion  X-  x;60. We deny BellSouth's petition for reconsideration on this issue and require that  xLcarriers comply with Section 64.1601(b) as it applies to call return services within six months of  xjthe date of this order's release. Without new evidence contradicting our earlier conclusion, we  xcontinue to find that a caller's privacy can be compromised if the called party invokes ACR. We  xrecognize that, for interstate calls, ACR is available only in the limited instances in which the call  X_- xdoes not traverse a LATA boundary (intraLATA).x_ou {O-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See Id. #Xj\  P6G;ynXP#х In the future, however, ACR might become  x.available for interLATA calls, of which the vast majority are interstate. To protect the privacy  xLof the calling party, we also prohibit any billing practice that reveals the original calling party's  X - xname or number when that caller requests that CPN be blocked; i.e., we prohibit carriers from  xrevealing this protected information on the telephone bill of the called party. Addressing  x/BellSouth's concern that the ability of emergency service personnel to contact a caller who  xbecomes disconnected may be jeopardized by a requirement to inhibit ACR, we note that  X -emergency services are exempt from our Caller ID requirements.y Zou {O-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 47 C.F.R.  64.1601(d)(2).#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ў " y0*%%ZZl "  X-IX.xORDERING CLAUSEShh@  X-  X- ` 3x<61.` ` ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, that pursuant to the authority contained in  xSections 1, 4(i)(j), 201, and 218 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  x  151, 154(i)(j), 201, and 218 that BellSouth's petition for partial further reconsideration IS GRANTED to the extent stated herein and, in all other respects, IS DENIED. x  X_- ` `x=62.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that compliance dates are set for: six months from  xthe date of release of this order for blocking of call return services, and one year from the date  xjof release of this order for party lines, hotel and motel lines, and PBX and Centrex systems that pass the CPN to the PSN.  X - ` Bx>63.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the stay of the Caller ID rules issued in Rules  X - x{and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification Service Caller ID, DA 962181, CC Docket 91281, released December 23, 1996, is terminated upon release of this order. x` ` x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@William F. Caton x` `  hh@Acting Secretary "y0*%%ZZ"  X-T ă X-T(] APPENDIX ATP  X-] REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS ă  Y- #Xw PE37 |XP#  Yv- xAs required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C.  601 et seq., an Initial  xRegulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Third Notice of Proposed  xRulemaking (Third Notice) in this proceeding. The Commission requested written comments  x<on the proposals in the Third Notice. In the Fourth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Fourth  Y - xJNotice) the Commission considered regulatory flexibility issues, but certified that there was no  Y - xsignificant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.z"  {O| - xЍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#See Fourth Notice at 13809. We note that the certification was issued prior to enactment of the amendments  xto the RFA by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), which was enacted as  xTitle II of the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA), Pub. L. No. 104121, 110 Stat. 847  yO-(1996).#x6X@`7 X@# Although there were   [no comments filed in response to the certification, on our own motion we reconsider our  Y -  + certification in the Fourth Notice and decide to undertake a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis   (FRFA) in conformity with the RFA, as amended by the SBREFA. We do so because the   requirements governing agency treatment of regulatory flexibility issues have become more   stringent while this docket has been open and because of the possible effects of our actions on   small entities.  y"t The Commission's Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in this Order   conforms to the RFA, as amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996,  YK-(CWAAA), Pub. L. No. 104121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996).s{K yO-Ѝ #X\  P6G;ɒP#5 U.S.C.  601. s  X- A.` ` Need for and Purpose of this Third Report and Order (#`   This Third Report and Order addresses comments filed in response to the Third and Fourth   Notices concerning the application of Section 64.1601 blocking and unblocking requirements to   payphones, private branch exchange systems (PBXs), Centrex systems, and local exchange  Y-  carriers (LECs) without blocking and unblocking capabilities.r|B {O-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#See 47 C.F.R.  64.1601.r In this Order we exempt   payphones, PBXs, LECs without blocking and unblocking capabilities, and carriers serving   Centrex systems from the Section 64.1601 blocking and unblocking requirements. We conclude   ,that the carriers and PBX operators affected by this ruling must, however, continue to provide   blocking and unblocking capabilities to users served by those lines if they pass the calling party   number (CPN) to an interconnecting carrier. Finally, the rules adopted in this proceeding   safeguard calling parties' privacy as well as provide some relief for payphone service providers" |0*%%ZZ" (PSPs), PBX owners, and LECs without blocking and unblocking capabilities.  