WPCK* 2BJZ Courier3|jx6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5SiRM 210HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\"vX@266 ZFKK3|jHP LaserJet 5SiRM 210HPLAS5SI.PRSC\  P6Q\"vP"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNI\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>\>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\nBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\2hvOpk5 S- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#&J\  P6Qu&P#a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2 k= v tX a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2   ;  a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 2  u4a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2.a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2`<a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2\3a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg2GeK0PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:*a5IndentedLeft-indented text,[ܽ ? ` `  '(1) hh-a6IndentedLeft-indented text-dK ? ` `  'hh-(a)4a7IndentedLeft-indented text.l݇ ? ` `  'hh-4i)h:a8IndentedLeft-indented text/u-b ? ` `  'hh-4:a)ppA2-0s=+1+2d,3-a1InterrogatoresStarts with A. at margin, 1 at first indent0UZZI.HeadingChapter Heading1J d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers2>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheading30\ E A.  2u/4p-5q:.6e.7e/Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O g4` ` ` Document[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g5  . Document[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g6  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g7  218/9p:0:0;<1Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g8*    Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g9  ` ` ` Right Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g:8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g;A@` ` `  ` ` ` 24< 2=2>B3?3Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g<0     Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g=J` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g>S` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g?\` ` `  @hhh hhh 27@4A5B^6C/7Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g@e` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gAn` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gBw` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gCF    ׃  2V:D8E8F%9G9Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gD&!"  . Technical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gE&#$  . Technical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gF*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gG''(   2<H:I;J;KQ<Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gH&)*   Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gI4+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gJ&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gK&/0  . 2KL =M>Nv >OoLKCitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileLW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded DocumentMiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#MACNormalN;     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#FootnoteOÍč2OPKQilLRMS~hNfootnote tex#P'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#headerQAx 4 <D  #FxX  Pg9CXP# referenceR;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1S&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#2TTiPU^QVORWp.Theader2TI ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# heading 3UF` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# footer!V!!#d\  PCP#1t >.x(Dt—Document Style >f.RK+P—!t >f—+bW56` ` ` 2VXqTYeAUZeU[ V2t >/x(Dt—Document Style >f/RK+P—!t >f—+bX7 8 . 3t >0x(Dt—Document Style >f0RK+P—!t >f—+bY 9: 4t >1x(Dt—Document Style >f1RK+P—!t >f—+bZ ;< 5t >2x(Dt—Document Style >f2RK+P—!t >f—+b[*=>   2Y\pV]@W^W_mX6t >3x(Dt—Document Style >f3RK+P—!t >f—+b\?@` ` ` 7t >4x(Dt—Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+P—!t >f—+b]8AB@   8t >5x(Dt—Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+P—!t >f—+b^ACD@` `  ` ` ` 9t >6x(Dt—Document Style >f6RK+P—!t >f—+b_0E F    2[`4YaYbZc;[10 >7x(Dt—Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+P—!t >f—+b`JGH` ` @  ` `  11 >8x(Dt—Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+P—!t >f—+baSIJ` `  @  12 >9x(Dt—Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+P—!t >f—+bb\KL` `  @hh# hhh 13 >:x(Dt—Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+P—!t >f—+bceMN` `  hh#@( hh# 2_d,\e\f]g^14 >;x(Dt—Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+P—!t >f—+bdnOP` `  hh#(@- ( 15 ><x(Dt—Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+P—!t >f—+bewQR` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 16 >=x(Dt—Document Style >f=RK+P—!t >f—+bfFST *  ׃  17 >>x(Dt—Technical Document Style>RK+P—!t >f—+bg&UV  . 2ah6_i_jW`k`18 >?x(Dt—Technical Document Style?RK+P—!t >f—+bh&WX  . 19 >@x(Dt—Technical Document Style@RK+P—!t >f—+bi*YZ    20 >Ax(Dt—Technical Document StyleARK+P—!t >f—+bj'[\   21 >Bx(Dt—Technical Document StyleBRK+P—!t >f—+bk&]^   2dlambbnbolc22 >Cx(Dt—Technical Document StyleCRK+P—!t >f—+bl4_$`     23 >Dx(Dt—Technical Document StyleDRK+P—!t >f—+bm&ab  . 24 >Ex(Dt—Technical Document StyleERK+P—!t >f—+bn&cd  . Format DownlDt—Format Downloaded DocumentRK+P—!t >f—+boUgh XX    X\ #d6X@7@#2jpKdqeresNhWord222Null(Dt—Word222Null( >fWRK+P—!t >f—+bp1{1|#/x PX##/x PX#Normalx(Dt—Normal!wB( >fYRK+P—!t >f—+bq1}1~#x\  PCXP##/x PX#HEADING 7x(Dt—7!wB( >f[RK+P—!t >f—+br0p Zwp x (#DDDDDD#&n P&P# 4 hp x (##&n P&P# HEADING 6x(Dt—7!wB( >f]RK+P—!t >f—+bs0p Zwp x (#DDDDDD#&n P&P# 4 hp x (##&n P&P# 2>ttkumv-pwwqHEADING 5x(Dt—7!wB( >f^RK+P—!t >f—+bt0p Zwp x (#DDDDDD#&n P&P# 4 hp x (##&n P&P# HEADING 4x(Dt—7!wB( >f_RK+P—!t >f—+bu0 Zwp x (#rr#&n P&P# 4 hp x (##&n P&P# NORMAL INDENDt—7!wB( >f`RK+P—!t >f—+bv'4 <DL!T$#&n P&P##&n P&P#enumlev1x(Dt—7!wB( >faRK+P—!t >f—+bw$p  N hp x (#aa#&n P&P#4` hp x (##&n P&P#2vxptyuzvu{ufootnote refDt—footnote reference >fbRK+P—!t >f—+bx>#V\  P UP#Default ParaDt—Default Paragraph Font>fdRK+P—!t >f—+bypage number(Dt—page number( >feRK+P—!t >f—+bz26 >fx(Dt—footnote text >ffRK+P—!t >f—+b{* ??US2y|v}Rw~&xxlist>gx(Dt—list7!wB( >fgRK+P—!t >f—+b|*??endnote refeDt—endnote reference >fhRK+P—!t >f—+b}>>#XO\  P!UXP##c P"7P#line number(Dt—line number( >fjRK+P—!t >f—+b~;;#XO\  P#UXP##c P$7P#Highlightx(Dt—Middle Article HighlightlRK+P—!t >f—+b''#G x}'Y##\9> (P(YP#2p|yrz{{Headlinex(Dt—Headline for newsletterfoRK+P—!t >f—+b''#> p})Y##\9> (P*YP#2nd line HeaDt—2nd line headline >fqRK+P—!t >f—+b''#b> p}+Y##\9> (P,YP#Graphics heaDt—Headlines for graphics>frRK+P—!t >f—+b** #o> P}-YP##\9> (P.YP# Graphics bodDt—chart data ( >ftRK+P—!t >f—+b** #Alo> P}/YXP##\9> (P0YP# 2|N}2&~2XArticle headDt—Headline for new articlevRK+P—!t >f—+b*'#r"zp1C# #\9> (P2YP# endnote textDt—endnote text( >fyRK+P—!t >f—+bE;#X}xP37XP##I2P4QP#toc 1|x(Dt—toc 17!wB( >f|RK+P—!t >f—+b(#`` hp x (#toc 2}x(Dt—toc 27!wB( >f}RK+P—!t >f—+b` (#`` hp x (#2222 2Rtoc 3~x(Dt—toc 37!wB( >f~RK+P—!t >f—+b` (#` hp x (#toc 4x(Dt—toc 47!wB( >fRK+P—!t >f—+b (#` hp x (#toc 5x(Dt—toc 57!wB( >fRK+P—!t >f—+bh(#` hp x (#toc 6x(Dt—toc 67!wB( >fRK+P—!t >f—+b(# ` hp x (#2֒2@2r2toc 7x(Dt—toc 77!wB( >fRK+P—!t >f—+btoc 8x(Dt—toc 87!wB( >fRK+P—!t >f—+b(# ` hp x (#toc 9x(Dt—toc 97!wB( >fRK+P—!t >f—+b(#`` hp x (#index 1x(Dt—index 1wB( >fRK+P—!t >f—+b` (#` hp x (#222:lDindex 2x(Dt—index 2wB( >fRK+P—!t >f—+b` (#`` hp x (#toa heading(Dt—toa heading( >fRK+P—!t >f—+b(#` hp x (#captionx(Dt—captionwB( >fRK+P—!t >f—+bE;#X}xP57XP##I2P6QP#_Equation CaDt—_Equation Caption >fRK+P—!t >f—+b;;#X}xP77XP##I2P8QP#21D:27 >x(Dt—Default Paragraph Font>fRK+P—!t >f—+bOO#X}xP97XP##&sxP:7&P#HEADING 9x(Dt— 7!wB( >fRK+P—!t >f—+b'34 <DL!T$#c P;7P##c P<7P#HEADING 8x(Dt— 7!wB( >fRK+P—!t >f—+b'34 <DL!T$#c P=7P##c P>7P#a129f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+P8@   2 cRa229f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PA@` `  ` ` ` a329f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PJ` ` @  ` `  a429f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PS` `  @  a529f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+P\` `  @hh# hhh 20;Ģa629f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pe` `  hh#@( hh# a729f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pn` `  hh#(@- ( a829f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp NORMAL INDENT ' 4 <DL!T$#&n P&P##&n P&P#2blZfootnote referencefootnote reference4#V\  PUP#Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font footnote textfootnote text US????USendnote referenceendnote reference44#XO\  PUXP##B\  PUP#2ڧd _Equation Caption_Equation Caption11#XX2PQXP##I2PQP#HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style off@@    21ת1191jLETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5f 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11L 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   2nͯ;dj TITLETitle of a DocumentK\ * ăBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedN X HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold LargeB*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored V -q2E۳- 8MLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/marginsu H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math Invoice ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice:A ,p, $0$002F8[[INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macroz 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX SMALLSmall TypestyleFINEFine Typestyle2 [x[ӻ[.LARGELarge TypestyleEXTRA LARGEExtra Large TypestyleVERY LARGEVery Large TypestyleENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   2>޾~l]Style 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Margins$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !2?|#Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Font4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Point$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO 2qStyle 7Swiss 11.5$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Point$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for AdvancedƯ U )a [ PfQK  dddn  ##  [[ b, oT9 !b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  QN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8PfInitial Codes for Beginninggǯi )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 2d lpStyle 9Initial Codes for Intermediateȭ )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 Moduleɾ )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 Bld/UnderlieBold and Underline Text/  Document 8Document 8 2xlll^Document 4Document 4  Document 6Document 6 Document 5Document 5 Document 2Document 2 2lhlDocument 7Document 7 Right 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 2B`~Right Par 3Right Par 3` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#Right 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 (#2t (($PRight Par 7Right Par 7` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 8Right Par 8` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Document 1Document 1` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 5Technical 5` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2$ll6$Technical 6Technical 6` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 2Technical 2 Technical 3Technical 3 Technical 4Technical 4` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2ll$d$Technical 1Technical 1 Technical 7Technical 7` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 8Technical 8` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#WP Heading 2WP Heading 244#6X@C@##Xv6X@CX@#2^|WP Heading 1WP Heading 144#6X@C@# #Xv6X@CX@#toatoa` hp x (#` hp x (#head1 #'d#2p}wC@ #para numnumbered indented paragraphs' Y- 1.(i) 1) 1.#Xw P7[hXP# 1. 1.Ҳ2/ }v Paragraph[1]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B$ab Paragraph[2]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B/cd` ` ` Paragraph[3]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B:ef` ` `  Paragraph[4]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BEgh` ` `  2G a   } Paragraph[5]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BPij` ` ` hhh Paragraph[6]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B[kl Paragraph[7]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bfmn Paragraph[8]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bqop 2}y  =25S&CMC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CG -2( -Ct )$ 28S&CPC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cq -2( -Ct )E` ` `  29S&CQC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )P` ` ` hhh 30S&CRC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )[ 2j#Zd31S&CSC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )f 32S&CTC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )q 1, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.E1.A, B,t ?@65Uppercase Letters1 ?*1÷$t ?.E .2Gpq e}e33`O5hT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5h.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 34`O5iT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5i.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  . 35`O5jT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5j.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  36`O5kT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5k.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  2Jyp |<37`O5lT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5l.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>*   38`O5mT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5m.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 39`O5nT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>8@   Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic2K|KKK]"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\nBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"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\4  pG;\{,W80,%BZW*f9 xr G;XXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdd2I* S- X   ) S-  #&J\  P6Qu&P#Federal Communications Commission`g(#FCC 97386 ă  yx}dddy )ՊP3 Before the Federal Communications Commission  S-" Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  X4-R#XP\  P6QynXP#) In the Matter ofR) R)  X-Administration of thehhR)  X-North American Numbering Plan,R)hppCC Docket No. 92237 Carrier Identification Codes (CICs)R)  X -  ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION, ) ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW, AND  X -SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING TP  Xm-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:  yO_-ԍ US WEST Comments at 45.H US WEST states, however, that to the extent the Commission finds that the requisite conversion of incumbent LEC switches is incomplete, US WEST could support Sprint's suggestion that there be a  X-"'moderate extension of the transition period,'"x?(  yO-ԍ US WEST Reply Comments at 12, quoting Sprint Comments at 2.x with incumbent LEC conversion required by  X-January 1, 1998, and a transition ending no later than June 30, 1998.N@  yO-ԍ US WEST Reply Comments at 24.N US WEST disputes, however, that a lengthier extension of the transition is necessary, rejecting the argument that the lack of intraLATA toll presubscription and 1+ dialing capability with respect to  X!-intraLATA toll calls is anticompetitive.=A!H  yO!-ԍ Id. at 3 n.4.= US WEST and Sprint urge the Commission to limit the duration of any extension to the transition. They argue that the transition causes competitive imbalances because some carriers' customers are able to reach their networks  X-using a fivedigit CAC while other carriers' customers must dial seven digits.jB yOA%-ԍ Sprint Comments at 3; US WEST Reply Comments at 12.j TRA disagrees, responding that the "anticompetitive dangers here do not approach the compelling" hB,l(l(,,"  X-dimensions asserted by US WEST,"HC yOy-ԍ TRA Reply Comments at 4.H and arguing that the CICs Second Report and Order, by ending the transition on January 1, 1998, has "inadvertently set the stage for the 'flashcut  X-conversion' which the Commission has held would be 'contrary to the public interest.'"wDX yO-ԍ Id. at 4, quoting CICs Second Report and Order at para. 32.w  Xt-x18.` ` Parties advocating a lengthened, twostep transition process reject suggestions that, as an alternative to extending the transition, the Commission could entertain waivers of the conversion requirements by LECs with switches that are not upgraded to recognize four X -digit CICs, and IXCs served by the switches of such LECs.mE  yO - xԍ See Telco Reply Comments at 5; TRA Reply Comments at 56. US WEST and AT&T suggested waivers  yOl - xas alternatives. See US WEST Comments at 5 (suggesting that parties directly affected by a LEC's inability to  xcomplete conversion in a specific central office could request a waiver); AT&T Comments at 4 (suggesting that small  xJLECs who claim that it is not economically feasible to complete conversion by the prescribed deadline could request waivers).m AT&T, while not objecting to an extended transition, supports the waiver approach for LECs that allege that they cannot meet the January 1, 1998 conversion date. AT&T is the only long distance carrier that disagrees that complete conversion of LEC switches should be a prerequisite to ending the  X -transition.F  yO- xyԍ AT&T Comments at 4 ("[t]hose small LECs that claim it is not economically feasible to upgrade their switches by the end of the transition period would be free to seek a waiver from the Commission."). Telco argues that requiring LECs to obtain waivers of the switch conversion deadline would lead to sporadic implementation of fourdigit CICs, to the detriment of new  X9 -entrants.PG9  yO-ԍ Telco Reply Comments at 5.P TRA cautions that any waivers granted would have severe consequences for long  X -distance calling and should be scrutinized carefully.JH  yOG-ԍ TRA Reply Comments at 56.J Sprint notes that no such waivers have  X -been requested.I   yO- xԍ Sprint Reply Comments at 2. Since the record closed, and as of October 15, 1997, seven LECs had filed  yO|- xpetitions for waiver of the January 1, 1998 conversion deadline under the CICs Second Report and Order. See, e.g.,  yOD- xZHardy Telecommunications, Inc. Petition for Limited Waiver, CC Docket No. 92237 (Sep. 23, 1997). Waiver petitions will be addressed separately.  X-x19.` ` AT&T requests that the Commission clarify the CICs Second Report and  X-Order's modification of the conservation plan limiting to two the number of CICs an entity may be assigned. AT&T asks that the Commission state that it will discontinue the  XD-conservation plan once the transition ends.JJD yO$-ԍ See AT&T Comments at 56. J"D J,l(l(,,f"Ԍ X-.