WPC9f 2 B-P Courier 10cpiCG Times (Scalable)CG Times Bold (Scalable)XP3|w> le) room 254 lpt2:HPLAIIAD.PRSx  @H&$yX@2< ZLZ3|j=HP LaserJet IIISi in room 254 lpt2:HPLAIIAD.PRSXj\  P6G;H&$yXP|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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 5Si R#6310 LPT1HPLAS5SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\-"bOXP X-#X\  P6G;P#X01Í ÍX01ÍÍ#o\  PC[AXP#2v3pkka8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# 2J !vt<a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# 2' |   r a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# 2 Y   a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2Tech 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) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 2y a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   2@3a7TechnicalTechnical 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)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:a4Agenda.E+O *Ç:tAgenda Items:LK3 =(O  J;*O #?@a5Agenda.E+O *Ç:tAgenda Items:LK3 =(O  J;*O $AB2M"%qF &q 'q(!(!a6Agenda.E+O *Ç:tAgenda Items:LK3 =(O  J;*O %CDa7Agenda.E+O *Ç:tAgenda Items:LK3 =(O  J;*O &EFa8Agenda.E+O *Ç:tAgenda Items:LK3 =(O  J;*O 'GHHeadingChapter Heading(J d  ) I. ׃  2$)"*#+#,}2$Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers)>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheading*0\ E A.  head1 #+'d#2p}wC@ #a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf,$ 2C'-$.i%/%0&a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf-/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf.:` ` `  a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf/E` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf0P  ` ` ` hhh 2"*1u'2)(3(4p)a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf1[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf2f  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf3q Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O g4` ` ` 2",5qT*6e*7e*+8+Document[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g5  . Document[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g6  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g7  Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g8*    2.9pT,:,;V-<-Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g9  ` ` ` Right Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g:8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g;A@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g<0     2~1=.>\/? 0@0Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g=J` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g>S` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g?\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g@e` ` `  hhh@ hhh 24A1Bx2CI3D4Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gAn` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gBw` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gCF    ׃  Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gD&!"  . 27E4F?5G5Hp6Technical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gE&#$  . Technical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gF*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gG''(   Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gH&)*   2fEI67J7Kk8Lv 8Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gI4+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gJ&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gK&/0  . MACNormalL;     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#2HMoENFOiFPGFootnoteMÍčfootnote tex#N'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#headerOAx 4 <D  #FxX  Pg9CXP# referenceP;#FxX  Pg9CXP#2HNQ~HRi2JS^KTOLitemizeX1Q&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2RI ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# heading 3SF` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# footer!T!!#d\  PCP#2JPUzNVlNWlfOXxODefault ParaMtDefault Paragraph FontRK+7*P0_ f—+7*bUDefault Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph FontV Document 8Document 8W Document 4Document 4X  2,RYl|PZlP[lTQ\lQDocument 6Document 6Y Document 5Document 5Z Document 2Document 2[ Document 7Document 7\ 2$Y]^R^|T_lV`WRight Par 1Right Par 1]` hp x (#X` hp 0X` hp 0` hp x (#Right Par 2Right Par 2^` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#Document 3Document 3_ Right Par 3Right Par 3`` hp x (#X` hp 0X` hp 0` hp x (#2aaVYbt[c]d_Right Par 4Right Par 4a` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#Right Par 5Right Par 5b` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#Right Par 6Right Par 6c` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#Right Par 7Right Par 7d` hp x (#X` hp 0X` hp 0` hp x (#2jebf(dg$Ffh$jhRight Par 8Right Par 8e` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#Document 1Document 1f` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#Technical 5Technical 5g` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#Technical 