X-   B.` ` Analysis of Significant Issues Raised in Response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and the Certification(#`  Yv-  ; In the Third Notice, the Commission performed an IRFA where it found that the rule revisions   xit proposed to adopt in this proceeding could affect offerings of private payphones and PBX  YH-  systems capable of delivering CPN to the public switched network.k}H yO -ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#Third Notice at Appendix A.k No comments were   Jsubmitted in direct response to the IRFA in the Third Notice, or the Commission's certification  Y -  in the Fourth Notice. We have, however, reviewed general comments for issues that may  Y -  impact small entities.~ X {O -ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#See, e.g., paras. 10 and 12 in this order. We have strived to place requirements which impose the least economic  Y -impact on small businesses while balancing the privacy interests of end users.  {O-  ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#See, e.g., our decision in para. 15 of this order not to impose upon LECs without CLASS) software the burden of obtaining this software.  X -   C.` ` Description and Estimates of the Number of Small Entities Affected by this  X -Third Report and Order (#`   ;The RFA defines "small entity" to include the definition of "small business concern" under the  Yb-  =Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632.bD {OW-  -ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#See 5 U.S.C.  601(6) (incorporating by reference the definition of "small business concern" in 5 U.S.C.  632). Under the Small Business Act, a "small business   concern" is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field   {of operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria established by the Small Business  Y-  lAdministration.s {Ol-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#See 15 U.S.C.  632(1)(a).s The SBA has defined companies listed under Standard Industrial  Y-  Classification (SIC) categories 4812 (Radiotelephone Communications)0  yO-  ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#13 C.F.R.  121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes 4812 and 4813 (SIC 4812 and SIC 4813, respectively). and 4813 (Telephone   wCommunications, Except Radiotelephone) to be small entities when they have fewer than 1,500   employees. The SBA has defined companies listed under the SIC category 7379 (Business   Services, not otherwise classified) to be small entities when they have annual receipts of less   than five million dollars. These standards also apply in determining whether an entity is a small" 0*%%ZZ" business for purposes of the RFA.   Because the small incumbent LECs that would be subject to these rules are either dominant in   their field of operations or are not independently owned and operated, consistent with our prior   practice, they are excluded from the definition of "small entity" and "small business  Y-  Kconcerns."> {O-   Ѝ #X\  P6G;ɒP#See Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report  yO-  -and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499 (1996) (First Interconnection Order), motion for stay of the FCC's rules pending  yO-  judicial review denied, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996,  yO` -  Order, 11 FCC Rcd 11754 (1996), partial stay granted, Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC, No. 963321, 1996 WL 589204  yO( -(8th Cir. Oct. 15, 1996) (Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC) at paras. 13281330 and 1342.#x6X@`7 X@#> Accordingly, our use of the terms "small entities" and "small businesses" does  Yv-  not encompass small incumbent LECs.ivz {O -ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#See id. para. 1342.i Out of an abundance of caution, however, for   <regulatory flexibility analysis purposes, we will consider small incumbent LECs within this   analysis and use the term "small incumbent LECs" to refer to any incumbent LECs that arguably might be defined by SBA as "small business concerns."   The decisions made by the Commission in this Third Report and Order may apply to a variety of entities listed below.   Y - Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition   of small entity specifically applicable to providers of local exchange services. The closest   ]applicable definition is that under SBA rules for telephone communications, except   radiotelephone, SIC 4813, which defines a small entity as one with 1500 or fewer employees.   The most reliable source of information regarding the number of LECs nationwide is the data   that we collect annually in connection with the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS).   