řx` ` 4. Discussion  X-x20.` ` TwoStep Transition. After reviewing the comments and additional record  X-information described below, we conclude that we should modify our decision in the CICs  Xt-Second Report and Order to end the period for completing the conversion from threedigit .Feature Group D CICs to fourdigit Feature Group D CICs on January 1, 1998. First, we determine that LEC end office switches must be upgraded to accept fourdigit CICs by  X -January 1, 1998.'K   yO- xԍ As discussed below in our Second FNPRM (See paras. 8385, infra), LECs that do not currently provide equal  xaccess, because they never received a bona fide request to do so, are not required to meet the January 1, 1998  xconversion date. In referring to LECs in the discussion that follows in this Order on Reconsideration, we mean LECs that currently provide equal access and, therefore, that are subject to the January 1, 1998 conversion date. ' Second, we determine that the transition during which use of both threedigit CICs and fivedigit CACs may continue will end on June 30, 1998, rather than on January 1, 1998. The result will be a "twostep" transition, in which LECs will complete switch changes to recognize fourdigit CICs in the first phase, and IXCs will prepare their  X -networks and educate their customers during the second phase. We note that, if certain LEC switches are unable to recognize fourdigit CICs and sevendigit CACs now, the callers subscribing to the services of the approximately 549 fourdigit CIC holders may be denied access to services of those CIC holders until January 1, 1998. The number of such CIC holders will only increase during the period ending on January 1, 1998. We find that perpetuating this inability to access services any longer than necessary would be contrary to  X-the procompetitive goals of the 1996 Act.L yO- xԍ Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996); see Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of the Conference, H.R. Rep. No. 458, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 113. Notwithstanding the above modifications, we  X-affirm that the transition should end as soon as practicable because, as we stated in the CICs  Xg-Second Report and Order, "[w]e are confident that . . . the use of only fourdigit CICs will serve the procompetitive goals of the Act, as well as the specific objectives of Sections  X!-251(e) and 251(b)(3)."M! yO- xԍ CICs Second Report and Order at para. 27. See paras. 4776, infra, for discussion of our decision not to grandfather threedigit CICs and fivedigit CACs. Moreover, as explained below, we must ensure that the supply of available fourdigit Feature Group D CICs is sufficient to last for the duration of the transition.  X-x21.` ` Prior to issuing the CICs Second Report and Order, Commission staff made inquiries to learn when the hardware and software necessary to upgrade equipment to accept  XO-fourdigit CICs had been made available by PBX manufacturers to PBX owners.NxO`  yO`"-Ѝ See CICs Second Report and Order at para. 40: Xx[t]he information we received indicates that an average of 82 percent of PBX customers of equipment manufacturers representing [ ] 67.4 percent of the PBX market currently has systems with fourdigit CIC capability. A large number of the PBX customers in the 18 percent that did not yet have this capability would need only software changes to bring their systems into compliance, fewer would need both hardware and software changes, and a very small percent"'M,l(l(['" would need to completely replace their systems. It is noteworthy that manufacturers representing smaller portions of the PBX market (1) began selling systems with inherent fourdigit CIC capability much earlier than those manufacturers representing larger portions of the market; and (2) currently have higher percentages of their PBX customers with fourdigit CIC capable systems.  "O xN,l(l(,," Commission staff made similar inquiries with respect to when network switch manufacturers had made such hardware and software available to carriers. Relying on information received from two network switch manufacturers cumulatively representing approximately 91 percent  X-of the total United States market for local network switches as measured by sales,7OXx yO - xhԍ The Commission sought and received information from Lucent Technologies (the former manufacturing arm  xof AT&T Corp.) and Northern Telecom (NorTel) (the manufacturing subsidiary of the Canadian telecommunications conglomerate, BCE Inc.).7 the Commission stated that it appeared that the hardware and software necessary for local network switches to process fourdigit CICs had been on the market for at least two to three years and,  X.-in some cases, for much longer.P. yOw- č See CICs Second Report and Order at paras. 39 and 43, and nn.134136. ć Although Lucent Technologies did not disclose how many of its local network switch customers had purchased the new products, NorTel, representing 45 percent of the local network switch market, stated that all of its customers requiring equal  X-access software had fourdigit CIC capability.JQ(  yO-ԍ Id. at para. 39 and n.136.J  X -x22.` ` Nonetheless, because of the concern raised in the reconsideration record about  X\ -the status of LEC end office switch conversion,R@\  yO- xJԍ Several parties suggested that the Commission conduct further inquiries related to the LEC conversion status.  yO- xSee, e.g., CompTel Reply Comments at 3 (stating that it is "confident that the FCC, upon inquiry, will readily  yOU- x-ascertain that the failure of incumbent LECs to convert all of their end offices is a widespread problem"); Telco  yO- xReply Comments at 4 (suggesting that the Commission seek additional data from independent LECs if it wants  xfurther confirmation that few of them will be able to complete upgrades for fourdigit CIC capability by January 1,  xx1998). CompTel argues that GTE has not made the necessary upgrades in several cities in Michigan and in some  yOu- x,other regions, and that Ameritech has yet to convert switches in parts of its service area. See CompTel Petition at n.6. Commission staff made further inquiries about the status of LEC conversion efforts. Commission staff requested and received information from the following associations with LEC members: the Organization for the  X -Promotion and Advancement of Small Telephone Companies (OPASTCO);S  yOd!- xԍ OPASTCO formerly was known as the Organization for the Protection and Advancement of Small Telephone Companies. the National Telephone Cooperative Association (NTCA); the United States Telephone Association (USTA); the National Rural Telephone Association (NRTA); GVNW Inc./Management (GVNW); and the National Exchange Carriers Association (NECA). Specifically, Commission staff asked each association for information on what percentage of its LEC"gS,l(l(,,I" members required to provide equal access had end office switches capable of recognizing  X-fourdigit CICs and sevendigit CACs as of July 1, 1997.CTx yOV- x-ԍ Federal Communications Commission Request for Information from OPASTCO, CC Docket No. 92237,  xdated July 18, 1997; Federal Communications Commission Request for Information from NTCA, CC Docket No.  x92237, dated July 24, 1997; Federal Communications Commission Request for Information from USTA, CC Docket  xNo. 92237, dated July 18, 1997; Federal Communications Commission Request for Information from NRTA, CC  xDocket No. 92237, dated July 24, 1997; Federal Communications Commission Request for Information from  xGVNW, CC Docket No. 92237, dated July 24, 1997; Federal Communications Commission Request for Information from NECA, CC Docket No. 92237, dated July 28, 1997.C  X- x23.` ` The information the Commission received reveals that most equal access central offices either are currently capable of recognizing fourdigit CICs, or will be upgraded to do so by the end of 1997. Based on data collected from the Local Exchange Routing Guide, USTA states that approximately 83 percent of central offices in the United States are required  X -to provide equal access (i.e., 24,000 central offices out of a total of 28,500 are required to  X-provide equal access).UU yO-ԍ USTA July 30, 1997 Filing at 1.U USTA states that it expects its LEC members required to provide equal access to have fourdigit CIC capability installed by January 1, 1998, and that it further understands that software upgrades are all that is necessary to enable equal access end offices  X -to recognize fourdigit CICs.VX  yO- xԍ Id. at 2. In response to a request by Commission staff in an ex parte meeting, Sprint confirms that all of the  yO- xSprint Local Telephone Companies' equal access end offices were upgraded and capable of handling fourdigit CICs  yOX-as of December 1996. See Sprint Letter Regarding Ex Parte Presentation, July 24, 1997.  NTCA reports that of the 304 member LECs responding to an inquiry sent to all 496 members, six respondents required to offer equal access will not be  X9 -able to support fourdigit CICs and sevendigit CACs by the end of 1997.W9  yO- xxԍ NTCA July 29, 1997 Filing at 1. NTCA states that one of the six LECs responding will be able to convert  x,its central office switches to recognize fourdigit CICS through a software upgrade that the vendor cannot complete  xxuntil February 1998. Five of the carriers require switch replacements, with replacements for three of the carriers  xscheduled to be completed during the first half of 1998. The other two carriers will be unable to complete their  xswitch replacements until some point in 1999 because they must go through the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) funding  yO- xYapproval process. Id. NTCA also provided data regarding estimated costs for upgrades for all respondents, including  yOR- xthose not now required to provide equal access. See id. at 2. Regarding the need for software upgrades, NTCA  xstates that 37 companies indicated that, collectively, they require upgrades for 175 switches, at an average cost of  xY$75,000 each, with the upgrades typically including features in addition to support for fourdigit CIC and sevendigit  yO- xCACs. Id. Regarding switch replacement, NTCA states that 19 companies indicated a need to replace 71 switches. The average cost for switch replacement, reported by 15 companies, was approximately $500,000 each. NTCA reports that many LECs responding to the inquiry that do not offer equal access nonetheless either have the capability now to provide equal access using fourdigit CICs and sevendigit CACs,  X -or will have it by the end of 1997.X   yO$- xJԍ Id. NTCA states that approximately 100 member companies are not required to provide equal access and will  xnot be providing it by the end of 1997. It notes that these companies have based switch replacement and software  yO)&- xxupgrades for equal access on, among other things, the proposed sixyear CIC transition. Id. NTCA notes further  xthat companies in the most rural and isolated areas have never received bona fide requests to provide equal access. "&W,l(l('"  yO-Id. GVNW received information from 89 of approximately" XX,l(l(,," 150 clients (60 percent). Central offices of 79 percent of those respondents provide equal access and, of those, approximately 95 percent have switches capable of recognizing fourdigit  X-CICs and sevendigit CACs.NYxX yO-Ѝ GVNW August 1, 1997 Supplemental Filing at 1. GVNW states that of the remaining LECs providing equal access that have not yet converted to fourdigit CIC capability, 47.3 percent would need only software upgrades to convert (at an average cost per central office of $55,222), 47.3 percent would need to replace their  yO-switches (at an average cost per central office of $434,195 ), and for 5.3 percent it has no data. See id. at 2. GVNW reports that of those LEC members with central offices not yet providing equal access, 16 percent are scheduled to convert to equal access and fourdigit CIC capability by December 31, 1997, 18 percent by  yOs -February 8, 1999, and 66 percent are not yet scheduled to convert. Id.N Regarding the relationship between equal access software and fourdigit CIC capability, NECA states: "It is our understanding that most of the switch vendors started adding fourdigit CIC capability to their switch software in the 1995 timeframe . . . . [c]ompanies who had equal access software installed after the availability of fourdigit CIC capability should be able to comply with the FCC's recent order with  X -minimum of expense."VZ  yOT-ԍ NECA August 1, 1997 Filing at 2.V Both OPASTCO and NECA provide information regarding the equal access conversion status of their members: OPASTCO states that 335 of its 485 members  X-report that they provide equal access;S[(  yO-ԍ OPASTCO July 29, 1997 Filing.S and NECA data indicates that 86 percent of the central  X-offices of its LEC members currently offer equal access.5\  yO - xԍ NECA August 1, 1997 Filing. NRTA, NECA, and OPASTCO do not provide specific information regarding  xpercentages of their LEC members that have upgraded their switches to fourdigit CIC capability. Each states,  xhowever, that its members also are members of the other associations that received information requests from the  xCommission. NRTA asserts that it does not maintain information about the status, plans, or projected costs of  xswitching and software capabilities for its individual members' networks or for its membership as a whole, but notes  xthat, in addition to its membership consisting of borrowers under the RUS program, its members also are members  yO- xof NECA. NRTA July 29, 1997 Filing. NECA states that it does not believe that a data request to its membership  yO- xwould be helpful because it would "provide duplicative and perhaps misleading information." NECA July August  yOK- xz1, 1997 Filing at 1. OPASTCO states that the majority of OPASTCO members also are USTA members.  yO-OPASTCO July 29, 1997 Filing.5  X\ -x24.` ` Although our further inquiries on the status of LEC end office switch conversion reveal that most LECs already have converted their switches to accept fourdigit CICs or will do so by January 1, 1998, we acknowledge that some LECs report that they will not convert their switches by that deadline. Based on the information the Commission received, however, the number of carriers in this situation appears to be small. We expect that all LECs that currently provide equal access are now striving, and will continue to strive, to achieve compliance with the fourdigit CIC requirement by January 1, 1998. If we receive a complaint of LEC noncompliance, infeasibility of compliance with that deadline will not  XD-relieve a defendant LEC of liability under section 208 of the Commission's rules.=]DP yOE'-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  208.= A LEC"D],l(l(,, " that determines that it will not meet the January 1, 1998 conversion deadline must seek relief from the Commission prior to that date.  X- x25.` ` On balance, we find that the public interest, and the procompetitive policies underlying the Act, as amended, are best served by moving to use of only fourdigit CICs as  XQ-soon as possible. Therefore, we affirm our decision that LECs that currently provide equal access must upgrade their end office switches to recognize fourdigit CICs by January 1, 1998. To accommodate the concerns raised by IXCs and others, however, we extend the transition for them by six months, from January 1, 1998, to June 30, 1998. Introducing a second stage and thereby creating a twostep transition process will give IXCs the time they need to coordinate the conversion with LECs, and to prepare their networks and educate their customers about necessary dialing changes. The record indicates that IXCs, to prepare their networks for complete conversion to fourdigit CICs, may need to engage in, for example, reprogramming automatic dialers and PBXs, troubleshooting, testing, and verifying the use of fourdigit CICs with other carriers. As discussed below, our decision not to extend the transition more than six months is based on our concern that there be enough fourdigit CICs  X -to meet the demand for CIC assignments during the transition,J^  yOI-ԍ See para. 27, infra.J and that the anticompetitive  X-effects of dialing disparity are minimized.J_X yO-ԍ See para. 37, infra.J  Xg-x26.` ` In general, individual carriers are responsible for educating their customers about changes necessitated by the transition to fourdigit CICs and they should be free to decide how best to do so. Although industry may agree on additional industrywide consumer education efforts that should be undertaken to smooth the transition from three to fourdigit CICs for consumers, pursuant to our exclusive jurisdiction over those portions of the NANP  X-that pertain to the United StatesM` yOQ-ԍ See 47 U.S.C.  251(e)(1).M and to our general rulemaking authority,Uax yO-ԍ See 47 U.S.C. 47 U.S.C.  154(i).U we conclude that, at a minimum, LECs must offer a standard intercept message beginning on or before June 30, 1998, explaining that a dialing pattern change has occurred and instructing the caller to contact its IXC for further information. In developing an intercept message, LECs must consult with IXCs and reach agreement on the content of the message and on the period of time during which the message will be provided. We leave to resolution by the parties decisions about who should have the ultimate responsibility for determining the content of the intercept message and the period of time during which the message must be offered. The Commission will resolve any disputes arising from parties' inability to reach agreement on such matters. Finally, we conclude that the determination of how best to cover the costs of providing the intercept message should be left to individual LECs, including whether their  X7-access customers should be charged a reasonable fee to cover those costs.  V#yG "7a,l(l(,,"Ԍ X- V#yG x27.