6Technical 6h` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#2(niljjl,kk$kllmTechnical 2Technical 2i Technical 3Technical 3j Technical 4Technical 4k` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 1l 2vm$Znn$~porptTechnical 7Technical 7m` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#Technical 8Technical 8n` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#toc 1toc 1o` hp x (#` hp x (#toc 2toc 2p` hp x (#` ` ` hp x (#2qwr.ysL{tj}toc 3toc 3q` hp x (#` ` ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4r` hp x (#  ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5s` hp x (#hh` hp x (#toc 6toc 6t` hp x (#` hp x (#2uvv0wNxltoc 7toc 7u toc 8toc 8v` hp x (#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9w` hp x (#` hp x (#index 1index 1x` hp x (#` ` ` hp x (#2ڋyzڈ{v|lnindex 2index 2y` hp x (#` ` ` hp x (#toa headingtoa headingz` hp x (#` hp x (#captioncaption{ _Equation Caption_Equation Caption| 2}$ ~0NlAgenda 1Agenda 1}` hp x (#` hp x (# ` hp x (#` hp x (#Agenda 2Agenda 2~` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Agenda 3Agenda 3` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Agenda 4Agenda 4` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#24ږAgenda 5Agenda 5` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Agenda 6Agenda 6` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Agenda 7Agenda 7` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Agenda 8Agenda 8` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2ޥfParagraph 1Paragraph 1` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Paragraph 2Paragraph 2` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Paragraph 3Paragraph 3` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Paragraph 4Paragraph 4` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2.LjParagraph 5Paragraph 5` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Paragraph 6Paragraph 6` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Paragraph 7Paragraph 7` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Paragraph 8Paragraph 8` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2vlx&ll Document 8aDocument 8a Document 4aDocument 4a  Document 6aDocument 6a Document 5aDocument 5a 2llDocument 2aDocument 2a Document 7aDocument 7a Right Par 1aRight Par 1a` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 2aRight Par 2a` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2lZxDocument 3aDocument 3a Right Par 3aRight Par 3a` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 4aRight Par 4a` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 5aRight Par 5a` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2h"(@Right Par 6aRight Par 6a` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 7aRight Par 7a` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 8aRight Par 8a` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Document 1aDocument 1a` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2$$llNTechnical 5aTechnical 5a` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 6aTechnical 6a` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 2aTechnical 2a Technical 3aTechnical 3a 2$l$|$Technical 4aTechnical 4a` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 1aTechnical 1a Technical 7aTechnical 7a` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 8aTechnical 8a` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2xlnllFHIGHLIGHT 1HIGHLIGHT 1  DRAFT ONDRAFT ON DRAFT OFFDRAFT OFF LETTER LANDLETTER LAND 2llPl(LEGAL LANDLEGAL LAND LETTER PORTLETTER PORT LEGAL PORTLEGAL PORT TITLETITLE44#6X@DQ@# #Xx6X@DQX@#2rlFlBLOCK QUOTEBLOCK QUOTE HIGHLIGHT 2HIGHLIGHT 244#6X@DQ@# #Xx6X@DQX@#HIGHLIGHT 3HIGHLIGHT 344#6X@DQ@##Xx6X@DQX@#LETTERHEADLETTERHEAD 2jl.LINVOICE FEEINVOICE FEE` hp x (#d#d#` hp x (#MEMORANDUMMEMORANDUM INVOICE EXPINVOICE EXP` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#INVOICE TOTINVOICE TOT` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#26l|INVOICE HEADINVOICE HEAD SMALLSMALL11#_6X@DQ@##Xx6X@DQX@#FINEFINE11#^F6X@DQ^@##Xx6X@DQX@#LARGELARGE11#6X@DQ@##Xx6X@DQX@#2fh"lEXTRA LARGEEXTRA LARGE11#6X@DQ@##Xx6X@DQX@#VERY LARGEVERY LARGE11#6X@DQ@##Xx6X@DQX@#ENVELOPEENVELOPE` hp x (#X` h(p x (#X` h(p x (#` hp x (#_Equation Caption1_Equation Caption1 2`XNORMALReturn to Normal Typestylea1tempAy k xP'1.` ` a1ManualEnforcementT~  7-\6 Volume1:pp  2ELa3ManualEnforcementT1F1@  7-Subchapter 0..1.:  a5ManualEnforcementQH 2 xPVerse 0..0..(1): a6ManualEnforcementKE xPVerse !0..0..(0)(a)!: a7ManualEnforcementLt@Ū xPVerse "0..0..(0)()i)": 2w a8ManualEnforcementNoE xPVerse $0..0..(0)()..a)$: a4ManualEnforcementS' f 7-Verse 0..0.a.: a2ManualEnforcementNl"D  7- Chapter 0A.   7- CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileȵW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  B2]XeFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded Documentiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#para numnumbered indented paragraphsʼ' Y- 1.