According to our most recent data, 1,347 companies reported doing business as LECs at the end  Y-  of 1994.X  yO-  jЍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#Federal Communications Commission, CCB, Industry Analysis Division, Telecommunications Industry  yO-  Revenue: TRS Fund Worksheet Data, Tbl. 11 (Average Total Telecommunications Revenue Reported by Class of  yOj-Carrier) (Dec.1996) (TRS Worksheet). Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned   and operated, or have more than 1500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with   zany more certainty the number of LECs that would qualify as small business concerns.   Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1,347 small incumbent LECs that may be  Y-affected by the decision and rules adopted in this Third Report and Order.  Y- Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of   small entity specifically applicable to providers of interexchange services (IXCs). The closest   ]applicable definition is that under SBA rules for telephone communications, except"e, 0*%%ZZ]"   iradiotelephone, SIC 4813. The most reliable source of information regarding the number of   IXCs nationwide is the data that we collect annually in connection with TRS. According to our   most recent data, 130 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of   =interexchange services and 30 companies reported that they were engaged in "other" toll  Y-  services.L {O-  Ѝ #X\  P6G;ɒP#Id. Firms filing TRS Worksheets are asked to select a single category that best describes their operation. As a result, some carriers describe themselves as IXCs, some as resellers, some as OSPs, and some as "other."L Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned   and operated, or have more than 1500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with   greater precision the number of IXCs that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's   definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 130 small entity IXCs and 30   h"other" toll carriers that may be affected by the decision and rules adopted in this Third Report and Order.  Y - yWireless Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition   of small entity specifically applicable to providers of wireless services. The closest applicable   definition is that under SBA rules for radiotelephone communications, SIC 4812, which defines   a small entity as one with 1500 or fewer employees. The 1992 Census of Transportation,   Communications, and Utilities, conduced by the Bureau of the Census, shows that only 12   ;radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,176 such firms that operated during 1992 had 1,000 or  Yy-  \more employees.bXy" yOL-  Yԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications,   <and Utilities, UC92S1, subject series, Establishment and Firm Size, Table 5, Employment Size of Firms: 1992, SIC 4812 (issued May 1995).b Therefore, even if all 12 of these large firms were radiotelephone   companies, all of the reminder were small businesses under the SBA's definition. We assume   that, for purposes of our evaluations and conclusions, in the FRFA all of the current radiotelephone licensees are small entities, as the term is defined by the SBA.  Y-  Y- Competitive Access Providers. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a   definition of small entity specifically applicable to providers of competitive access services   (CAPs). The closest applicable definition is that under SBA rules for telephone communications,   yexcept radiotelephone, SIC 4813, which defines a small entity as one with 1500 or fewer   wemployees. The most reliable source of information regarding the number of CAPs nationwide   is the data that we collect annually in connection with TRS. According to our most recent data  Y|-  57 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of competitive access services.|B {Oo!-ԍ #Xw PE37 |XP## X\  P6G;ɒP#See TRS Worksheet.#x6X@`7 X@#   Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated,   or have more than 1500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision   the number of CAPS that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition.   hConsequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 57 small entity CAPS that may be affected" 0*%%ZZ-" by the decision and rules adopted in this Third Report and Order.  Y- Operator Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition   ,of small entity specifically applicable to providers of operator services. The closest applicable   definition is that under SBA rules for telephone communications, except radiotelephone, SIC   .4813. The most reliable source of information regarding the number of operator service   providers nationwide is the data that we collect annually in connection with TRS. According   to our most recent data 25 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of  YH-  operator services.H {O -ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#Id.