` ` CIC Consumption. We remain concerned that there be enough fourdigit CICs in the 5XXX and 6XXX range available to meet the demand for CIC assignments during the  X-transition.O bS yOV- x-ԍ According to Bellcore, 610 four-digit Feature Group D CICs (in the 5XXX and 6XXX range) were already  yO- x=assigned as of September 30, 1997 (see Letter October 15, 1997, to Kris Monteith, FCC, from Nancy Fears,  xBellcore, North American Numbering Plan (NANP) Administration) and, according to AT&T, CIC consumption for  yO- xthe six months prior to May 1996, was 16 CICs per month (see Comments of AT&T at 8 to FCC Public Notice:  yOv- xFurther Comments, Carrier Identification Codes, CC Docket No. 92-237, Public Notice DA 96-678, Common Carrier  xxBureau, April 30, 1996). The CIC consumption average between December 1996 and February 1997 was also 16  yO- xCICs per month (see March 6, 1997 Nancy Fears Bellcore Letter). If monthly consumption were to continue at this  xrate between October 1, 1997, and June 30, 1998, 144 CICs would be consumed. We estimate, however, that CIC  xconsumption could increase by an additional 16 CICs per month because the conservation plan modifications allow  xthe assignment of an additional CIC to each applicant who qualifies (totalling 32 CICs per month). Therefore, we  xestimate, based on the 16-per-month CIC consumption average and the possibility that it could increase due to the  xconservation plan modifications, that an additional 144 CICs could be assigned between October 1, 1997, and June  x30, 1998 (totalling 288 CICs). Finally, the approximately 989 carriers who, as of July 1997, hold only one three  yO~ - xor four-digit CIC also may qualify for an additional CIC under the conservation plan modifications (See July 25,  x1997 Bellcore Letter). If 75% of current single CIC holders ultimately obtain an additional CIC, we estimate CIC  xconsumption will increase by 742 CICs. In summary, the total estimated CIC consumption figure, without  xZconsidering CIC demand from unidentified new competitive entrants beyond the anticipated 16 new entrants per  xmonth, is 1,640 CICs. When this figure is subtracted from the 1,969 four-digit Feature Group D CICs in the 5XXX  xand 6XXX range that are available for assignment, 329 CICs remain available for assignment to, for example, new  xentrants for which our calculation has not accounted between October 1, 1997, and June 30, 1998. If each new  xentrant is assigned two CICs, then the remaining 329 CICs can support up to 165 new entities during the transition (or 18 new entities per month).O In the CICs Second Report and Order, we estimated that the remaining unassigned CICs in this range "should be sufficient to meet carrier demand until January 1,  Xt-1998, but perhaps not significantly beyond that date."mct yO- xZԍ CICs Second Report and Order at para. 45 and n.149. For the period between March 1, 1997, and January  x1, 1998, we estimated that 375 CICs would remain available for unidentified new competitive entrants. This figure  xwas based on an estimate of 1,594 CICs to be assigned during that period (to entities assigned only one CIC at the  yO`- xtime of the CICs Second Report and Order and to an anticipated 16 new entrants per month) subtracted from the  xZ1,969 fourdigit Feature Group D CICs in the 5XXX and 6XXX range available during the transition. The 1,594  xfigure was based on the following estimates: (1) an estimated continuation of the 16permonth CIC consumption  xaverage (which had been the average monthly rate between December 1996 and February 1997); (2) the possibility  xwthat this number could double to 32 CICs per month with new applicants requesting two CICs under the conservation  yOH- xplan modifications; and (3) an estimated 75 percent of entities holding one CIC at the time of the CICs Second  yO-Report and Order requesting a second CIC under the conservation plan modifications. See id. at n.149.m Based on current CIC consumption,  XQ-with adjustments made to reflect conservation plan modifications,GdQ{ yO} -ԍ See n. 98, supra.G we conclude that the remaining unassigned CICs in the 5XXX and 6XXX range should be sufficient to meet carrier demand until June 30, 1998, but continue to believe that the CIC supply would be jeopardized by an extension significantly beyond that date. We must ensure that there are enough assignable CICs during the transition to meet industry demand because without CICs it would be extremely difficult for new entrants to compete in the telecommunications services market. Therefore, we find that a forecast of Feature Group D CIC consumption must be based on reasonably liberal assumptions of possible consumption. "9  d,l(l(,, "Ԍ X-x28.` ` Our decision here to extend the transition only until June 30, 1998, recognizes our continuing expectation that, even under our conservation plan, monthly CIC consumption  X-will continue to increase "as new carriers enter the telecommunications services market..."Ye yO3-ԍ CICs Second Report and Order at para. 45.Y While the number of Feature Group D CICs assigned in May 1997 was only 18, the number of assignments in June 1997 increased to 27, and in July 1997 to 29. The number of assignments in August 1997 decreased only slightly to 21, but in September 1997 increased  X.-significantly to 30, just slightly below our estimate in the CICs Second Report and Order of 32. These figures demonstrate that CIC consumption continues to increase and offer additional support that our analysis of demand for CICs is reasonable, and compels a transition that is as brief as reasonably possible. As noted above, we expect that 75 percent  X-of the 989 current CIC holders who are eligible to receive a second CICfX yO -ԍ As of July 1997, approximately 989 carriers hold only one three or fourdigit CIC. See n. 98, supra. as a result of the change in the ongoing conservation plan, will request a second CIC. For these reasons, we cannot responsibly extend the transition to as late as January 1, 2000, as some parties request,  X9 -or even, as requested by MCI,Jg9  yO-ԍ See para. 12, supra.J until the RBOCs must provide intraLATA toll dialing parity,  X -which, in some situations, could be as late as February 8, 1999.h@ x yO?-ԍ See 47 U.S.C.  271(e)(2)(B), stating:  Xx[e]xcept for singleLATA States and States that have issued an order by December 19, 1995,  @requiring a Bell Operating company to implement intraLATA toll dialing parity, a State may not  ^require a Bell operating company to implement intraLATA toll dialing parity in that State before  }a Bell operating company has been granted authority under this section to provide interLATA  services originating in that Sate or before 3 years after the date of enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, whichever is earlier.  "  h,l(l(,, "Ԍ X-Ax29.` ` In the past, entities that requested Feature Group D CICs without acquiring  X-Feature Group D trunk access were denied a CIC. Since the CICs Second Report and Order  X-was released, however, the Industry Numbering Committee (INC)Ki`  yO3- x<ԍ The INC, under the auspices of the CLC, develops the CIC Assignment Guidelines. These guidelines were  yO- xoriginally established by the ICCF. In January 1997, the ICCF became part of the CLC's NIIF. See n.2, supra.  x;The ICCF was, and the INC is, open to participation by LECs, IXCs, competitive access providers, wireless carriers,  xxand others. The administrative guidelines for both the ICCF and the INC establish the types of entities that may  xattend meetings. The INC administrative guidelines state: [m]eetings of the INC may be attended by Wireless  xCarriers, Competitive Access Providers, Exchange Carriers, Interexchange Carriers, Paging Companies, and other  xIndustry Segments including equipment suppliers, consultants, trade associations, and government representatives;  yO - xi.e., all interest groups, as well as the general public, are encouraged to participate. See INC Administrative  xGuidelines, INC 950127005, Reissued 4/97 at p. 9. The ICCF administrative guidelines were almost identical to  xthose of the INC, except that the guidelines referred to "Cellular Carriers," rather than to "Wireless Carriers." The  yO - x!ICCF guidelines also did not mention that ICCF meetings were open to the general public. See ICCF Administrative Guidelines, ICCF 920726001, Revision 1, 11/16/94.K accepted for industry  X-consideration a proposed change to the CIC Assignment Guidelines to eliminate the requirement Athat an applicant for a Feature Group D CIC must use that CIC for its own Feature Group D trunk access if the applicant will be using the Feature Group D access  X.-already provided to an underlying transport provider.<jX.  yO- xԍ See July 23, 1997 facsimile from Frank Colaco, Bellcore, to David O. Ward, FCC; Industry Numbering  xiCommittee Issue Identification Form, "Translations Access for Feature Group D CICs," Issue 103, Submitted and Accepted October 25, 1996.< This change may be implemented as  X -early as November 1997.k  yO- xZԍ See Letter from Susan Miller, ATIS, to Kris Monteith, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated October 6, 1997. Thus, our estimates of CIC consumption must assume that this change in assignment eligibility will occur prior to the transition's end. If this change is implemented, entities previously denied CIC assignments will become eligible to receive up to  X-two CICs. Between May 19, 1997 (the effective date of the CICs Second Report and Order) and June 30, 1997, six of nine Feature Group D CIC requests were rejected because the requesting parties had not acquired Feature Group D trunk access; after the change is implemented, each of those six previously ineligible entities will become eligible to receive  X -two Feature Group D CICs.=l h yO/-ԍ See id.= Thus, it appears likely that this change in the CIC Assignment  X -Guidelines will increase CIC consumption.  X-x30.` ` For all these reasons, we disagree with the parties that argue that available CICs could meet industry needs during a transition extending significantly beyond January 1, 1998. MCI and TRA, in challenging the Commission's estimates regarding CIC consumption, have underestimated the significance of CICs to a competitive telecommunications  X!-environment.mX! yO%- xԍ See TRA Comments at 23. MCI, based on data it received from Bellcore on May 15, 1997, regarding the  x<average monthly rate of CIC assignments (19) and the projected period for which CICs in the 5XXX and 6XXX  xrange will last (79 months), argues that the Commission's January 1, 1998 date for the end of the transition is"Z'l,l(l(}'"  yO- xunnecessarily early. See MCI Comments at 2, and Exhibit A (May 14, 1997 Letter to Stephen Engelman, MCI, from  yOX-Nancy Fears, Bellcore); Ex Parte Communication of MCI, CC Docket No. 92237 (Oct. 14, 1997).  Both parties fail to consider the significant number of second Feature Group"! m,l(l(,," D CICs that single CIC holders may request, and the number of CIC assignments that may be demanded by new entrants into the telecommunications services market. In addition, we  X-disagree with Telco that the assumptions used in making our estimates in the CICs Second  X-Report and Order were too liberal.xnX  yOh- x.ԍ Telco argues that we should have assumed that 50 percent of existing CIC holders with only one CIC  xj(instead of 75 percent) would request a second CIC, and that only 75 percent of new entrants (instead of 100  yO-percent), would request two CICs. See Telco Petition at 89.x To facilitate competition in the telecommunications services market, both by incumbents and by new market entrants, it is imperative that we not underestimate CIC consumption. For the same reason, we disagree with Telco that we have overestimated the number of CICs that should be available to meet demand of unidentified  X -new entrants during the transition.<o @ yO -ԍ Id. at 910.<  X- x31.` ` Notice of End of Transition. Some parties argue that the Commission has given industry inadequate notice of the end of the transition from three to fourdigit CICs and  X -that the statements we made in the CICs Second Report and Order about the industry's  X\ -awareness of the end of the transition were flawed.p\  yO-ԍ See para. 13, supra ; CICs Second Report and Order at para. 37. We disagree and affirm our previous conclusion that the industry has received ample notice about the need to make changes necessary to accommodate fourdigit CICs and sevendigit CACs, including the need to educate consumers about the upcoming changes. We emphasize here that our decision to implement a twostep transition to fourdigit CICs, and to extend the transition slightly, is based on the concern expressed in the reconsideration record about the status of LEC switch conversion and its effect on the ability of IXCs to prepare their networks and educate their customers.  X!-x32.` ` Telco argues that the Commission was unreasonable in expecting the industry to have invested money in upgrading systems "to implement what was at that point merely a  X-proposal by the Commission," and interprets the CICs Second Report and Order as mandating  X-that "the transition should begin retroactively from the date the CICs NPRM was released  X-rather than the date the final rules were adopted."Jq`  yO -ԍ Telco Reply Comments at 3.J Telco argues that "the transition period  Xr-must begin with adoption of final rules, not the notice of proposed rules."9rr  yO#-ԍ Id. at 2.9 We find that Telco's argument is based on an inaccurate characterization of the Commission's statements  X,-about notice in the CICs Second Report and Order.  X-x 33.` ` In the CICs Second Report and Order, responding to Telco's contention that the transition to fourdigit CICs had not commenced because the Commission had not adopted a" r,l(l(,," specific transition period on the record in any final decision, we stated that Telco had not explained why the Commission must establish the beginning of the transition for CIC expansion, when the industry had already developed and begun to implement the transition  X-plan.`s yO-ԍ See CICs Second Report and Order at n.133.` We noted that, in the CICs NPRM, the Commission had stated that the industry had  Xt-planned for the change from three to fourdigit CICs to occur during the first half of 1995.ettX yO}-ԍ Id., citing CICs NPRM, 9 FCC Rcd at 2076.e We also tentatively concluded that the industry's plan to expand threedigit Feature Group D  X.-CICs to four digits was reasonableNu. yO -ԍ CICs NPRM, 9 FCC Rcd. at 2076.N and that the transition from three to fourdigit CICs  X -should last six years.<v x yO4 -ԍ Id. at 2077.<  X-x!34.` ` In the CICs Second Report and Order, we observed that the last available three digit CIC was assigned on March 31, 1995. Accordingly, on April 1, 1995, the transition  X -began.w  yO8- xԍ See CICs Second Report and Order at para. 6 and n.20, citing Long Distance Carrier Code Assignments, Industry Analysis Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, August 1995. Thus, the date on which the transition commenced depended solely upon when the last available threedigit CIC was assigned, not upon any date or event set by the  X9 -Commission. In the CICs Second Report and Order, we did not state that the transition from  X -three to fourdigit CICs had begun on the date the Commission issued the CICs NPRM.  X -Moreover, on reconsideration, we find that it cannot be reasonably inferred from the CICs  X -Second Report and Order, or from any other statements issued by the Commission, that the Commission has attempted to "effectively start[] the transition period with the issuance of the  X-NPRM rather than the issuance of the final rules adopting a transition period."Jx`  yO-ԍ Telco Reply Comments at 2.J Therefore, we find Telco's arguments without merit.  X!-x"35.` ` Modified CIC Conservation Plan. Finally, we respond to AT&T's request that we clarify that, concurrently with the end of the transition, we will discontinue the modified conservation plan limiting to two the number of CICs an entity may be assigned and reinstate  X-the CIC Assignment Guidelines limit of six CICs per entity.Iy  yOY!-ԍ See AT&T Comments at 56.I AT&T contends that this  X-clarification would be consistent with "clear implications" of statements in the CICs Second  Xr-Report and Order that a shorter transition will allow the Commission to end the conservation plan sooner and that the modified conservation plan is necessary as long as the transition is in  X,-place.8z,  yO]&-ԍ Id. 56.8 In support of simultaneously ending the conservation plan's limit and the transition,",z,l(l(,,n" AT&T argues that there will be no CIC shortage at that time and carriers will need additional  X-codes to deploy new services, such as those requiring special routing and processing. { yOV- xyԍ Id. at 67. AT&T notes that the Southwestern Bell Texas tariffs, which created the CIC consumption  yO-problem, and led to the conservation plan requested by Bellcore, have already been revised. Id. at 7.   X-x#36.` ` In the CICs Second Report and Order, we recognized the disadvantages imposed on competing providers by the conservation plan, prior to its modification. For that reason, we modified the plan to allow an entity to receive two CICs even if neither CIC  X.-would be used to offer intraLATA services.c|.  yO -ԍ See CICs Second Report and Order at para. 31.c We acknowledge that, even with the modifications, the conservation plan is only a temporary measure. It is necessary, as noted in  X-the CICs Second Report and Order, only "as long as the transition continues . . .[to avoid] a  X-flashcut conversion to fourdigit codes."@} yO&-ԍ Id. at para. 30.@ Nonetheless, before we can determine how many CICs an entity should be allowed to obtain (whether to allow six per entity as stated in the  X -CIC Assignment Guidelines or some other number), the Commission must resolve issues  X\ -related to CIC use and assignment. The maximum number of CICs assigned to an entity is  X9 -one of many issues that is raised in a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order  X -released in this docket on October 9, 1997.Z~X @ yO- xԍ Administration of the North American Numbering Plan, Carrier Identification Codes (CICs), Further Notice  yO- xof Proposed Rulemaking and Order, CC Docket No. 92237, FCC 97364 (rel. Oct. 9, 1997) (CICs FNPRM) at  yO-paras. 3340.Z Because in the CICs Second Report and Order we did not intend to end the conservation plan and transition simultaneously, we decline to grant the clarification AT&T has requested.  X-x$37.` ` In sum, we conclude that extending the transition by six months, from January 1, 1998, to June 30, 1998, will allow sufficient time after LEC switch conversion for carriers to educate customers about the change in CICs and CAC dialing. The length of this extension is sufficiently brief to minimize the anticompetitive effects of dialing disparity, to allow us to end the conservation plan as soon as possible, and to ensure that there are enough Feature Group D CICs in the 5XXX and 6XXX range for assignment during the remainder of the transition.  