(i) 1) 1.#Xw P7[hXP# 1. 1.Ҳ1dfStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Margins$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO 2/lzStyle 12Dutch Italics 11.5$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced II·J )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  2H|PStyle 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Font4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Point$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO 2ubip Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Point$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for Advanced֯ 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 Beginninggׯi )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9Initial Codes for Intermediateح )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 2U}:UpdateInitial Codes for Update Moduleپ )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 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` ` `  2A%Paragraph[4]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BEgh` ` `  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 2s=[Paragraph[8]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bqop toatoa` hp x (#` hp x (#endnote referenceendnote reference44#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#footnote referencefootnote reference4#XP\  P6QXP#2qeJe2S&C6C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )s t . 3S&C7C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct ) uv 4S&C8C^fDocument StyleNF2CC! -2( -Ct ) wx 5S&C9C^fDocument StyleNF2CC/ -2( -Ct )*yz   2 !pIv 6S&C:C^fDocument StyleNF2CC= -2( -Ct ){|` ` ` 7S&C;C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK -2( -Ct )8}~@  8S&C<C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersY -2( -Ct )A@` ` `  ` ` ` 9S&C=C^fDocument StyleNF2CCg -2( -Ct )0    2$=!!"D#10S&C>C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersu -2( -Ct )J` ` ` @  ` ` ` 11S&C?C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )S` ` `  @  12S&C@C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )\` ` `  @hhh hhh 13S&CAC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )e` ` `  hhh@ hhh 2 '5$$%&14S&CBC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )n` ` `  hhh@  15S&CCC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )w` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 16S&CDC^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )F   ׃  17S&CEC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&  . 2)?''`((18S&CFC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&  . 19S&CGC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )*    20S&CHC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )'   21S&CIC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&   2+)k**}u+22S&CJC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )4$     23S&CKC^fTechnical Document StyleCC+ -2( -Ct )&  . 24S&CLC^fTechnical Document StyleCC9 -2( -Ct )&  . 25S&CMC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CG -2( -Ct )$ 21$,,X?-K/26S&CNC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CU -2( -Ct )/` ` ` 27S&COC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cc -2( -Ct ):` ` `  8wC;,[AXw P7XPx/c81,c P7P7zC;,ZXz_ p^7Xy.f81,f_ p^7Sg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNI\\>>>\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\"i~'^09FSS999Sq+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99qqqSggnxggxx9In]nxgxgS]xgg]]?/?FS9SSISI/SS//I/xSSSS??/SInII?C/CZ9+ZF999+999999S9S/gSgSgSgSgSnnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/nSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]IgSxSxSxS]IxSgSgSgSgSnInInZnIxdgIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999SSZZnI]/]<]9]5]/nSanSnSxSxSng?g?g?S?S?S?ZZ]<]/]FxSxSxSxSxSxSn]Z]?]?]?xS]9nSS?]9]Sd+SS8%8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNg\\>>>\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\2BKe;K=`?K[@"i~'^5>M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\nBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%7%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lBTn(nBB(AZZ>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicCourierTimes New Roman Bold Italic"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&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"">>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyyyyF\yrrygryyrr>3>g\>\\Q\Q>\g33\3g\\\FF3gQy\QF>(>g>0gg>>>0>>>>>>\>\3y\y\y\y\y\yQyQyQyQyQF3F3F3F3g\\\\ggggrQy\\\\rQ\r\y\y\y\yQyQygyQyQyQyQyQ\\\g\ggF3F\F>F\gggy\r3r_r>rFr3ggg\\yFyFyFgFgFgFggrcr3rgggggggyrgrFrFrF\r>ggFr>r\0\\=3=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB\\F\\\\\\07\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBigg>\\7"yyyy\nyc\gnn\"Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYddddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdddddddd~d~d~d~ddddddddd8ddddoddd~d~d<|8tddddddlLkdkd~d~d~ddddddXCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"Ȑdhd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUvŐdȐYYCCCCŐz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC2WcN.)