#x6X@`7 X@#р Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently   Yowned and operated, or have more than 1500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate   -with greater precision the number of operator service providers that would qualify as small   wbusiness concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than   25 small entity operator service providers that may be affected by the decision and rules adopted in this Third Report and Order.  Y - Pay Telephone Operators. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition   of small entity specifically applicable to providers of pay telephone operator services. The   closest applicable definition is that under SBA rules for telephone communications, except   radiotelephone, SIC 4813. The most reliable source of information regarding the number of pay   itelephone operators nationwide is the data that we collect annually in connection with TRS.   According to our most recent data, 271 companies reported that they were engaged in the  Y-  provision of pay telephone services.YZ {O(-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#Id.Y Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are    not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1500 employees, we are unable at this   time to estimate with greater precision the number of pay telephone operators that would qualify   xas small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are   Jfewer than 271 pay telephone operators that may be affected by the decision and rules adopted in this Third Report and Order.  Y|- Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small   entity specifically applicable to resellers. The closest applicable definition is that under SBA   rules for all telephone communications companies, SIC 4812 and SIC 4813, combined, both of   Jwhich define a small entity as one with 1500 or fewer employees. The most reliable source of   information regarding the number of resellers nationwide is the data that we collect annually in   Zconnection with TRS. According to our most recent data, 260 companies reported that they  Y-  were engaged in the resale of telephone services.Y {O$-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#Id.Y Although it seems certain that some of these"~0*%%ZZ"   hcarriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1500 employees, we are   wunable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of resellers that would qualify   xas small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are   fewer than 260 small entity resellers that may be affected by the decision and rules adopted in  Y-this Third Report and Order.  Yv- Telecommunications Equipment Manufacturers. The SBA classifies manufacturers of telecommunications equipment in two categories, one for wireless and another for wireline.  Y1- MX(1) Wireline Telecommunications Equipment Manufacturers. Neither the Commission  nor the SBA has developed a specific definition of small entities applicable to  [manufacturers of wireline telecommunications equipment. Therefore, we will utilize the  SBA definition of manufacturers of Telephone and Telegraph Apparatus. According to  the SBA's regulations, a small entity must have 1000 or fewer employees in order to  Y - kqualify as a small business concern.q  yO7-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC 3661.q Census Bureau data indicates that there are 479  >U.S. firms that manufacture telephone and telegraph equipment, and that 436 of these  Y- firms have fewer than 1000 employees and would be classified as small entities.X yO-  Ѝ #X\  P6G;ɒP#U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications and Utilities, Table 1D, (issued May 1995), SIC 3661. The  zCensus Bureau category is very broad, and specific figures are not available as to how  Mmany of these firms are manufacturers of wireline telecommunications equipment that  would be subject to these rules or how many are independently owned and operated.  [Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 436 small manufacturers of wireline telecommunications equipment.(#  Y- zX(2) Wireless Telecommunications Equipment Manufacturers. Neither the Commission  nor the SBA has developed a specific definition of small entities applicable to  Lmanufacturers of wireless telecommunications equipment. Therefore, we will utilize the  SBA definition of manufacturers of Radio and Television Broadcasting and  Y- Communications Equipment. yO-  Ѝ #X\  P6G;ɒP#This category excludes establishments primarily engaged in the manufacturing of household audio and visual equipment which is categorized as SIC 3651. According to the SBA's regulations, a small entity must  Y|- have 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business concern.| yO5"-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC 3663.#x6X@`7 X@#ј Census  Bureau data indicates that there are 858 U.S. firms that manufacture radio and television  broadcasting and communications equipment, and that 778 of these firms have fewer than"N0*%%ZZ\"  Y- 750 employees and would be classified as small entities. yOy-  Ѝ #X\  P6G;ɒP#U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications and Utilities, Table 1D, (issued May 1995), SIC 3663. The Census Bureau category  \is very broad, and specific figures are not available as to how many of these firms are  manufacturers of wireless telecommunications equipment or how many are independently  owned and operated. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 778 small manufacturers of wireless telecommunications equipment.(#  Xv-   D.` ` Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance  X_-Requirements of the Rules (#`   yThe Third Report and Order does not impose reporting or recordkeeping requirements on   carriers or other telephone service providers in this proceeding. The order does however impose   compliance requirements on carriers that meet certain criteria. In order to comply with the rules   Kadopted in this proceeding, SS7ready carriers serving Centrex systems, party lines, hotel or   motel lines that are not served by a PBX, or PBX systems that pass end user CPN, must provide  Y -  blocking and unblocking capabilities within one year from the date of release of this order.  {O-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#See paras. 4143, 50, and 5556 in this order.    Carriers must also comply with the ACR blocking requirement within six months of the date of  Y-  ,release of this order.q {O-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#See para. 60 in this order.q LECs with SS7 switches without blocking and unblocking capabilities   must provide blocking and unblocking capabilities within one year from the date of release of  Yb-  lthis order if they pass the CPN to an interconnecting carrier on an interstate call.ubD {OW-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#See paras. 1518 in this order.u   ,Additionally, PBX operators that pass the CPN to the public switched network are required to  Y4-  ;provide blocking and unblocking capabilities to system users.u4 {O-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#See paras. 4142 in this order.u We found that some blocking   and unblocking requirements were necessary on these lines in order to protect the privacy   interests of calling parties. We recognize, however, the potential costs of providing blocking   xand unblocking features on these lines, and therefore find that the features are only required when the end user CPN is actually passed to the public switched network.  X- E.` ` Significant Alternatives Minimizing Impact on Small Entities  Y|-   In this proceeding we have minimized the impact upon small business entities. Specifically, we   exempt from the Caller ID rules payphone lines, LECs without blocking and unblocking"eh 0*%%ZZ{"  Y-  Jcapabilities that do not pass CPN, and PBXs that do not pass end user CPN. {Oy-  ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#See paras. 3035 in this order for the treatment of payphone issues, paras. 1518 for LECs without blocking and unblocking capabilities, and paras. 4143 for PBXs. In reaching this   decision we considered that the cost of providing blocking and unblocking features could be  Y-  prohibitive for small business entities." {O-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#See, e.g., paras. 16, 18, and 41 in this Third Report and Order. Thus, LECs without the blocking and unblocking   \capabilities are not required to purchase software to comply with the Section 64.1601   Zrequirements. As another example, we reversed our decision in the May 5, 1995 Order that   PSPs must provide per call blocking and per line unblocking capabilities on payphones. We    found that providing these features on payphones could be cost prohibitive for PSPs, particularly  Y_-  xindependent PSPs that may not have the same cost recovery options as the LECs._ {O -ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#See paras. 3035 in this Third Report and Order. We also   found that these upgrade costs would be unnecessary in many cases due to the low CPN passage   xrate from payphones, and that requiring such costs would be inconsistent with the policy set   forth in the May 5, 1995 Order, in which the Commission chose not to require carriers to invest  Y -in SS7 technology. F {O-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#See paras. 3031 in this Third Report and Order.   While we concluded that LECs serving hotel/motel lines, party lines, Centrex services, and   PBXs that pass end user CPN must recognize blocking and unblocking requests, we did so only   after considering the alternative of allowing CPN passage from these lines without any blocking   capability. This alternative would be inconsistent with our interest in protecting privacy of end   -users. Likewise, we concluded that allowing automatic call return when the original caller  Yb-  Zrequested privacy would violate that caller's privacy.qb {O-ԍ #X\  P6G;ɒP#See para. 60 in this order.q We grant all carriers, however, six   months with which to comply with this requirement. The same consideration was applied to   LECs without CLASS) software who pass CPN. We determined that requiring blocking   capabilities in these limited instances is the least intrusive and burdensome arrangement for   protecting the privacy of end users. For example, we refrained from requiring LECs to upgrade   a switch serving PBXs unless and until the owner/operator of a PBX served by that switch passes end user CPN to the public switched network.  