Xr- xB.` ` Grandfathering of ThreeDigit CICs  X,-x` ` 1. Petitions for Reconsideration  X-x%38.` ` VarTec asks that the Commission reconsider and vacate the mandate in the  X-CICs Second Report and Order that fivedigit CACs be eliminated and instead implement VarTec's grandfathering plan. VarTec argues that the Commission's decision to eliminate fivedigit CACs will cause customer confusion and result in a diminution of business for smaller dialaround long distance telephone services, that will force them to compete to"Z` ~,l(l(,,Z" become primary interexchange carriers and "expos[e] [carriers such as] VarTec to the large  X-IXCs' predatory marketing techniques."E yOV-ԍ VarTec Petition at 6.E In addition, VarTec repeats arguments made in its  X-emergency motion for stay of the CICs Second Report and Order that the decision to eliminate fivedigit CACs: (1) is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative  Xt-Procedure Act (APA);<tX yO}-ԍ Id. at 910.< (2) takes VarTec's private property without just compensation in  XQ-violation of the Fifth Amendment;=Q yO -ԍ Id. at 1017.= (3) violates VarTec's commercial free speech rights  X.-under the First Amendment;=.x yOW -ԍ Id. at 1720.= and (4) violates the Communications Act and the Regulatory  X -Flexibility Act by creating a market entry barrier for small businesses.=  yO-ԍ Id. at 2021.=  X-x&39.` ` VarTec contends that its grandfathering plan "endorses the notion of 'first come, first serve' which the Commission has repeatedly held to be reasonable under the  X -Act."  yO-Ѝ Id. at 79 and nn.1618, citing Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the  yO-Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report and Order, CC Docket No. 9698, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 16097  yOX-(1996) (Local Competition First Report and Order) (addressing pole attachments); and The Use of N11 Codes  yO -and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed  yO-Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 92105, FCC 9751 (rel. Feb. 19, 1997) at para. 7, recon. pending (N11 First  yO-Report and Order and Further NPRM) (addressing assignment of N11 numbers).֓ Under VarTec's plan, all threedigit CICs starting with a "1" could no longer be used  X\ -as of January 1, 1998 (the end of the transition under the CICs Second Report and Order) to  X9 -avoid CAC dialing conflicts.E9  yO-ԍ VarTec Petition at 4.E VarTec asserts that this plan would require the reassignment only of threedigit CICs with "1" as the first digit, but that only 70 such CICs have been  X -assigned.3  yOD-ԍ Id.3 VarTec contends the Commission's adoption of VarTec's grandfathering plan would, in the long run, make 900 more CACs available for use than under the current  X-expansion plan.;0 yO!-ԍ Id. at 45.; VarTec claims that software and switch reprogramming that currently allow switches to read both three and fourdigit CICs beginning with a "5" or a "6" (such as 10636 one of VarTec's CACs and 1016XXX) will permit the implementation of VarTec's  XD-plan.XD yO%- xYԍ See id. VarTec contends that, with implementation of its grandfathering plan, a switch capable of translating  xa fivedigit CAC and a sevendigit CAC could route the following CACs: 100XX, 102XX, 103XX, 104XX, 105XX,  x106XX, 107XX, 108XX, 109XX, 1010XXX, 10111XXX, 1012XXX, 1013XXX, 1014XXX, 1015XXX, 1016XXX,"E',l(l(h'"  yO-1017XXX, 1018XXX, 1019XXX. Id. at 4. "DX,l(l(,,"Ԍ X-ԙx'40.` ` In support of grandfathering, VarTec argues that, despite the Commission's concern that grandfathering would interfere with fourdigit CICs beginning with "5" or "6," these CICs coexist today with threedigit CICs beginning with "5" and "6" (such as VarTec's  X-CICs "595" and 696"), and that they can continue to coexist in the future.X yO-č See id. at 5, citing CICs Second Report and Order at para. 46. In support of the adoption of its grandfathering plan, VarTec also cites the Commission's findings in the  XQ-CICs Second Report and Order, that the existence of CACs of varying lengths during the transition did not violate section 201(b) (prohibiting unreasonable practices) or section 202(a) (prohibiting unreasonable discrimination) and that the transition is indeed reasonable and  X-necessary to avoid a flashcut conversion. yO -ԍ VarTec Petition at 5, citing CICs Second Report and Order at para. 32.  X-x(41.` ` Supporting VarTec's grandfathering proposal, Telco argues that alternatives to complete CIC expansion are necessary. According to Telco, VarTec's grandfathering plan would expand the pool of available CICs to include all fourdigit CICs and all but 100 threedigit CICs. Moreover, Telco argues that the plan arguably would impose no additional  X -requirements on switch manufacturers and operators.F x yO?-ԍ Telco Petition at 12.F  X -x` ` 2. Comments and Reply Comments  X-x)42.` ` Parties supporting grandfathering argue that elimination of fivedigit CACs  Xg-would "threaten the competitive viability of dialaround carriers."Tg yO -ԍ See Telco Reply Comments at 8.T Grandfathering, they assert, would prevent such carriers from suffering significant losses that they would otherwise  X!-be unable to recoverDX! yOj- xԍ See VarTec Reply Comments at 7 (arguing that customer reeducation is not likely to prevent confusion, and  xthat because reeducation is such an enormous task, "VarTec is essentially being required to go through the startup process twice").D and that would put them at a disadvantage even with respect to new  X-carriers relying only on sevendigit CACs.   yOg - xԍ See id. at 46. VarTec argues that the only disadvantaged carriers would be existing holders of fivedigit  xiCACs (rather than firsttime CAC carriers) who would need to change to sevendigit CACs and who are in danger  xof losing frustrated customers thus "imposing artificial barriers to use of [their] service" and forcing them to rebuild their businesses). For example, CGI and CommuniGroup, small interexchange carriers with customers that for the most part obtain access to their services through fivedigit CACs, argue that the Commission should vacate its decision to eliminate  X-fivedigit CACs, relying on all of the reasons stated in VarTec's petition.\ yO&-ԍ CGI and CommuniGroup Comments at 120.\ xx"0,l(l(,,"Ԍ X-ԙx*43.` ` Parties opposing grandfathering threedigit CICs and fivedigit CACs object to  X-the discrimination that would assertedly result from perpetuating dialing disparity. yOV-ԍ Sprint Comments at 34; AT&T Comments at 45; US WEST Comments at 8. Sprint, for example, claims that "any proposal which permanently institutionalizes such disparity must  X-be rejected as being contrary to the public interest."KX yO-ԍ Sprint Reply Comments at 4.K Sprint also asserts that VarTec does not provide adequate support for its claim that, in a sevendigit CAC environment, VarTec would be unable to compete for 1+ traffic and to reeducate its customers about the longer  X.-CACs.G. yO -ԍ Sprint Comments at 34.G In addition, Sprint, asserting that "it is well established that NANP codes are a public resource, and that use of such codes do [sic] not confer ownership," urges that we  X-reject VarTec's Fifth Amendment claim.ix yO-ԍ Id. at 4, citing NANP Order at para. 4.i AT&T asserts that complete conversion across X-theboard would "put all carriers at parity by not requiring disparate dialing patterns."C yO~-ԍ AT&T Comments at 5.C  X -x+44.` ` In response to arguments that coexistence of five and sevendigit CACs would harm competition, VarTec states that, to the contrary, coexistence would increase competition by eliminating the possibility that the customers of fivedigit CAC holders will revert to using  X -their primary IXC because of confusion over the CAC change.M  yO_-ԍ VarTec Reply Comments at 34.M In response to US WEST's assertion that VarTec should have been aware of the need to expand to fourdigit CICs, VarTec argues that because not all LEC switches are technically capable of handling fourdigit CICs (an assertion VarTec argues the record supports), and because use of fourdigit CICs was not mandatory and was subject to a Commissionproposed sixyear transition, it has  Xg-continued to promote its threedigit CICs.;g(  yO@-ԍ Id. at 78.; VarTec rejects Sprint's opposition to its Fifth Amendment taking argument. VarTec contends that Sprint's reliance on statements in Commission Orders and industry guidelines that NANP codes are a public resource are  X-insufficient, and that Sprint provides no statutory authority to support the assertion.9  yOg -ԍ Id. at 9.9 VarTec argues that "CACs are analogous to western water rights which belong to no one, but may be acquired by reason of investment of time and money in application of the resource's  X-productive use."3H  yO$-ԍ Id.3  XO-x,45.` ` US WEST argues that grandfathering fivedigit CACs would "preclude an orderly transition to the use of fivedigit CICs, if such a transition ultimately becomes",,l(l(,," necessary" instead of leading to an increase in the number of CICs in the long run as VarTec  X-contends.I yOV-ԍ US WEST Opposition at 10.I US WEST suggests that, if expansion to fivedigit CICs becomes necessary, the expansion could be accomplished by "opening up the third digit '1' to utilize the numbers 2 through 9" which would "provide far more CICs than grandfathering the existing threedigit  Xt-CICs, which would preclude the use of the third digit for expansion purposes."tX yO}- xԍ Id. at 78. We assume that US WEST is referring to the third digit in the prefix ("101") for all sevendigit CACs. US WEST contends that expansion from four to fivedigit CICs is "far more reasonable and nondiscriminatory" than grandfathering threedigit CICs as a means of making more CICs  X -available in the long run.9  yOl -ԍ Id. at 8.9  X-x-46.` ` Both Telco and VarTec, in their reply comments, outline possible ways of allowing further CIC expansion, if necessary. In response to US WEST's concern that grandfathering threedigit CICs will preclude an orderly transition to fivedigit CICs, Telco suggests a "sequential grandfathering" scheme: Xxfor present purposes, the Commission can order carriers to assign fourdigit CICs in the "1" sequence only after the other sequences 2XXX, 3XXX, etc.have been used. Once those codes have been assigned, the Commission can reevaluate, based on competitive circumstances and CIC code demand at that time, whether a transition to fivedigit CICs is necessary and whether threeand fourdigit CIC assignments should be grandfathered. If fourdigit CICs are exhausted at such unprecedented rates that the dialaround market is still developing when fourdigit codes are used up, the Commission would still have the option of grandfathering fourdigit CICs, using the unassigned "1" sequence  X-to properly route CACs, thus allowing a smooth transition to fivedigit CICs.L@ yO-ԍ Telco Reply Comments at 89.L  Telco argues that sequential grandfathering "eliminates the need for customer reeducation, maintains the service status quo for customers, and stabilizes expectations for new entrants  XO-regarding the risks and investment for entry."<O yO -ԍ Id. at n.11.< According to Telco, the number of CICs available with grandfathering would be "virtually the same" as under the Commission's  X -current scheme, with only 100 fewer CICs made available with grandfathering.3 `  yO$-ԍ Id.3 VarTec disputes US WEST's assertion that VarTec's grandfathering plan would preclude future expansion to fivedigit CICs, arguing that the plan, which would increase the number of available CACs from 970 to 10,900, would make unlikely the need to expand to fivedigit CICs; VarTec further contends that, even if such an expansion did become necessary, its"} ,l(l(,," grandfathering plan could be modified to accommodate the change and make available an  X-additional 100,000 CICs. yOV- xKԍ VarTec Reply Comments at 23. VarTec suggests that if further expansion became necessary, threedigit  yO-CICs starting with "2" could be eliminated (with the new CAC format being 102XXXXX). Id.  X- x` ` 3. Discussion  XQ-x.47. ` ` We affirm our decision in the CICs Second Report and Order to deny requests that we grandfather threedigit CICs and fivedigit CACs in use when the transition ends. For  X -the reasons described below, we affirm our conclusion in the CICs Second Report and Order that grandfathering would make it impossible to assign fourdigit Feature Group D CICs outside the 5XXX and 6XXX range, a result we find to be contrary to the public interest. We also find that, even if this impossibility did not exist, grandfathering could lead to significant anticompetitive results that would be counter to the public interest. We reject VarTec's  X\ -arguments that the CICs Second Report and Order: (1) incorrectly fails to grandfather fivedigit CACs; (2) is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA; (3) violates the Fifth Amendment by taking VarTec's property; (4) violates the First Amendment by restricting VarTec's commercial speech rights; and (5) violates section 257 of the Communications Act, as amended, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act by imposing barriers to market entry for small businesses.  Xg-x/48. ` ` VarTec's Grandfathering Plan. VarTec erroneously contends that grandfathering would work because threedigit CICs beginning with "5" and "6" can continue to coexist with fourdigit CICs beginning with "5" and "6" in the future as they do today. We acknowledge that threedigit CICs beginning with "5" and "6" are currently in use, and that fourdigit CICs beginning with the same numbers also are in use, with no conflicts. This situation can continue as long as we do not allow fourdigit CICs beginning with a digit other  X-than five or six to be assigned. As emphasized throughout the CICs Second Report and  Xr-Order, and this Order on Reconsideration, however, continuing CIC demand will compel us to permit the use of fourdigit CICs outside the 5XXX and 6XXX range. During the transition, we must continue to ban the use of such codes because if fourdigit CICs outside the 5XXX and 6XXX range are assigned while threedigit CICs are still in use, a code conflict would cause the misrouting of calls made using the fourdigit CICs and associated sevendigit  X-CACs.  yO- x=ԍ Because Bellcore realized that a permissive dialing period (during which both threedigit and fourdigit  xFeature Group D CICs would be in use) would be necessary, it refrained from issuing threedigit CICs with either  xa "15" or a "16" as the first two digits. Bellcore anticipated that in order to introduce fourdigit CICs in the seven xdigit CAC format while threedigit CICs and the fivedigit CAC format are still in use, the fourdigit CICs would  xneed to begin with different numbers than the first two numbers of any three digit CIC. Because it had not assigned  xany three digit CICs beginning with a "15" or a "16," Bellcore was able to assign fourdigit CICs that utilize the  xsevendigit CAC format that begin with "5" and "6" (CICs in the 5XXX and 6XXX range). Assigning only this  x<limited number of fourdigit CICs during the transition is necessary to avoid a code conflict in which calls would  xibe misrouted. Switches that are programmed only to receive threedigit CICs are able to read only the first three  xJdigits received. If threedigit and fourdigit CICs beginning with the same number were transmitted to such switches, calls made using fourdigit CICs would be misrouted because the last digit would not be read. Therefore, if we grandfathered threedigit CICs under the existing expansion plan," ,l(l(,,]" assignment of those additional fourdigit CICs would not be possible, which would not only hamper new entrants' ability to compete but also waste a scarce numbering resource. As discussed below, the alternatives proposed by VarTec in its plan would make an orderly transition to fivedigit CICs difficult, at best.  XQ-x049.` ` Even, assuming arguendo, it were technically feasible for the Commission to grandfather threedigit CICs and fivedigit CACs in use when the transition ends, and still make available for assignment fourdigit Feature Group D CICs outside the 5XXX and 6XXX range, we would still decline to do so. We agree with parties arguing that a competitive disparity would result if customers of some carriers could access their services by dialing fivedigit CACs, while customers of other carriers would be forced to dial sevendigit codes.  X -Indeed, this disparity was a significant factor in our decision in the CICs Second Report and  X\ -Order to end the transition on January 1, 1998, and remains a significant reason for our decision on reconsideration to extend the transition only for a short period. Customers who wish to use more than one dialaround service may be confused by the presence of CACs of varying lengths. Moreover, under VarTec's plan, entities assigned threedigit CICs beginning  X -with a "1" would need to relinquish those codes.  yOI- x>ԍ According to Bellcore data, there are currently 61 entities assigned such CICs. See Bellcore NANP Administration Memo 92, July 1, 1997. VarTec fails to explain adequately how the harm to those carriers is justified under its grandfathering plan. In addition, we note that the industry already has incurred great expense to accommodate the current expansion plan's permissive dialing period (which allows concurrent use of both three and fourdigit CICs).  X!-x 150.