}S"Sh5^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoYi{xxxl888SS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS>A.SSxSSJJSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxSxSxSrSrSrS{SiSiSiSiSxSxSxSxSxS{S{SS.SSSSz]SSuSiSiSk2g/a{S{SxSxSxoSoSZ?YSYSiSiSiS{S{S{S{SxxSkI8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8JDDSSSSSS;SSSS;88VVS++SSffSSxSc]]8VS;"xxSxWxxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfi]f]oJiAlJ{SxJ8.uJo]]{JoSxJxf`SfSSiJxJofx]fffxi{8SxxxfJffff88SSSSx{SSSxxxf8`SJ8"Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲdxN`xoȐCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddddddddCddddddddo8dddddϐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddxoddddddodddddddddood8doddrddoddN8ooddddoNododdddooooȐdYCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"Ȑdsd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ`ȐȐȮzȐUvŐdȐddCCCCŐzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC2fW\2EUa"Sh5^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88SxoxxodAPoxdx]oxxxxo888SS8S]J]J;S].8].]S]]JA8]SxSSJSSSSSSSSS8SSSSSSSS].xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSd]xSxSxSxSxSxSx]oSoSoSoSSSSSS]]S.S]SS_SS]oSoSoAo.x]x]SS{xSxS]A]S]SoSoSoSx]x]x]x]xxSoJ8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8SGGSSSSSS;SSSS;88``S++SSffSSxSi]]8`S;"xxSx`xxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xrxxxxxxxxxxPxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxSxxxxSxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfo]f]oJoAoJJxJA.Jo]]xJoSJxffSfSSoJxJofx]fffxoASxxfJffff88SSSSxSSSxxxf8fSJ8"Sh5^6=U\\===\====\\\\\\\\\\==Qs~sm=Gsizbsw===\\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\DG3\\\\QQ\Q\\\\\\=\\\\\\\\\3QQQQQz~QsQsQsQsQ=3=3=3=3\\\\\\\\\\Q\\\\\i\\\\~\~\~\\s\s\s\s\\\\\\\\\3\\\\f\\\s\s\u7r3j\\\\z\z\cFb\b\s\s\s\\\\\\uQ=\\===WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\\\=QKK\\\\\\@\\\\@==__\00\\pp\\\mff=_\@"\_\壣\==px=\\f\z\=\Q\iwUzpNmń\QQ====ńpsfpfzQsGwQ\Q=3QzffQz\Qpi\p\\sQQzpfppps=\pQpppp==\\\\\\\p=i\Q="Sh5^6=U\\===\====\\\\\\\\\\==\zznGXznfzz===\\=\fQfQ@\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\Q\\\\\\\\\=\\\\\\\\f3\\\\\QzQzQzQzQG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffff\\f\\\\nf\\\\\\fz\z\z\z\\\\\\ff\3\f\\i\\fz\z\zGz3ff\\ψ\\fGf\f\z\z\z\ffff\zQ=\\===WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\\\=\NN\\\\\\@\\\\@==ii\00\\pp\\\sff=i\@"\i\壣\==px=\\f\z\=\Q\i~XzpNmń\\\====ńpzfpfzQzGzQQQG3QzffQz\Qpp\p\\zQQzpfpppzG\pQpppp==\\\\\\\p=p\Q=27f S(   X    XX Wl Y2X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:so that LECs can establish rate elements to recover the costs of implementing FLEX ANI to provide  S-payphonespecific coding digits for percall compensation. e S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#47 C.F.R. Part 69.#&a\  P6G;u&P# #K\  P@QɒP#See infra paras. 4649.#&S\  P@Qu&P#  S`-  px` ` 3.  We affirm our grant in the Bureau Waiver Order, l`he Sh-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the  {O@- xTelecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96128, Order, 12 FCC Rcd 16,387 (Com. Car. Bur. 1997)  {O -("Bureau Waiver Order"). on our own motion,`e {O -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э xSee Section 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.3. of a  xylimited waiver of five months, until March 9, 1998, to those LECs and PSPs who assert that they cannot  S- xprovide payphonespecific coding digits as required by the Payphone Orders. We also grant, to the extent  S- x>described herein, the requests of USTA, TDS, and the LEC Coalition..e S-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Petition for Waiver of the United States Telephone Association, Sept. 30, 1997 ("USTA Petition"); Letter  yO- xfrom Michael Kellogg, LEC Coalition, to John Muleta, FCC, July 28, 1997 ("LEC Coalition Petition"); (members  xof the LEC Coalition include Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, GTE, NYNEX, SBC, SNET and US West); TDS  {O"- xCommunications Corporation, Petition for Waiver, October 1, 1997 ("TDS Petition").  See Letter from Michael K.  yO- xKellogg, LEC Coalition to John Muleta, FCC at 1 (Jul. 28, 1997). #K\  P@QɒP# In this order, we treat the letters received from  yO-the LEC Coalition, USTA, and other LECs as requests for waivers.#&S\  P@Qu&P#Ѷ In addition, we grant limited  xwaivers, subject to certain procedures, for LECs unable to provide payphonespecific coding digits through  S- xFLEX ANI by March 9, 1998, because fully implementing FLEX ANI would require additional time,v e S-ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See infra paras. 7071. vք  St- xor because implementing FLEX ANI is either technically infeasibletXe Sl-ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See infra paras. 