X- F. ` ` Report to Congress(#`  Y-   The Commission shall send a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, along with this   Third Report and Order, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory   ZEnforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C.  801(a)(1)(A). A copy of this FRFA will also"N j 0*%%ZZk"  Y-be published in the Federal Register. "!0*%%ZZ"  X-  X-  APPENDIX B: List of PartieslU  Y-  X- I.X Parties filing Comments on the BellSouth Petition for Reconsideration of the May  X-5, 1995 Order:(#  Yv-  Y_-Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee (Ad Hoc) X  (#   YH- Ameritech (Ameritech) American Public Communications Council (APCC) Association of College and University Telecommunications Administrators, Inc. (ACUTA) AT&T Corp. (AT&T) Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company (Cincinnati Bell) GTE Service Corporation (GTE) Intellicall, Inc. (Intellicall) MCI Telecommunications (MCI) Northern Telecom Inc. (Nortel) NYNEX Telephone Companies (NYNEX) Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence (PCADV) Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PaPUC) Survivors Against Abuse and Growing in Education (SAGE) Sisters Overcoming Abusive Relationships (SOAR) Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Telecommunications Association (TCA) Telecommunications Industry Association User Premises Equipment Division (TIA UPED) U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST) United States Telephone Association  Xe- II. X Parties filing Comments on the Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (issued May 5, 1995).(#  Y7-  Y -Ad Hoc` ` X (#  Y - APCC ACUTA AT&T Cincinnati Bell FBI GTE Intellicall MCI"h$"0*%%ZZ%"ԌNortel NYNEX PCADV PaPUC SAGE SOAR Southwestern Bell Telephone Company TCA TIA UPED U S WEST United States Telephone Association  Y -XX` ` x`  X - III.XX` ` Parties filing Comments on the Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (issued May 5, 1995).(#`  Y - The National Telephone Cooperative Association Nortel The LEC Alliance Pacific Telecom, Inc. Sprint LECs (the United Central Telephone Companies) "4#0*%%ZZ"  X- >APPENDIX C lU Part 64 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations (chapter 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 64) is amended as follows: 1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:  Y_- Authority: Section 4, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply secs. 201, 218, 225, 226, 227, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 2014, 218, 225, 226, 227 unless otherwise noted. 2. Subpart P is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b), and by adding paragraph (d)(1) Y -(4) to read as follows:` (#  Y -  64.1601 Delivery requirements and privacy restrictions.  Y-X(a) Delivery. Except as provided in paragraph (d), common carriers using Signaling System 7 and offering or subscribing to any service based on Signaling System 7 functionality are required to transmit the calling party number (CPN) associated with an interstate call to interconnecting carriers.(#  Y -X(b) Privacy. Except as provided in paragraph (d), originating carriers using Signaling System 7 and offering or subscribing to any service based on Signaling System 7 functionality will recognize *67 dialed as the first three digits of a call (or 1167 for rotary or pulse dialing phones) as a caller's request that the CPN not be passed on an interstate call. Such carriers providing line blocking services will recognize *82 as a caller's request that the CPN be passed on an interstate call. No common carrier subscribing to or offering any service that delivers CPN may override the privacy  Y-indicator associated with an interstate call. Carriers must arrange their CPNbased  Yj-services , and billing practices, in such a manner that when a caller requests that the CPN not be passed, a carrier may not reveal that caller's number or name, nor may the carrier use the number or name to allow the called party to contact the calling party.(# * * * * * * * * * * * *  Y!-X (d) Exemptions.  64.1601(a)(b) shall not apply when: (#  Y#-` ` (1)  A call originates from a payphone, hotel or motel line. (# "p$$0*%%ZZ%"Ԍ Y-` ` (2) A local exchange carrier with Signaling System 7 capability does not have the software to provide *67 or *82 functionalities. Such carriers are prohibited from passing CPN.(#  Y-XX` ` (3)X A Private Branch Exchange or Centrex system does not pass CPN. Centrex systems that rely on *6 or *8 for a function other than CPN blocking or unblocking, respectively, are also exempt if they employ alternative means of blocking or unblocking.(#  Y1-` ` (4)X CPN delivery (# XX` ` X (i) is used solely in connection with calls within the same limited system, including (but not limited to) a Centrex system, virtual private network, or Private Branch Exchange; (# XX` ` X (ii) is used on a public agency's emergency telephone line or in conjunction with 911 emergency services, or on any entity's emergency assistance poison control telephone line; or (# XX` ` X (iii) is provided in connection with legally authorized call tracing or trapping procedures specifically requested by a law enforcement agency.