` ` In response to concerns that its grandfathering plan would not allow an orderly transition to fivedigit CICs, VarTec proposed a "simple adaptation" of its grandfathering  X-plan.M  yO-ԍ VarTec Reply Comments at 23.M Under VarTec's modified proposal, all three digit CICs starting with "1" would be removed from use so that a switch would not confuse 101XX with 101XXXX. VarTec further claims that if subsequent expansion becomes necessary, three digit CICs starting with the number "2" could be removed from use, so that use of the number "2" would signal that a  XO-five digit CIC is about to be dialed (i.e., 102XXXXX).9O yO-ԍ Id. at 2.9 VarTec fails to provide evidence on the record that this suggested modification to its grandfathering plan would achieve an orderly transition. Similarly, the record is insufficient to support Telco's assertion that its suggested "sequential grandfathering" modification (which appears to be the same as VarTec's modified plan) will permit an orderly transition to fivedigit CICs. To the contrary, the proposals suggested by VarTec and Telco will result in the reassignment of threedigit CICs beginning  X}-with "1" as the first digit (of which there are at least 70)E}@ yOn$-ԍ VarTec Petition at 4.E and will perpetuate dialing disparity between the holders of threedigit and fourdigit CICs. In addition, neither party offers any evidence regarding the software and hardware modifications that would be needed to allow switching equipment to accommodate, simultaneously, the threedigit CIC/fivedigit",l(l(,, " CAC format, the fourdigit CIC/sevendigit CAC format, and the fivedigit CIC/sevendigit CAC format, nor did either party present evidence regarding the costs of such modifications. x  X- x 251. ` ` VarTec's argument that grandfathering fivedigit CACs would be consistent with the notion of "firstcome, first served," as sanctioned by the Commission in other  XQ-contexts is misplaced.JQ yO-ԍ See para. 39, supra.J VarTec cites the N11 First Report and Order and FNPRM, in which the Commission stated that when a LEC assigns N11 codes, "it must do so in a reasonable,  X -nondiscriminatory manner, such as on a firstcome, firstserved basis,"X X yO - xԍ See N11 First Report and Order and FNPRM at para. 21, and n.73, citing Letter from Robert L. Pettit, FCC  yO - xGeneral Counsel, to David J. Markey, Vice President, BellSouth, dated May 4, 1992. See also N11 First Report and  yO -Order and FNPRM at para. 7, cited in VarTec Comments at 79 and n.18. and to the  X-Commission's pole attachment rules in the Interconnection First Report and Order, in which the Commission found that parties with preexisting attachments may benefit incidentally from  X-newly modified facilities without bearing the costs of the modifications.Gx yO-ԍ See n.132, supra.G The reasoning underlying these decisions does not and should not apply to a CIC expansion plan for the benefit of the entire industry. Regarding N11 codes, although the Commission stated that firstcome, firstserved would be a reasonable, nondiscriminatory manner for assigning N11 codes for local use, the Commission acknowledged that "widely distributed industry numbering documents consistently and unambiguously state that an N11 code assignment is  X -not a permanent assignment and is subject to termination on short notice."VX  yO- xԍ See N11 First Report and Order and FNPRM at para. 64 and n.216, citing Bell Communications Research,  yOQ- xBOC Notes on the LEC Networks 1994 (Issue 2), April 1994 (Network Notes), "Numbering Plan and Dialing Procedures" at 38.V In the pole attachment context, the firstcome, firstserve principle is not applicable at all. In that context the Commission requires nondiscriminatory treatment of attaching parties by utilities, while recognizing that in some instances there may be incidental beneficiaries when modifications to the attachments on a pole are made.  X-x352.` ` In the CICs Second Report and Order, the Commission concluded that the existence of CACs of varying lengths during the transition did not violate section 201(b)'s  X-prohibition against unreasonable practices@(  yO -ԍ 47 U.S.C.  201(b).@ or section 202(a)'s prohibition against  X-unreasonable discrimination.z  yO"-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  202(a); see CICs Second Report and Order at para. 32.z In its petition, VarTec interpreted the CICs Second Report  Xr-and Order to mean that the Commission had found that "the disparity between dialing a fivedigit CAC and a sevendigit CAC is not unreasonable under the Act, and that converting all  X,-fivedigit CACs to seven digits 'would be contrary to the public interest.'",H  yO%'-ԍ VarTec Petition at 5, quoting CICs Second Report and Order at para. 32. We reject",,l(l(,,P"  X-VarTec's interpretation. In the CICs Second Report and Order we did not state that converting all fivedigit CACs to sevendigit CACs would be contrary to the public interest. Rather, after discussing the ways in which a flashcut conversion would be detrimental to  X-various entities, yO-ԍ See CICs Second Report and Order at n.118, referring to discussion at para. 30. we stated that "a flashcut conversion to fourdigit CICs . . . would be  Xt-contrary to the public interest."@tX yO}-ԍ Id. at para. 32.@ In other words, the Commission expressed concern not about the propriety of moving from five to sevendigit CACs, but about the potentially significant disruption that could result from a "flashcut" conversion to sevendigit CACs. For this reason, we instituted a transition process for the phasein of fourdigit CICs. Our determination that the resulting variation in CAC lengths during the transition do not violate Sections 202(a) and 201(b) was limited to the transition period.  X -x453. ` ` Arbitrary and Capricious Arguments. VarTec also asserts erroneously that its grandfathering proposal would make more CICs and CACs available in the long run, that the  X9 -CICs Second Report and Order fails to accomplish the Commission's objectives in the CICs  X -NPRM of ensuring that an adequate number of CICs is available, and that, as a result, our  X -decision is arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the APA.H  yO-ԍ VarTec Petition at 910.H To the contrary, we find that VarTec's plan would result in the same number of assignable Feature Group D CICs as the current expansion plan, but with significantly greater disruption and cost to industry and the public.  XD-x554. ` ` As a preliminary matter, VarTec does not define "long run" in its petition. We  X!-assume that by "long run" VarTec means until all fivedigit CICs are assigned.0X!x yOJ- x\ԍ A sevendigit CAC can support CICs up to only five digits in length. See ICCF Committee No. 16  xConference, San Antonio, TX, March 1-2, 1989 (presentation on Carrier Identification Codes by Magdeline Bogdan, Bellcore, p. 8).0 Under VarTec's plan, a caller using a fivedigit CAC could not complete his call when a fivedigit  X-CIC/sevendigit CAC format is introduced.XX yO$- xԍ Call completion occurs when the telephone numbers dialed by the consumer are "translated" (recognized and  x=processed), resulting in the caller reaching the called party. In the CICs context, this means that the CAC is "translated" to connect the caller with the carrier.X With fivedigit CICs and sevendigit CACs, the switching equipment must be programmed to receive the fivedigit CIC, preceded by the digits "10." After that programming change occurs, the same switching equipment will be unable to process the threedigit CICs also preceded by the digits "10." If a fivedigit CAC using a threedigit CIC is dialed, the switching equipment will assume that the call has been abandoned, and disconnect the call because the switch did not receive the final two digits of the sevendigit CAC. Because at the time of introduction of fivedigit CICs, threedigit CICs must cease to be used, we reject VarTec's argument that its grandfathering plan will make more CICs available in the "long run." The industry plan and VarTec's plan would make the same number of CICs available. " ,l(l(,,"Ԍ X-ԙx655.` ` In addition, because with VarTec's plan threedigit CIC holders would need to replace their threedigit CICs and fivedigit CACs with fivedigit CICs and sevendigit CACs immediately upon assignment of the first fivedigit CIC with no transition possible, we agree with US WEST that grandfathering would "preclude an orderly transition to the use of five Xt-digit CICs, if such a transition ultimately becomes necessary."~Xt yO- xԍ See supra paras. 45 and n.153, quoting US WEST Opposition at 10. VarTec contends that eventual  xexpansion to fivedigit CICs will likely be unnecessary. The Commission addresses issues related to CIC use and  yO}-assignment in the CICs FNPRM issued on October 9.~ Under the current plan which calls for all CICs to have the same number of digits, callers will not need to change dialing patterns even after fivedigit CICs are introduced, because CACs could continue to be seven digits long. For a carrier assigned a fourdigit CIC, end users could continue to dial the exact same sevendigit CACs because the third digit of a sevendigit CAC would become the first digit of a carrier's new fivedigit CIC. For example, the fourdigit CIC "0698" (a fourdigit CIC converted from the threedigit CIC "698"), would become the fivedigit CIC "10698," but the CAC would remain the same before and after the conversion to fivedigit  X\ -CICs: "1010698."\  yO- xԍ See also US WEST Comments at 78 (suggesting "opening up the third digit '1' to use the numbers 2 through 9").  X -x756.` ` Fifth Amendment Arguments. In support of its argument that the Commission has violated the Fifth Amendment in deciding to eliminate fivedigit CACs, VarTec argues that the Commission has "taken," without just compensation, VarTec's property interests in its: (1) goodwill; (2) service marks; and (3) entitlement to engage in its trade and business using CACs. The Bureau rejected these arguments when it denied VarTec's emergency  Xg-motion for stay of implementation of the CICs Second Report and Order. We too reject these  XD-arguments.D@ yO5- xԍ In its comments supporting reconsideration, CGI and CommuniGroup repeat the arguments VarTec makes in its petition for reconsideration. Although the focus of the CICs Stay Order was to address whether VarTec had  X!-shown that it would be irreparably harmed absent a stay of the CICs Second Report and  X-Order, the reasoning upon which the Bureau based its decision to deny the stay is applicable here.  X-x857.` ` First, we find that VarTec has not demonstrated that the CICs Second Report  Xr-and Order caused a loss of its goodwill. All threedigit CICs that currently are the suffixes of fivedigit CACs will not be eliminated. Instead, they will become, by the addition of a  X,-preceding "0," fourdigit CICs, that are the suffixes of sevendigit CACs., yOu"-ԍ See CICs Stay Order at para. 14, and n.37, citing CICs Second Report and Order at n.2. Thus, any sevendigit CAC that might easily be confused with a fivedigit CAC (i.e., 10636 and 1010636) would both correspond to the same carrier, in this example, VarTec. For this reason, we find that customer confusion between VarTec and a competitor, and the tarnishing of VarTec's  X-reputation, is unlikely.](  yOy'-ԍ See CICs Stay Order at paras. 1415. ] Moreover, VarTec may act to preserve its customer base, by, for" ,l(l(,," example, educating its customers about the need to, and how to, dial the expanded CAC  X-format.K yOV-ԍ See id. and nn.3839.K  X-x958.` ` Second, we find that VarTec's service mark argument fails. While we agree with VarTec that trademarks and service marks are property rights, we find that because CICs and CACs are telephone numbers and, therefore, a public resource, there can be no private ownership of them. We specifically reject VarTec's assertion that there is a lack of legal authority to support the propositions that NANP codes are a public resource, and that use of  X-such codes does not confer ownership.VXX yO - xԍ We note that CGI and CommuniGroup, in their comments, stated that the two companies "own" the following  yO - xCACs: CGI, numbers 10778, 10975, and 10998, and CommuniGroup, numbers 10268 and 10885. CGI and  yO -CommuniGroup Comments at n.2.V  X-x:59.` ` The 1996 Act amendments to the Communications Act confer upon the Commission "exclusive jurisdiction over those portions of the North American Numbering Plan that pertain to the United States," and direct the Commission to ensure that numbers are  X9 -available on an equitable basis.C9 x yOb-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  251(e)(1).C On several occasions, including occasions preceding the enactment of the 1996 Act, the Commission has determined that "[telephone] numbers are a  X -public resource, and are not the property of the carriers."+@  yO- xԍ See N11 First Report and Order and Further NPRM at para. 71; Administration of the North American  yOt- xhNumbering Plan, Report and Order, CC Docket No. 92237, 11 FCC Rcd 2588, 2591 (1995) (stating that telephone  xnumbers are a public resource); The Need to Promote Competition and Efficient Use of Spectrum for Radio Common  yO- xCarrier Services, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 59 Rad. Reg. 2d 1275, 1284 (1986); The Need to Promote  yO- xiCompetition and Efficient Use of Spectrum for Radio Common Carrier Services, Declaratory Ruling, Report No.  yO- x<CL-379, 2 FCC Rcd 2910, 2912 (1987), recon., 4 FCC Rcd 2369 (1989) (stating that NXX codes are a national  yO\- xresource); see also Radio Common Carrier Service, Appendix B Commission Policy Statement, 59 Rad. Reg. 2d (P&F) 1275, 1284 (1986). + Other public switched network routing information, such as CACs, also are part of that public resource, and do not become  X-the property of carriers or their customers. yOn- xԍ "Numbers are the means by which businesses and customers gain access to, and reap the benefits of, the  xipublic switched telephone network. These benefits cannot be fully realized, however, unless numbering resources  xof the NANP are administered in a fair and efficient manner that makes them available to all parties desiring to  yO - x<provide telecommunications services." See Administration of the North American Numbering Plan, Report and  yO!-Order, CC Docket No. 92237, 11 FCC Rcd 2588 (1995). In the recent N11 First Report and Order and  X-FNPRM, for example, we noted that N11 codes are essential public resources that serve  Xg-important national and state goals.gg yO$-ԍ N11 First Report and Order and FNPRM at para. 71.g Moreover, in the CICs Stay Order, where the Bureau rejected VarTec's request for a stay of the transition from threedigit to fourdigit CICs, the Bureau stated that: "!P,l(l(,, "ԌXxcarriers do not 'own' codes or numbers . . . rather, they use them for the efficient operation of the public switched telephone network. Telephone numbers, including CICs and CACS, are a national public resource. Thus, VarTec's arguments premised on ownership of its CICs and CACs, including  Xt-the Fifth Amendment argument, are unfounded.Zt yO-ԍ CICs Stay Order at para. 16 and nn.4042.Z   X.-We note that Bellcore, as current administrator of the NANP,x.X yO7 - xkԍ In an Order released October 9, 1997, the Commission named Lockheed Martin as the new NANP  yO - xadministrator to replace Bellcore. See Administration of the North American Numbering Plan, Third Report and  yO - xOrder, CC Docket No. 92237; Toll Free Service Access Codes, Third Report and Order, CC Docket No. 95155,  xFCC No. 97372 (rel. Oct. 9, 1997). Bellcore will continue as the NANP administrator until its functions are  yOW - xtransferred to Lockheed Martin. See Administration of the North American Numbering Plan, Report and Order, CC Docket No. 92-237, 11 FCC Rcd 2588 (1995) at para. 108.  has also characterized numbers as a public resource and has specifically rejected the concept that the assignment of a  X-number implies ownership by either the assignor or assignee. yO1- x<ԍ See Personal Communications Services N00 NXX Code Assignment Guidelines, para. 2.10 (April 8, 1995 Revision). The  CIC Assignment  X-Guidelines expressly state that "[a]ssignment of a CIC to an entity in no way implies or infers  X-ownership of the public resource by the entity."i  yOC-ԍ CIC Assignment Guidelines, September 1996 at section 1.2.i VarTec cites no case law to support its position that ownership of CACs is similar to that of western water rights (with acquisition resulting "by reason of investment of time and money in application of the resource to productive use") and we, therefore, find that argument unpersuasive.  X -x;60.` ` VarTec's reliance on American Express Travel Related Services Co. v.  X -Accuweather, Inc.  yO-ԍ 849 F. Supp. 233, 240 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), aff'd sub nom., 105 F.3d 863 (2d Cir. 1997) (American Express). to support the proposition that it has service mark rights in its CACs is equally misplaced. According to VarTec, the court there "recogniz[ed] service mark rights in a particular telephone number promoted in the sale of the telephone number's owner's  Xg-services."Rg yO( -ԍ See VarTec Petition at n.33.R The court, in American Express, however, did not base its decision on the ownership of numbers as a protected property interest. Instead, the court's holding was based  X!-on the parties' contract and principles of contract law.`! yOr#-ԍ See American Express, 849 F. Supp. at 240.` We do not interpret American  X-Express to hold that numbers, even those extensively advertised by a carrier, are necessarily owned by the entities assigned them, and therefore eligible for service mark or other protection. Further, we note that, in the promotional materials attached to its petition, VarTec does not appear to claim service mark interests in any of its CICs or CACs. Rather, VarTec's""0,l(l(,," materials only place service mark notifications adjacent to phrases that clearly identify its services, such as "10 Talk" and "Choice Communications." Moreover, VarTec has not provided any documentary evidence, for example, a customer survey, to support VarTec's claim that its customers identify VarTec by its CAC. That type of evidence is commonly used to establish ownership and use of a name sufficient for trademark or service mark protection.  X -x<61.` ` Third, we disagree with VarTec's assertion that the Commission's Second  X-Report and Order interferes with VarTec's entitlement to engage in its trade and business  X-using CACs. After full conversion to fourdigit CICs and sevendigit CACs, VarTec can still conduct its business, but it will be required to do so on an equal footing with other carriers. We find this result to be in the public interest. As noted above, VarTec may take various actions to preserve its relationship with its customers, such as educating its customers about the need to, and how to, dial the expanded CAC format. Such actions should enable VarTec to continue its dialaround business without disruption or loss of business.  X -x=62.