71,7778, 8082. or would result in a midsize or  xsmall LEC being unable to recover its costs for implementing FLEX ANI for payphone compensation  S$ - xwithin a reasonable period.$ e S-ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See infra para. 76.#K\  P@QɒP#ѡ The waivers we grant to LECs and PSPs in this order also apply to the  xrequirement that LECs provide payphonespecific coding digits to PSPs, and that PSPs provide coding  x[digits from their payphones before they can receive percall compensation from IXCs for subscriber 800  S - pTand access code calls. Those LECs and PSPs that are able to transmit the required coding digits by  x/March 9, 1998, remain obligated to do so. Similarly, all LECs and PSPs are obligated to transmit the  xrequired coding digits as soon an they are technically capable, but in any event, no later than the end of the waiver period for which they are eligible pursuant to this order.  S- px` ` 4.  During the period of the Bureau Waiver Order and the waivers granted herein,  S- x=the IXC obligation to pay percall compensation established in the Payphone Orders remains in effect.D4e S$-  kԍx#K\  P@QɒP# See infra paras. 1112 (discussing the payphone compensation requirements established in the Payphone  {O%- xOrders and the Second Report and Order). See infra paras. 8698 regarding our findings with regard to requests to  xYreconsider and waive the obligation to pay percall payphone compensation during the waiver periods granted in the  {O`'-Bureau Waiver Order and this order. D ",N(N(JJ"  S- xNeither the Bureau Waiver Order, nor this order, waives the percall compensation requirements of the  S- xPayphone Orders and the Second Report and Order. As required in the Bureau Waiver Order,  xpayphones appearing on the LECprovided lists of payphones are eligible for percall compensation even  S- xif they do not transmit payphonespecific coding digits.e S-ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#Bureau Waiver Order, 12 FCC Rcd 16,39091, paras. 914. As required in the Payphone Orders and the  Sf- xSecond Report and Order, absent a negotiated agreement, IXCs must pay percall compensation of $0.284,  S@- x<for all calls they receive from payphones not otherwise compensated.@he SH-  >ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See infra paras. 1112 (discussing the payphone compensation requirements established in the Payphone  {O -Orders and the Second Report and Order).  Payments must be remitted at least  xon a quarterly basis. The payment for the October 1997 through December 31, 1997 period must be paid  xyno later than April 1, 1998. LECs that have certified to the IXC that they comply with the requirements  S- x=of the Payphone Orders must receive percall compensation.e S: -ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 21,293, paras. 13132.#&S\  P@Qu&P# There are no state or federal certification  S- xrequirements.are S-ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#Id.a Additionally, we recognize that there likely will be some disputes between IXCs and PSPs  xabout the true number of compensable calls. These disputes should not be a basis for delay of payphone  xcompensation payments. Because LECs and IXCs have identified problems in transmitting and receiving  xpayphonespecific coding digits, a retroactive adjustment (trueup) of payphone compensation may be  S - xnecessary for the waiver periods granted in the Bureau Waiver Order and this order.& e S-  ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See Natural Gas Clearinghouse v. FERC, 965 F.2d 1066, 107375 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Public Utils. Comm'n  {O-of California v. FERC, 988 F.2d 154, 16263 (D.C. Cir. 1993).& We will address  xtrueup requirements for payphone compensation, if any, in a subsequent order in this proceeding. In  S - x[addition, we do not address in this order AT&T's request, in response to the Bureau Waiver Order, that  xit and similarly situated IXCs receive a waiver to pay perphone rather than percall compensation for  Sf- x[payphones that do not provide payphonespecific coding digits. f| e S-  ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#Letter from E.E. Estey, Government Affairs Vice President, AT&T to John B. Muleta, FCC (Oct. 14, 1997).  {OZ- xThe Public Notice also sought comment on a request received from AT&T in response to the requirements of the  {O$- xBureau Waiver Order. Public Notice at 1. AT&T states that it cannot comply with the waiver as granted and  xproposes an alternative method to enable AT&T and other similarly situated IXCs to comply with the Commission's  {O- xpayphone compensation requirements and the Bureau Waiver Order. See AT&T Petition at 12. Because it states  xKthat it is unable to perform database matches of "07" coded calls, AT&T requests that the waiver be modified to  xZallow AT&T to pay compensation on a perphone basis based on the formula that the Commission develops for  {O - xinterim compensation. Id.  AT&T states that its ability to perform its obligations under the Commission's Payphone  {O - xOrders is "severely prejudiced by the Bureau's waiver order" because AT&T "cannot track payphone calls on a per {O!- xcall basis for the majority of payphone calls that require compensation during the waiver period." Id. at 2. In  {On"- xresponse to the Bureau Waiver Order, AT&T proposes that the Commission permit carriers to use the perphone  xcompensation method to calculate a carrier's payment obligations during the waiver period for payphones that do  xnot deliver the necessary identification digits. AT&T also requests that the Commission require each LEC to  xprovide the Commission and carriers with a list of the offices that currently can deliver payphone digits, and a  xschedule of the dates by which the LECs other equal access end offices will be capable of delivering specific payphone identification digits. We will address AT&T's request in a  xsubsequent order. Although we intend to issue this order in the near future, the timing of this order in">,N(N(JJ," no way relieves or delays the obligation of IXCs to pay compensation on April 1, 1998.  S- px` ` 5. The waivers granted herein are effective immediately in order to ensure that all  S- x\PSPs continue to receive percall compensation, as required by the Payphone Orders. Without these  xwaivers, many PSPs would not receive percall compensation, because the LECs servicing them are not  x=yet able to provide the required payphonespecific coding digits. The immediate implementation of this  xwaiver is crucial to the Commission's efforts to ensure fair compensation for all PSPs, encourage the  xdeployment of payphones, and enhance competition among payphone providers, as mandated by Section  S-276. x  Sr- px` ` 6.  In addition, we deny the petition for reconsideration of the Bureau Waiver Order  x<filed by International Telecard Association ("ITA") and the petition for waiver of compensation obligations  S$ -filed by AirTouch Paging ("AirTouch").$ e S -  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See International Telecard Association ("ITA") Petition for Reconsideration, filed November 6, 1997 ("ITA  yOd -Petition"), and AirTouch Paging ("AirTouch") Petition for Waiver, filed December 15, 1997 ("AirTouch Petition").#&a\  P6G;u&P#щ  S -x` `  hh II. BACKGROUND  S -xA. Payphone Compensation  S6- p x` ` 7.  In the Payphone Orders,60e S-ԍXx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20,541; Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd at 21,233.#&a\  P6G;u&P#(# the Commission adopted new rules and policies  x[governing the payphone industry to implement Section 276 of the Act. Those rules and policies in part:  x(1) establish a plan to ensure fair compensation for "each and every completed intrastate and interstate call  S- xusing [a] payphone[;]"e S0-ԍXx#X\  P6G;ɒP#47 U.S.C.  276(b)(1)(A).#&a\  P6G;u&P#(#ƣ and (2) discontinue LEC intrastate and interstate carrier access charge service  xelements and payments in effect on such date of enactment, and all intrastate and interstate payphone  Sp- xsubsidies from basic exchange services.ppe S-ԍXx#X\  P6G;ɒP#47 U.S.C.  276(b)(1)(B).#&a\  P6G;u&P#(#ƣ Prior to the Payphone Orders, PSPs received no revenue for  SJ- xoriginating certain calls (i.e., for subscriber 800 and other tollfree number calls) and could not block  S$- x callers from making some of these calls (e.g., access code calls). Based on evidence in the record, the  S- xCommission noted in the Report and Order that the number of these types of calls completed from  S- xpayphones had proliferated in the past several years,e S -ԍXx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20,568, para. 52 n.187.#&a\  P6G;u&P#(# and concluded that PSPs must be compensated,  xpursuant to Section 276 of the Act, for access code, subscriber 800, and other tollfree number calls,  S-whether they are jurisdictionally intrastate or interstate.D e S#-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See id. at 20,568, para. 52. An "access code" is a sequence of numbers that, when dialed, connect the caller  xto the operator service provider ("OSP") associated with that sequence, as opposed to the OSP presubscribed to the  xoriginating line. Access codes include 800 numbers, 10XXX and 101XXXX in equal access areas and "950" Feature  xGroup B dialing (95010XXX or 9501XXX) anywhere, where the three digit XXX or four digit XXXX denotes a  {O'- xparticular IXC. See Policies and Rules Concerning Operator Service Access and Pay Telephone Compensation, 7"',N(N(>'"  {O- xxFCC Rcd 3251, 3251 n.1 (1992) ("OSP Second Report and Order"). "Subscriber 800 calls" consist of calls to an  {OZ- x800 number assigned to a particular subscriber. See Implementation of Pay Telephone Reclassification and  {O$- xCompensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 6716  {O- x(1996) ("NPRM"). In this order, subscriber 800 encompasses tollfree subscriber calls, including 888 numbers. See  {O-Toll Free Service Access Codes, 11 FCC Rcd 2496 (1996).