` ` Even if we assume, for purposes of argument, that VarTec could have acquired an interest in its CACs, warranting Fifth Amendment protection, VarTec still has failed to  X-demonstrate a takings under applicable Supreme Court decisions. yO-ԍ See, e.g., Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1982). Under those decisions, the determination of whether a Fifth Amendment violation has occurred requires a balancing of  XD-competing interests and depends largely on the particular circumstances of the case.DX yOM-ԍ Id. at 124, citing United States v. Central Eureka Mining Co., 357 U.S. 155, 168 (1952). In examining those facts, the Court has considered several factors, including the character of the  X-governmental action and its economic impact on the claimant. yO- xԍ Penn Central Transp. Co., 438 U.S. at 124, citing United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946); Goldblatt  yO_-v. Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590, 594 (1962). In looking at the nature of the governmental action, the Court has recognized that "[a] 'taking' may more readily be found when the interference with property can be characterized as a physical invasion by government . . . than when interference arises from some public program adjusting the  Xr-benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the common good."r@ yOc-ԍ Penn Central Transp. Co., 438 U.S. at 124, citing United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256. Moreover, a taking is more likely to be found if the government has acquired for its own use a resource to permit  X,-or facilitate public functions., yO!-ԍ Penn Central Transp. Co., 438 U.S. at 124, citing United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256. The extent to which a governmental action has interfered with distinct investmentbacked expectations is particularly relevant in examining the  X-economic impact of the regulation on the claimant.`  yO$-ԍ Penn Central Transp. Co., 438 U.S. at 124, citing Goldblatt v. Hempstead, 369 U.S. at 594.  X- x>63.` ` In the present case, the governmental action cannot be characterized as a physical invasion of VarTec's property. Instead, it is more appropriately described as an"}# ,l(l(,," adjustment to the benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the public good. Although the adjustment to expand all threedigit CIC holders' CICs to four digits may cause some inconvenience or burden to those CIC holders in the shortterm, the adjustment is necessary to allow all carriers to compete on an equal basis. Moreover, the government will not acquire VarTec's CAC for its own use. Indeed, the Commission has not taken VarTec's  XQ-CAC at all. To the contrary, the CICs Second Report and Order simply furthers implementation of industry's CIC expansion plan by establishing an end to the transition from three to fourdigit CICs. As part of that plan, all threedigit CICs, including VarTec's, will be expanded to fourdigit CICs, and fivedigit CACs will be expanded to sevendigit CACs.  X-x?64.` ` We also reject VarTec's argument that the CICs Second Report and Order  X -interferes with its reasonable investmentbacked expectation in its CACs.F  yO -ԍ VarTec Petition at 13.F VarTec's claim that it spent significant resources promoting its fivedigit CACs because "until the institution of this proceeding VarTec had no reason to suspect that the Commission would attempt to  X -take away VarTec's CACs" is unfounded.= X yO-ԍ See id.= As noted above, the Commission, in the CICs  X -Second Report and Order, did not "take away" VarTec's, or any other threedigit CIC holder's, CICs or CACs. Reassignment of threedigit CICs is not a part of the expansion  X-plan.V yOF-ԍ See CICs Stay Order at para. 14.V Instead, to ensure an orderly transition to fourdigit CICs and the nondiscriminatory treatment of all CIC holders, a "0" will precede CIC holders' current threedigit CICs to form fourdigit CICs and current fivedigit CACs will become the suffixes of sevendigit CACs. For example, one of VarTec's threedigit CICs, "636," will now become the fourdigit CIC, "0636."  X-x@65.` ` We also find that VarTec's claims that it had no knowledge of the plan to expand from three to fourdigit CICs prior to the institution of this proceeding are not  X-credible.x yO- xԍ We note that at least one of VarTec's CICs, "636," was assigned in September 1994, after the institution of this proceeding. The industry began working on the expansion of three to fourdigit CICs in 1987. Moreover, it published the plan for expansion from three to fourdigit CICs, and corresponding five to sevendigit CACs, in April 1991, prior not only to the Commission's  X,-issuance of the CICs NPRM, but also to the National Association of Regulatory Utility  X -Commissioners' Petition for Notice of Inquiry in September 1991.u  yO"-ԍ See ICCF Expansion Plan, April 1991, cited in n.2, supra.u The plan to expand to fourdigit CICS was generally available within the industry and we believe that members of  X-the industry were aware of it well before the release of the CICs NPRM. For these same  X-reasons, we also are not persuaded by VarTec's claim that the CICs Second Report and Order interferes with VarTec's reasonable investorbacked expectations. A governmental action"}$` ,l(l(,," readjusting rights and burdens is not unlawful solely because it "upsets otherwise settled  X-expectations" even if new duties or liabilities are imposed. yOV- xԍ See Concrete Pipe and Products of California, Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern  yO- xCalifornia, 508 U.S. 602, 64546, citing Usery v. Turner Elkhorn, 428 U.S. 1, 16 (1976). The Supreme Court in  yO- xConcrete Pipe also affirmed the principle that where a particular field is subject to federal regulation, those who enter  x.the regulated field cannot object if the "legislative scheme" is later buttressed by amendments to achieve the  yOv-legislative end. Id. at 645.   X-xA66.` ` VarTec also has not demonstrated that the Commission's action in the CICs  Xt-Second Report and Order causes it economic harm of the magnitude necessary to establish a  XQ-Fifth Amendment takings under Commission precedent.Qx yOz - x-ԍ See, e.g., Concrete Pipe, 508 U.S. at 645 ("[O]ur cases have long established that mere diminution in the value of property, however serious, is insufficient to demonstrate a taking."). To establish a takings claim under the Fifth Amendment, for example, common carriers challenging rates prescribed by the Commission must show that the rates paid by ratepayers would "jeopardize the financial integrity of the companies, either by leaving them insufficient operating capital or by  X-impeding their ability to raise future capital." yOF- xwԍ See Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992:  yO- xRate Regulation, Second Report and Order, First Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed  {O- xRulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 2220, 2244 (1996); see also Represcribing the Authorized Rate of Return for Interstate  yO- xJServices of Local Exchange Carriers, Order, CC Docket No. 89624, 5 FCC Rcd 7507 (1990), on recon., 6 FCC Rcd  yOh-7193 (1991), aff'd sub nom. Illinois Bell Tel. Co. v. FCC, 988 F.2d 1254 (D.C. Cir. 1993). The claimants also must demonstrate that the governmentprescribed rates fail to compensate investors for the risks associated with their  X -investments.mZ  yO- xԍ  Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate  {Oz- xRegulation, Second Report and Order, First Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,  yOD-11 FCC Rcd 2220.m Aside from bald assertions of financial harm, VarTec does not make a  X\ -showing of harm necessary to support a takings claim under the Fifth Amendment.   X -xB67.` ` The cases relied on by VarTec are inapposite.I  yOk-ԍ VarTec Petition at 1017.I For example, VarTec cites  X -the Lucas caset 4 yO-ԍ Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).t for the proposition that the Commission has effected a per se taking of its  X -property.F  yOE"-ԍ VarTec Petition at 14.F In Lucas, the court concluded that a government regulation prohibiting the construction of any permanent habitable structures on the plaintiff's land effected a total destruction of the value of the plaintiff's property. The effect of the Commissions decision  Xg-here, in contrast, is simply to add a "0" to VarTecs current threedigit CIC ("636" becomes "0636") and the digits "10" to VarTec's CAC ("10636" becomes "1010636"). The Commission has not confiscated VarTec's alleged property or destroyed its value. Moreover, the Commission has provided a reasonable transition within which VarTec may educate its"%T,l(l(,,(" customers. As discussed above, the Commission also is requiring LECs to offer an intercept message that will inform callers of the change in dialing patterns and that will assist VarTec in educating its customers about the changes in CAC dialing. Thus, the facts and reasoning  X-of the Lucas case do not apply in the present context. Other cases cited by VarTec are similarly distinguishable.  X.-xC68.` ` In sum, to determine whether government action is confiscatory, and therefore may violate the Fifth Amendment, the Court has looked at the financial impact of that  X-action.$ yOa - xԍ See Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification ServiceCaller ID, CC Docket No. 91281,  yO) - x10 FCC Rcd 11700, 11716 (1995), Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order  {O - xand Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, aff'd sub nom. California v. FCC, 75 F.3d 1350 (9th Cir. 1996), citing  {O -FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U.S. 591 (1994) and Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch, 488 U.S. 299 (1989). The end result of the CICs Second Report and Order is that all CIC holders must convert to fourdigit CICs and, accordingly, must compete on an equal footing. We conclude that this end result falls far short of a Fifth Amendment takings. Thus, we reject VarTec's  X -arguments on this point.   X9 -xD69.` ` First Amendment Arguments. VarTec argues that its CACs are service marks  X -that constitute commercial speech warranting protection under the First Amendment.&   yO{- xԍ VarTec Petition at 17. According to VarTec, commercial speech is speech that proposes a commercial  yOC- xtransaction. Id., citing Board of Trustees of SUNY v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 47374 (1989). VarTec also claims that  xtrademarks, trade names and other symbols used to communicate information to consumers about an owner's products  yO-or services are forms of commercial speech. VarTec Petition at 17.& VarTec claims that the service marks in question, its CACs, are entitled to First Amendment protection because they serve "as indications of the origin of VarTec's services (the function of a service mark)" and "communicate useful information to consumers regarding the manner  X-in which VarTec's services can be utilized."F yO-ԍ VarTec Petition at 17.F VarTec asserts that the Commission's decision  Xg-in the CICs Second Report and Order fails the Supreme Court's test that commercial speech  XD-restrictions must pass,D,  yO!- xԍ See id. at 18, citing Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of New York, 447 U.S. 557  yO-(1980) (Central Hudson). because there is no "reasonable fit" between the governmental action  X!-and the government's interest.}!  yOV -ԍ VarTec Petition at 19, citing Board of Trustees, 492 U.S. at 480.} We conclude that we need not apply the Central Hudson test for three reasons. First, with respect to its CICs and CACs, VarTec does not provide, nor exercise discretion over, the content of the information contained in its particular CICs and CACs. These CICs and CACs were assigned to VarTec by a third party. The inherent technical nature and purpose of CICs and CACs requires that the content of CICs and CACs be fixed when assigned and remain fixed thereafter while the particular CICs and CACs are in use. VarTec thus did not create the original content of the CICs and CACs it uses, and any unilateral alteration by VarTec of their content would make them unusable for the purpose intended. This absence of original content creation and editing control means that the use of" &,l(l(,," the CICs and CACs by VarTec does not constitute speech subject to First Amendment  X-protection.X yOV- xԍ Cf. Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 114 S. Ct. 2445, 2456 (1994) ; Implementation of the Non yO- x<accounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, First Report and Order and  yO-Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 21905, 21947 (1996).  Ī Second, VarTec has not demonstrated that its customers identify VarTec by its CICs and CACs in the manner necessary to establish service mark or trademark interests in its CICs and CACs. Therefore, no commercial interest exists that arguably might warrant First Amendment protection. Finally, VarTec has not cited any legal authority for the proposition that telephone numbers such as CICs and CACs constitute speech, commercial or otherwise.  X.- For the foregoing reasons we conclude that there is no commercial speech with respect to VarTec's use of its CICs and CACs; hence, there can be no First Amendment violation.  X-xE70.` ` Even assuming, arguendo, that VarTec's CACs constituted commercial speech,  X-the Commission's decision is a permissible restriction under the test set forth in Central  X -Hudson.F  yO-ԍ VarTec Petition at 18.F Under Central Hudson, if the commercial speech is not misleading or related to unlawful activity, a restriction on that speech is lawful and does not violate the First Amendment if: (1) the government has a substantial interest to be achieved by the restriction; and (2) the limitation on the expression is designed carefully to achieve the government's  X -goal.Q x yO-ԍ Central Hudson, 447 U.S. at 563. Q Compliance with the second element of the Central Hudson test may be measured by two criteria. First, the restriction may not provide only ineffective or remote support for the government's purpose. Instead, it must directly advance the governmental interest. Second, a "reasonable fit" must be present between the government's ends and the means chosen to  Xg-accomplish those ends.Yg yO - xԍ Board of Trustees, 492 U.S. at 479. Board of Trustees refined the Central Hudson test. Rather than  yO- x,requiring that the restriction on commercial speech must not be more excessive than would serve the governmental  yO- xJinterest, under Board of Trustees, the government need only show a "reasonable fit" between the government's ends  yOx- xand the means chosen to accomplish those ends. See also Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 116 S. Ct. 1495, 1510  yO@- x\(1996); City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410, 416 (1993); United States v. Edge  yO-Broadcasting Co., 509 U.S. 418, 429 (1993). Y The "fit" need not be perfect; it simply must be reasonable and "in  XD-proportion to the interest served."D  yOu-ԍ Board of Trustees, 492 U.S. at 479, citing In re R.M.J., 455 U.S. 191, 203 (1982).  X-xF71.` ` Applying the Central Hudson test, we reject VarTec's argument that the CICs  X-Second Report and Order violates the First Amendment. Although the information VarTec seeks to protect is not misleading or otherwise related to unlawful activity, the governmental  X-interest in any restriction on that speech is substantial and the CICs Second Report and Order directly advances that interest. CICs are the essential means by which LECs provide interexchange access services. Without an adequate supply of CICs, competition in the telecommunications market will be thwarted because new entrants will be unable to gain access to LECs' networks. Thus, the government has a substantial interest in ensuring that a" ',l(l(,," sufficient supply of CICs is available for the continued growth of the telecommunications market. Industry has long recognized the need for an adequate supply of CICs and began to  X-plan for the expansion to fourdigit CICs prior to the Commission's decision in the CICs  X-Second Report and Order.u yO-ԍ See ICCF Expansion Plan, April 1991, cited in n.2, supra.u  XQ-xG72.` ` The CICs Second Report and Order directly advances the government's interest in maintaining an adequate supply of CICs. That order continues the implementation of the  X -expansion plan developed by industry in 1991,= X yO -ԍ See id.= instituted because industry recognized that expansion from threedigit CICs to fourdigit CICs was necessary to ensure an adequate  X-supply of CICs. yO^ - xԍ Id. (stating that when the supply of 3digit FG D CICs is exhausted, FG D CICs will be expanded to four digits). Thus, the Commission's decision in the CICs Second Report and Order, continuing the implementation of industry's expansion plan, is "carefully calculated" to avoid market disruption or burdening speech as it ensures that all market participants receive equitable treatment as the market expands.  X -xH73.` ` We reject VarTec's contention that its grandfathering plan "better achieves" the  X -government's interest than a nondiscriminatory expansion to fourdigit CICs.F @ yO-ԍ VarTec Petition at 19.F As discussed  X -above, we find that VarTec's grandfathering plan would not result in a greater number of  X-available CICs than the current industry expansion plan.N yO.-ԍ See paras. 5354, supra.N To the contrary, if the Commission grandfathered threedigit CICs under the existing expansion plan, assignment of  Xg-fourdigit CICs outside the 5XXX and 6XXX range would not be possible.g`  yOx- xjԍ The NANP Administrator will be free to assign CICs outside of the 5XXX and 6XXX range when the transition from three to fourdigit CICs ends on June 30, 1998. Furthermore, VarTec admits that its plan would require a complete change in the CICs, and consequently in  X!-the CACs, of the holders of 70 CICs and a random reassignment of a CIC to those entities.E!  yO-ԍ VarTec Petition at 4.E VarTec fails to justify the discriminatory treatment its plan would inflict upon those CIC  X-holders. The industry plan, on the other hand, treats all CIC holders equally.H  yO"- x-ԍ The expansion plan provides that all threedigit CICs will be converted to four digits by the addition of a preceding "0." Finally, and most importantly, we find that VarTec's grandfathering plan would create long term, significant discrimination in dialing patterns. Whereas the current plan to expand all threedigit CICs to four digits requires the customers of all carriers to dial a sevendigit CAC to reach their service provider, under VarTec's plan, the customers of carriers with threedigit"O(,l(l(,," CICs could reach their service providers by dialing only five digits. This aspect of VarTec's grandfathering plan would create a significant competitive imbalance at odds with the underlying procompetitive policies of the Communications Act.  