#X\  P6G;ɒP# See also Second Report and Order at para. 2.#&a\  P6G;u&P#D ",N(N(JJ"Ԍ S- pԙx` ` 8.  In the Report and Order, the Commission noted that the 1996 Act erects a  xj"procompetitive deregulatory national framework designed to accelerate rapid private sector deployment  xof advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services to all Americans by opening  S- xall telecommunications markets to competition." e S -ԍXx#X\  P6G;ɒP#S. Conf. Rep. No. 104230, 104th Cong. 1 (1996).#&a\  P6G;u&P#(#Ʒ Thus, the Commission sought to advance the twin goals  xof Section 276 of the Act of "promot[ing] competition among payphone service providers and promot[ing]  S:- x{the widespread deployment of payphone services to the benefit of the general public . . . ,"!:"e S -ԍXx#X\  P6G;ɒP#47 U.S.C.  276(b)(1).#&a\  P6G;u&P#(#Ơ by  xeliminating the effects of some of the longstanding barriers to full competition in the payphone market.  xjTo effectuate this objective, the Commission concluded that it would continue to regulate certain aspects  x=of the payphone market, but only until such time as the market evolves to erase these sources of market  S-distortions."Xe S-  >Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#A number of parties subsequently filed petitions requesting that the Commission reconsider or clarify the  {O- xrules the Commission adopted in the Report and Order. In the Order on Reconsideration, the Commission  {O- xsubstantially affirmed the rules adopted in the Report and Order. The Commission denied all but two of the  {Oh- xrequested reconsiderations; those exceptions are not at issue here. In the Order on Reconsideration, the Commission  xmodified: (1) the requirements for LEC tariffing of payphone services and unbundled network facilities; and (2) the  xrequirements for LECs to remove unregulated payphone costs from the carrier common line charge and to reflect  {O- xthe application of multiline subscriber line charges to payphone lines. See Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd  yO-at 21,234, para. 3.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ъ  SJ - p(x` ` 9.  In the Report and Order, the Commission concluded that the payphone  S$ - xmarketplace has low entry and exit barriers and likely will become increasingly competitive,#$ e S-ԍXx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20,547, para. 11.#&a\  P6G;u&P#(# and that  xthe market generally is best able in the long term to set the appropriate price for payphone calls, including  S - xlocal coin calls.$ e S-ԍXx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See id. at 20,567, 20,577, paras. 49, 70. #&a\  P6G;u&P#(#Ʒ In the Payphone Orders, the Commission concluded that the appropriate percall  xcompensation amount, in the absence of a negotiated agreement, ultimately is the amount the particular  xpayphone charges for a local coin call, because the market will determine the fair compensation rate for  S^- xthose calls._%4^"e S #-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See id. at 20,577, para. 70; Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd at 21,242, para. 15. The Commission  {O#- xidefined "fair compensation" as the amount to which a willing seller (i.e., PSP) and a willing buyer (i.e., customer,  {O$- xJor IXC) would agree to pay for the completion of a payphone call. Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20,568, para.  yO%-52 n.187.#&a\  P6G;u&P#_ The Commission further concluded that if a rate is compensatory for local coin calls, then  xit is an appropriate compensation amount for other calls as well, because the Commission found the costs  xof originating various types of payphone calls such as access code and subscriber 800 calls to be similar"%,N(N(JJ "  S-to the costs incurred when initiating a local coin call.7&e Sh-  {Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20,57778, para. 70; Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd at  yO@-21,26869, para. 71. #&a\  P6G;u&P#7  S- px` `  10.  Before moving to a local coin call default rate, however, the Commission found  xythat it was necessary to observe over time how the payphone marketplace would function in the absence  x/of regulation. The Commission recognized that competitive conditions, which are a prerequisite to a  xderegulatory marketbased approach, did not exist yet, and would not be achieved instantaneously.  x-Therefore, the Commission established an interim compensation plan to ease the transition to marketbased  S-local coin rates and to ensure fair compensation for coin and noncoin calls.'0e S -Ѝx#K\  P@QɒP#Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20,56673, paras. 5262; Second Report and Order at para. 122.#&S\  P@Qu&P#  S- px` `  11.  