Xt-xI74.` ` The other cases cited by VarTec in support of its claim that the CICs Second  XQ-Report and Order violates its First Amendment rights XQ yO- xԍ VarTec Petition at 19, citing City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410, 113 S. Ct. 1505,  yO- xY1510 n.13 (1993); Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 115 S. Ct. 1585, 1593 (1995); Hornell Brewing Co., v. Brady, 819  yOZ-F. Supp. 1227, 1239 (E.D.N.Y. 1993).ď are clearly distinguishable from the instant case. Each of the cited cases involved a ban on particular forms of commercial  X -speech.X  yO - xԍ See, e.g., City of Cincinnati, 507 U.S. 410 (banning the distribution of "commercial handbills" on public  yOl - xproperty); Rubin, 115 S. Ct. 1585 (banning beer bottle labels from displaying alcoholic content); Hornell Brewing, 819 F. Supp. 1227 (banning the use of the name "Crazy Horse" on alcoholic beverages).  A ban is not involved here. Rather, the CICs Second Report and Order reasonably alters the manner in which VarTec and its customers will communicate in order to enter into a transaction at the same point of purchase as before, by requiring the dialing of a seven-digit CAC, rather than the dialing of a five-digit one. VarTec is therefore not prohibited from transacting business or otherwise communicating with its customers; the intrusion on its commercial speech rights, if any, is minimal.  X -xJ75.` ` In sum, we conclude that an important governmental interest is served by the Commission's determination, consistent with industry's plan, that all threedigit CICs should be expanded to four digits, to ensure an adequate supply of CICs and vigorous competition in  X-the telecommunications market. The CICs Second Report and Order directly advances that interest by implementing the expansion plan in, what the Commission believes, is the most reasonable and nondiscriminatory way. The means chosen by industry and affirmed by the  XD-Commission in the CICs Second Report and Order, an acrosstheboard conversion from three to fourdigit CICs, is a "reasonable fit" with the objective of ensuring that the pool of available CICs is sufficient to meet the demand for CICs and to accommodate new entrants. Thus, we find that the First Amendment is not violated by any alleged restriction to VarTec's "commercial speech."  Xr- xK76.` ` Section 257 and Regulatory Flexibility Arguments. VarTec's argument that the  XO-CICs Second Report and Order violates section 257 of the Communications Act,OO yO -ԍ 47 U.S.C  _ , et seq.O as  X,-amended, and the Regulatory Flexibility ActP, yOu"-ԍ 5 U.S.C.  601, et seq.P is unfounded. We stated in the CICs Second  X -Report and Order that the transition to the use of only four digit CICs will "[s]erve the goal of section 257 . . . by reducing barriers to entry of new small carriers and perhaps other small")( ,l(l(,,"  X-entities."  yOy- xԍ See CICs Second Report and Order at n.110, citing 47 U.S.C.  257. The Commission issued a Notice of  yOA- xInquiry in May 1996 to begin implementing Section 257. See In the Matter of Section 257 Proceeding to Identify  yO - xand Eliminate Market Entry Barriers for Small Businesses, Notice of Inquiry, GN Docket No. 96-113, 11 FCC Rcd 6280 (1996). The directive to eliminate "barriers to entry" does not mean that we must give  X-preference to small carriers. In the CICs Second Report and Order, we were careful to treat  X-all carriers the same, whether large, small, incumbent provider, or new market entrant. When the conversion to fourdigit CICs is completed, more CICs will be available to new market  Xt-entrants, many of whom will be smaller carriers.t yO -ԍ See CICs Second Report and Order, Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, at Appendix A, para. 2. Thus, contrary to VarTec's claims, we  XQ-conclude that the actions taken in the CICs Second Report and Order and today eliminate market entry barriers and advance the procompetitive purposes of the Act.  X- q IV. ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW ă  X-  X-XxA.` ` Position of Parties   X\ -x` ` 1. VarTec Application  X -xL77.` ` In its application for review of a Common Carrier Bureau decision denying its  X -request for a stay of the CICs Second Report and Order, VarTec argues that the Bureau erred  X -in determining that VarTec would not suffer irreparable harm absent a stay.R @ yO-ԍ See VarTec Application at 2.R VarTec argues that, contrary to the Bureau's determination, VarTec demonstrated that certain harm  X-would occur.9 yO -ԍ Id. at 3.9 VarTec claims that, because of its billing and collection arrangements with LECs, VarTec is unable to identify its customers in order to communicate directly with them about change in CAC dialing, and must instead rely on mass marketing techniques. This arrangement, according to VarTec, makes it impossible for the company properly to educate  X-its customers about the important change in dialing.;`  yO-ԍ Id. at 46.; VarTec asserts that the inability to alert each of its customers about the change in dialing, compounded by the fact that the LECs are not required to provide intercept messages after January 1, 1998, will cause VarTec to  X-lose a significant portion of these customers.;  yO6"-ԍ Id. at 56.; In addition, VarTec argues that: (1) the Bureau erred in its application of legal precedent to determine that VarTec will be able to  XO-recover economic loss alleged as a result of the CICs Second Report and Order;O  yO%-ԍ Id. at 78.; and that"O*,l(l(,,o"  X-VarTec does not "own" its CACs;= yOy-ԍ Id. at 1011.= (2) the Bureau failed to address VarTec's claim of irreparable harm that would result from First  X-Amendment violations; and (3) the CICs Stay Order violates the APA as being arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion pursuant to delegated authority, contrary to the Fifth and  Xt-First Amendments, and unwarranted by the record.mtX yO}-ԍ Id at 1112, citing 5 U.S.C.  706(2)(A),(B)(F).m  X.-x` ` 2. US WEST Opposition  X-xM78.` ` In its opposition to VarTec's application for review, US WEST claims that the Bureau was correct in denying VarTec's motion for stay. US WEST asserts that granting VarTec's motion would cause others substantial harm by way of competitive disparity. US  X -WEST also claims that VarTec raised no new matters in its motion.T  yO-ԍ US West Application Opposition at 2.T US WEST also  X\ -disputes VarTec's claimed inability to educate its customers properly.G\ x yO-ԍ Id. at 37.G US WEST asserts  X9 -that the industry had been aware for some time prior to issuance of the CICs Second Report  X -and Order that education about expanded CICs and CACs would be necessary, and that  X -VarTec, therefore, should have been taking steps to educate its customers.;  yO-ԍ Id. at 57.; US WEST also  X -suggests ways in which VarTec effectively can use mass marketing techniques to alert customers to the dialing changes resulting from the expansion from three to fourdigit CICs and from five to sevendigit CACs (including inserting a conspicuous message in its mailings to customers and using other types of mass market communications vehicles such as radio and  XD-television).9D yO-ԍ Id. at 5.9 In response to VarTec's argument that its problems are particularly acute because LECs are not required to provide intercept messages, US WEST asserts that it currently provides an intercept message when an access code is misdialed or is not active in  X-its region, a practice which it plans to continue after the transition.v(  yO- xԍ US WEST asserts that, in most US WEST switches, the intercept message states: "We're sorry, your call  x.cannot be completed with the access code you dialed. Please check the code and dial again, or call your long  yOD!- xdistance carrier for assistance." US WEST September 16, 1997 Ex Parte Filing at 1. In some US WEST switches,  yO "- xthe intercept message states: "We're sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialed. Please check the number and  yO"-dial again." Id.v US WEST also"+,l(l(,," contends that such a message will likely be provided by most LECs, alleviating any harm that  X-VarTec might otherwise suffer.; yOV- xԍ Id. at 7. US WEST notes also that it has brought before the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry  xSolutions' Network Interconnection Interoperability Forum (NIIF) the subject of a standardized intercept message.  yO- xUS WEST states that the issue is on the agenda for the forum's October 1997 meeting. Id. The proposed  xYstandardized wording before the NIIF is "We're sorry, your call cannot be completed with the access code you dialed.  yOv- x,Please check the code and dial again, or call your long distance carrier for assistance." Id. at 2, attaching NIIF Issue  yO>-Identification Form, 3 Digit CIC Announcement, August 21, 1997.;  X- XxB.` ` Discussion   XQ-xN79.` ` For the reasons discussed below, we find that the Bureau did not err in denying  X.-VarTec's motion for stay of implementation of the CICS Second Report and Order. In its application for review, VarTec relies heavily on the absence of a requirement that LECs provide intercept messages after the transition to demonstrate that, contrary to the Bureau's finding, VarTec would be harmed absent a stay. VarTec, in its motion for stay, did not rely on the need for an intercept message to make its showing of irreparable harm. Commission procedural rules regarding applications for review require that the application rely on questions of fact or law upon which the designated authority has been afforded an opportunity  X9 -pass.C9 @ yO*-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  1.115 (c).C VarTec's application fails to comply with this requirement. This failure alone would warrant denial of the application. Because the intercept message issue was raised in petitions for reconsideration, which we are addressing concurrently with VarTec's application for review, we will, nonetheless, consider VarTec's application for review, and, specifically, the issue of intercept messages.  Xg-xO80.` ` In the Order on Reconsideration, we conclude that LECs must offer an intercept message, explaining that a dialing pattern change has occurred, and instructing the  X!-caller to contact its IXC for further information.J! yO-ԍ See para. 26, supra.J In addition, US WEST's opposition makes it apparent that local exchange carriers are aware of the importance of intercept messages to a smooth transition to fourdigit CICs and sevendigit CACs. We find that the Commission's requirement that LECs provide intercept messages will significantly reduce any harm that VarTec may arguably suffer as a result of CIC expansion.  XO-xP81.` ` We agree with the Bureau, notwithstanding the intercept issue, that VarTec's claim of irreparable harm must fail because the economic harm VarTec claims it will suffer is speculative. As the Bureau stated, "VarTec may take actions to preserve its customers, such  X-as educating them about the need to, and how to, dial the expanded CAC format."V`  yO$-ԍ See CICs Stay Order at para. 15.V While we acknowledge that VarTec's mass mailings may not reach all of VarTec's customers ", ,l(l(,,"  X-because billing and collection from those customers is handled by LECs,R yOy-ԍ See VarTec Application at 5.R we agree with US WEST that VarTec can still adequately educate its customers, for example, by inserting a conspicuous message in its mass mailings. Existing dialaround customers that VarTec may be unable to contact directly, and who, according to VarTec, may ignore mass mailings even  Xt-if they receive them,<tX yO}-ԍ See id.< will be more likely to notice mass mailings if they include a conspicuous message. Inclusion in mass mailings of a conspicuous message about the change in VarTec's CAC will increase the likelihood that VarTec's existing customers will be alerted to this important change. We also note that VarTec still may be able to contact some of its customers directly, by matching the phone numbers of its customers with their addresses (provided by the LECs). In this way, VarTec will be able to provide direct mailings to its customers to inform them of the change in reaching VarTec through its CACs.  X\ -xQ82.` ` We disagree with VarTec that the Bureau erred in rejecting VarTec's Fifth Amendment and First Amendment claims. VarTec presented both of these issues in its  X -Petition for Reconsideration and we rejected both arguments.  yO- xjԍ For a discussion of VarTec's Fifth Amendment arguments, see paras. 5668, supra. For a discussion of  yOw-VarTec's First Amendment arguments, see paras. 6975, supra. Thus, for the reasons stated in the Order on Reconsideration, we also reject VarTec's arguments here.  X- V. SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING ă  Xg-x A.` ` Background x  X!-xR83.` ` In the Independent Telephone Company Equal Access Report and Order, !@ yO- xԍ See In the Matter of MTS and WATS Market Structure Phase III, Report and Order, CC Docket No. 78-72,  yO-100 F.C.C.2d 860 (1985) (Independent Telephone Company Equal Access Order).  the Commission recognized differences between independent telephone companies other than GTE on the one hand, and GTE and the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) on the other, primarily in the types of switching equipment they used, the markets they served, and the financial resources available to most non-GTE independent telephone companies. This led the Commission to set an equal access implementation schedule for nonGTE independent telephone companies that differed from those set for the BOCs in the Modified Final  X,-Judgment and for GTE in the Consent Decree.E, yOu"-ԍ Id. at paras. 4750. E For nonGTE independent telephone company end offices equipped with SPC switches, the Commission required that equal access  X-implementation must occur within three years of a reasonable request for equal access,@(  yO%-ԍ Id. at para. 48.@ with the possibility of a waiver, if the company seeking the waiver could demonstrate that upgrading its switch was infeasible, except at costs that clearly outweigh potential benefits to"- ,l(l(,,"  X-users of telecommunications services.F yOy-ԍ Id. at para. 50.F For companies not receiving a request for equal access, the Commission required that implementation occur as soon as practicable, according to a schedule and a degree of implementation that reflected the capital constraints of the operating company and the market and other business conditions of the area served by the end  Xt-office.@tX yO}-ԍ Id. at para. 48.@ The Commission did not impose a conversion schedule on end offices equipped with electromechanical switches, regardless of the existence of a request, and required only  X.-that for these end offices, conversion should occur as soon as practicable.@. yO -ԍ Id. at para. 49.@  X-x B.` ` Request for Comments  X-xS84.` ` Our inquiries regarding the status of LEC conversion to accept fourdigit CICs reveal that some independent incumbent LECs in rural and isolated areas do not provide equal  X\ -access.a\ x yO-ԍ See, e.g., NTCA July 29, 1997 Filing.a Some of those LECs' end offices are equipped with SPC switches, but the LECs have never received a bona fide request to provide equal access. In other instances, the LECs' end offices are not equipped with SPC switches and, therefore, the LECs are not required to convert to equal access according to a specific timetable, even if a LEC received a  X -reasonable request for equal access.  yO-ԍ See Independent Telephone Company Equal Access Order at para. 49.ă Thus, a requirement that all LEC end office switches be upgraded to accept fourdigit CICs by January 1, 1998, may have the unintended effect of requiring those LECs that have never received a bona fide request for equal access or that are not subject to a specific timetable for providing equal access nonetheless to upgrade their end offices to offer equal access by January 1, 1998. Such a requirement would modify the Commission's equal access implementation schedule for nonGTE independent telephone  X-companies, set by the 1985 Independent Telephone Company Equal Access Report and Order.  X-More than twelve years have passed since the adoption of the Independent Telephone  X-Company Equal Access Report and Order. We therefore tentatively conclude that all LEC end offices, including those LECs whose end offices are equipped with SPC switches, but have not received a bona fide request for equal access and those LECs whose end offices are equipped with nonSPC switches, should nevertheless be required to provide equal access. This requirement also would apply to LECs who may have received a waiver of the Commission's equal access rules, to the extent those waivers remain in place. We tentatively conclude that LECs with SPC switches that have not received a bona fide request for equal access should be required to upgrade their facilities to provide equal access and to accept  X-fourdigit CICs within three years of the effective date of an Order adopted in this  X}-proceeding. We further tentatively conclude that LECs whose end offices are equipped with nonSPC switches should be required to provide equal access and to convert their switches to"Z.,l(l(,,x" accept fourdigit CICs when they next replace their switching facilities. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.  X-xT85.` ` We tentatively conclude that requiring LECs whose end offices are equipped with SPC switches to upgrade their facilities to enable them to offer equal access, even if they have not received a request for equal access, and LECs whose end offices are equipped with nonSPC switches to convert their facilities to provide equal access, is not inconsistent with  X -the Commission's general goal, expressed in the Independent Telephone Company Equal  X-Access Report and Order, that equal access occur as soon as practicable, regardless of whether a request has been made for equal access, and regardless of the type of switch with which an  X-end office is equipped. Moreover, the Commission stated, in the Independent Telephone  X -Company Equal Access Report and Order, that where generic software is available, the telephone company should endeavor to make the necessary conversions in less than three  X9 -years.@9  yO -ԍ Id. at para. 65.@ We note that the responses to our inquiries indicate that the fourdigit CIC software  X -generally is included in equal access software packages developed since 1995.f  X yO-ԍ See e.g., NECA August 1, 1997 Filing at 2.f Commenters that oppose our tentative conclusion should discuss why a twelve year period of time in which to convert to provide equal access has been insufficient and should propose specific alternatives to the Commission's proposal.  Xg-x C.` ` Procedural Matters  X!- x` ` 1. Ex Parte Presentations  X-xU86.` ` This is a permitbutdisclose noticeandcomment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided that  X-they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules. See generally 47 C.F.R.  1.1202,  Xr-1.1203, 1.1206. Written submissions, however, will be limited as discussed below.N r yO -ԍ See paras. 8890, infra.N  X,- Qx` ` 2. Regulatory Flexibility Act  X-xV87.` ` See Appendix B, infra for the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.  X-Q Qx` ` 3. Comment Filing Procedures  XZ-xW88.` ` General Requirements. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415, 1.419, interested parties may  X-Qfile comments on or before December 8, 1997 , and reply comments on or before January 12, 1998. To file formally in this proceeding, you must file an original and six copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of your comments, you must file an original and 11 copies. "!/x ,l(l(,,"" Comments and reply comments should be sent to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 222, Washington, D.C. 20554, with a copy to Carmell Weathers of the Common Carrier Bureau, 2000 M Street, N.W., Room 221, Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties should also file one copy of any documents filed in this docket with the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 1919 M Street, N.W., room 239, Washington, D.C. 20554.  X-xX89.` ` Other requirements. hhComments and reply comments must include a short and concise summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments and reply comments must also comply with Section 1.49 and all other applicable sections of the  X\ -Commissions rules.L X\  yO - xԍ See 47 C.F.R.  1.49. We require, however, that a summary be included with all comments and reply  yO - xcomments. The summary may be paginated separately from the rest of the pleading (e.g., as "i, ii"). See 47 C.F.R.  1.49.L We also direct all interested parties to include the name of the filing party and the date of the filing on each page of their comments and reply comments.  X -Comments and reply comments also must clearly identify the specific portion of this FNPRM  X -to which a particular comment or set of comments is responsive. If a portion of a party's  X -comments does not fall under a particular topic listed in the outline of this FNPRM, such comments must be included in a clearly labelled section at the beginning or end of the filing.  Xg-xY90.` ` Parties are also asked to submit comments and reply comments on diskette. Such diskette submissions would be in addition to and not a substitute for the formal filing requirements addressed above. Parties submitting diskettes should submit them to Carmell Weathers, Network Services Division, 2000 M Street, N.W., Room 235, Washington, D.C. 20554. Such a submission should be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in an IBM compatible form using MS DOS 5.0 and WordPerfect 5.1 software. The diskette should be submitted in "read only" mode. The diskette should be clearly labelled with the party's name, proceeding, type of pleading (comment or reply comments) and date of submission. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter.  X -.} VI. CONCLUSION ă  X-xZ91.` ` Our proceedings on CICs, and other numbering proceedings, emphasize that numbering resources must meet not only the needs of incumbents, but also those of new entrants in the telecommunications services market. Our decision on reconsideration to .modify the transition in a limited manner, and to extend the permissive dialing period by only  X7-six months, is intended to ensure that, as soon as practicable, new market entrants have access to numbering resources on the same basis as incumbents. In the Order on Reconsideration, we have sought to: allow additional time for carriers to educate customers about the need to dial the extra digits of longer CACs; ensure that the dialing disparity between five and sevendigit CACs does not continue for a lengthy period; and end the transition before the assignment of all available fourdigit CICs in the 5XXX and 6XXX range. Similarly, our Order on Application for Review is intended to ensure the orderly transition from three to"e#0 ,l(l(,,'$" fourdigit CICs and to ensure the nondiscriminatory treatment of all CIC holders. Finally, our Second FNPRM, tentatively concluding that all LECs, when they next upgrade their switches, should make the upgrades necessary to provide equal access and to accept fourdigit CICs, seeks to promote an efficient nationwide communications service.  XQ-  QVII. ORDERING CLAUSES ĐTP  X -x[92.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 201205, and 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 201205, and 251(e)(1), that the PeQtition for Reconsideration of VarTec Telecom, Inc., is  X-DENIED.  X\ -x\93.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Petitions for Reconsideration of the Competitive Telecommunications Association and Telecommunications Group, Inc., ARE GRANTED to the extent stated herein, and, in all other respects, ARE DENIED.  X -x]94.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Order on Reconsideration and the requirements contained herein WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE 30 days after publication of a summary in the Federal Register. The collection of information contained within is contingent upon approval by the Office of Management and Budget.  XD-  X!-x^95.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 5(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) and 155(c), that the Application for Review filed by VarTec Telecom, Inc. is DENIED.  X-x_96.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 201205, 218 and 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201205, 218 and 251(e)(1), that the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby ADOPTED.  X-x`97.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Office of Managing Director SHALL SEND a copy of the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION XxX` ` (#` XxX` ` X XXhhWilliam F. Caton(#h x` `  hhActing Secretary "B$1 ,l(l(,,$"  X- APPENDIX A: LIST OF PARTIES  X-1.xPetitions for Reconsideration of CICs Second Report and Order  Xt-xa.` ` Parties Filing Petitions for Reconsideration  XQ-  The Competitive Telecommunications Association (CompTel) Telecommunications Group, Inc. (Telco) VarTec Telecom, Inc. (VarTec)  X -x b.` ` Parties Filing Comments AT&T Corp. (AT&T) Cable and Wireless, Inc. (CWI) CGI and CommuniGroup Long Distance International (LDI) MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI) Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (Sprint) Telecommunications Resellers Association (TRA) US WEST, Inc. (US WEST) WorldCom, Inc. (WorldCom)  X-x c.` ` Parties Filing Reply Comments CompTel Sprint Telco TRA VarTec US WEST  X}- 2.xPetition for Application for Review of CICs Second Report and Order  X7-x a .` ` Party Filing Petition for Application for Review VarTec Telecom, Inc.  X!-x b.` ` Party Filing Opposition US WEST"e#2 ,l(l(,, $"  X- APPENDIX B: INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS  X-X01Í ÍX01Í Í#X\  P6G;ɒP#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#Xj\  P6G;ynXP# 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)a I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) x1.` ` As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)iX yO3-Ѝ See 5 U.S.C.  603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C.  601, et seq., has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA), Pub. L. No. 104121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).i the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the expected economic impact on small entities by the policies and proposals in this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second FNPRM) in the Administration of the North American Numbering Plan, Carrier Identification Codes (CICs). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for the submission of comments in this proceeding. A copy of this Second FNPRM, including the IRFA, shall be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business  X-Administration. See 5 U.S.C.  603(a). In addition, this Second FNPRM and IRFA will be  X -published in the Federal Register. See id.  X9 -x A.` ` Need for and Objectives of Proposed Rule x`  X -x2.` ` Inquiries by Commission staff regarding the status of LEC conversion to accept fourdigit CICs reveal that some independent incumbent LECs in rural and isolated areas do not provide equal access. Some of those LECs' end offices are equipped with stored programcontrolled (SPC) switches, but the LECs have never received a bona fide request to provide equal access. In other instances, the LECs' end offices are not equipped with SPC switches and, therefore, the LECs are not required to convert to equal access according to a specific timetable, even if a LEC received a reasonable request for equal access. The Commission recognizes, therefore, that a requirement that all LEC end office switches be upgraded to accept fourdigit CICs by January 1, 1998, may have the unintended effect of requiring those LECs that have never received a bona fide request for equal access or that are not subject to a specific timetable for providing equal access nonetheless to upgrade their end offices to offer equal access by January 1, 1998. The Commission notes that such a requirement would modify the Commission's equal access implementation schedule for non X,-GTE independent telephone companies, set by the 1985 Independent Telephone Company  X -Equal Access Report and Order. Noting that more than twelve years have passed since the  X-adoption of the Independent Telephone Company Equal Access Report and Order, the Commission, in the Second FNPRM, tentatively concludes all LEC end offices, including those LECs whose end offices are equipped with SPC switches, but have not received a bona fide request for equal access and those LECs whose end offices are equipped with nonSPC switches, should nevertheless be required to provide equal access. This requirement also would apply to LECs who may have received a waiver of the Commission's equal access rules, to the extent those waivers remain in place. The Commission tentatively concludes that LECs with SPC switches that have not received a bona fide request for equal access should be required to upgrade their facilities to provide equal access and to accept fourdigit CICs  X!-within three years of the effective date of an Order adopted in this proceeding. The Second FNPRM further tentatively concludes that LECs whose end offices are equipped with non""3,l(l(,,F#"ԫSPC switches should be required to provide equal access and to convert their switches to accept fourdigit CICs when they next replace their switching facilities.  X-x3.` ` The Commission also tentatively concludes that requiring LECs whose end offices are equipped with SPC switches to upgrade their facilities to enable them to offer equal access, even if they have not received a request for equal access, and LECs whose end offices are equipped with nonSPC switches to convert their facilities to provide equal access,  X -is not inconsistent with the Commission's general goal, expressed in the Independent  X-Telephone Company Equal Access Report and Order, that equal access occur as soon as practicable, regardless of whether a request has been made for equal access, and regardless of the type of switch with which an end office is equipped. Moreover, the Commission stated,  X -in the Independent Telephone Company Equal Access Report and Order, that where generic software is available, the telephone company should endeavor to make the necessary  X9 -conversions in less than three years. See Second FNPRM at para. 85. The Commission notes that the responses to its inquiries indicate that the fourdigit CIC software generally is included in equal access software packages developed since 1995. The Commission states that commenters that oppose the tentative conclusion should discuss why a twelve year period of time in which to convert to provide equal access has been insufficient and should propose  X-specific alternatives to the Commission's proposal. See Second FNPRM at paras. 8486.  XD- x B.` ` Legal Basis x`  X-x4.` ` Authority for actions proposed in this Second FNPRM may be found in: Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 201205, 218 and 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201205, 218 and 251(e)(1).  Xr- xC.` ` Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rule Will Applyx`  X,-  X -x5.` ` The RFA generally defines "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small governmental jurisdiction" and the same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business Act unless the  X-Commission has developed one or more definitions that are appropriate for its activities.s yO- xԍ Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.  601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an agency after  xconsultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after an opportunity for public  xcomment, establishes one ore more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and  xpublishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register." 5 U.S.C.  601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of "small business concern" in 15 U.S.C. 632).s 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  X7-criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).Y7x yO`%-ԍ Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632 (1996).Y The SBA has defined companies listed under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories 4812 (radiotelephone communications) and 4813 (telephone communications, except radiotelephone)"4,l(l(,, "  X-to be small entities when they have 1500 or fewer employees. yOy- xԍ See 13 C.F.R.  121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes 4812 and 4813 (SIC 4812 and SIC 4813, respectively). These standards also apply in determining whether an entity is a small business for purposes of the RFA.  X-x6.` ` Because the small incumbent LECs that would be subject to this proposal 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  X.-"small business concerns.".  yO - x ԍ See Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report  yO - x-and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499 (1996) (First Interconnection Order), motion for stay of the FCC's rules pending  yO - xjudicial review denied, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996,  yOW - xOrder, 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. Accordingly, our use of the terms "small entities" and "small  X -businesses" does not encompass small incumbent LECs.R  yO-ԍ See id. at para. 1342.R 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  X-that arguably might be defined by SBA as "small business concerns."=`  yO-ԍ See id.=  X\ -x7.` ` The proposal made by the Commission in this Second FNPRM will apply to local exchange carriers. We seek comment on whether other entities should be included in our final regulatory flexibility analysis.  X -x8.` ` 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 of which we are aware appears to be the data that we collect annually in connection with the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS). According to our most recent data, 1,347  X-companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange service.fX  yO| - x.ԍ Federal Communications Commission, CCB, Industry Analysis Division, Telecommunications Industry  yOD!- xxRevenue: TRS Fund Worksheet Data, Tbl. 1 (Average Total Telecommunications Revenue Reported by Class of  yO "-Carrier) (Dec.1996) (TRS Worksheet). f 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 any 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 affected by the proposal in this Second FNPRM. " 5,l(l(,,"Ԍ X-x D.` ` Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and  X-Other Compliance Requirements x`  X-x9.` ` The proposal in the Second FNPRM, if adopted, would require that LECs with SPC switches that have not received a bona fide request for equal access should upgrade their facilities to provide equal access and to accept fourdigit CICs within three years of the  X.-effective date of an Order adopted in this proceeding. The proposal also would require that LECs whose end offices are equipped with nonSPC switches should provide equal access and to convert their switches to accept fourdigit CICs when they next replace their switching  X-facilities. See Second FNPRM at paras. 8485.  X -x E.` ` Steps Taken to Minimize Economic Impact on Small Entities  X\ -and Significant Alternatives Considered x`  X -x 10.` ` In the Second FNPRM, the Commission seeks to gather relevant information from all interested parties, including small business entities, about the effect of requiring equal access conversion, even by those LECs that have not received a request for it, or whose end offices are not equipped with SPC switches. We ask that commenters opposed to our  X-tentative conclusion suggest alternatives. See Second FNPRM at paras. 8485.  XD-x 11.` ` In addition, here, we tentatively conclude that the proposals in the Second FNPRM would impose minimum burdens on small entities, especially given that: (1) the  X-Commission, in the Independent Telephone Company Equal Access Report and Order, adopted over twelve years ago expressed a general desire that equal access occur as soon as practicable, regardless of whether a request has been made for equal access, and regardless of the type of switch with which an end office is equipped, and stated that where generic software is available, the telephone company should endeavor to make the necessary conversions in less than three years; and (2) the responses to inquiries by Commission staff also indicate that the fourdigit CIC software generally is included in equal access software packages developed since 1995. We seek comment here on this tentative conclusion.  X-x F.` ` Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With  X-the Proposed Rule x`  XZ-x 12.` ` None.  X7-