In the Payphone Orders, the Commission established a two phase interim plan to  Sr- xaddress coin calls(re S-ԍXx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20,572, para. 6061.#&a\  P6G;u&P#(# and a twoyear interim plan for payphone compensation for subscriber 800 and access  xcode calls, based on a rate of $0.35 per call, beginning November 7, 1996. Under the first phase of  xyinterim compensation, the Commission required IXCs with annual toll revenues in excess of $100 million  S - xto pay, collectively, a flat-rate compensation amount of $45.85 per payphone per month6) pe S -  >Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#This compensation amount is based on an average of 131 subscriber 800 and access code calls per month  yO-at the default rate of $0.35 per call.#&a\  P6G;u&P#6 in shares  xproportionate to their share of total market long distance revenues. During the second phase of interim  x.compensation, which is the first year of percall compensation, all IXCs were required to pay $0.35 per  S -subscriber 800 call or access code call unless they negotiated with the PSP to pay a different amount.v*2 e S-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#In the Second Report and Order, the Commission noted that the deregulated coin rate is $0.35 per call in  xfive of the seven states that had deregulated the local coin rates, (Michigan, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota and  {O- xWyoming), and in two states (Montana and South Dakota) the rate is $0.25. See Ex Parte Presentation to FCC from  yOd-Michael Kellogg, LEC Coalition (Sept. 26, 1997). #&a\  P6G;u&P#v   S2- p4x` `  12. In Illinois Public Telecomm., the court affirmed many aspects of the Commission's  S - xPayphone Orders, but it vacated, among other things: (1) the default percall compensation rate the  xCommission had set for subscriber 800 and access code calls at the same marketbased $0.35 rate as for  xlocal coin calls; (2) the requirement that only those IXCs with annual toll revenues over $100 million pay  S- xPSPs for these calls during the first year of the interim period.+ e S!-ԍXx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Illinois Public Telecomm., 117 F.3d at 558. #&a\  P6G;u&P#(#ƹ The court held that the Commission had  xnot justified its conclusion that the costs of local coin calls were similar to those of subscriber 800 and  SF- x[access code calls, and it remanded that issue, among others, to the Commission for further proceedings.,Fre SX$-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id. at 564. #&a\  P6G;u&P#ї "F,,N(N(JJr"  S- x[After receiving comment on this and other issues,Z-e Sh-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See Pleading Cycle Established for Comment on Remand Issues in the Payphone Proceeding, CC Docket  {O@-No. 96128, DA 971673 (rel. Aug. 5, 1997) ("Remand Notice").#&a\  P6G;u&P#Z  S- xthe Commission adopted the Second Report and Order, establishing a default compensation rate of $0.284  xper call absent a negotiated agreement, for subscriber 800 and access code calls, and inmate and 0+ calls.  xThis rate was calculated by adjusting the marketbased local coin rate to account for cost differences  Sb- xzbetween local coin calls on the one hand, and subscriber 800 and access code calls on the other.@.b2e S4-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Second Report and Order at paras. 4267. The Commission has consistently expressed: (1) the benefits of  xa marketbased approach to payphone compensation; and (2) why it relied on the deregulated marketbased local coin  xrate as a market surrogate used as the starting point for adjusting for differences in costs for subscriber 800 and  {O - xaccess code calls. See Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20,57679, paras. 6773; Order on Reconsideration 11 FCC  {Of -Rcd at 21,258, paras. 50, 21 & 21,26669, paras. 6671; Second Report and Order at paras. 2328, 42, 44. #&a\  P6G;u&P#@ The  xCommission also extended the default percall compensation period from one to two years, for the first  S- x-two years of percall compensation, i.e., from October 7, 1997 until October 6, 1999, to allow participants,  xincluding IXCs, LECs, and PSPs, additional time to adjust to marketbased payphone compensation for  S-subscriber 800 and access code calls./2e SZ-  Mԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#The default percall rate is the rate that applies in the absence of a negotiated agreement between parties  xduring the first two years of percall compensation. Thereafter, the default rate, in the absence of a negotiated  xagreement, is the marketbased local coin rate less $0.066. For coinless payphones, $0.284 will continue to be the  {O-percall default rate, absent a negotiated agreement.  Second Report and Order at para. 1 n. 1. #&a\  P6G;u&P#ч @  St-xB.` ` PayphoneSpecific Coding Digits   S& - p%x` `  13. In the Payphone Orders, the Commission imposed a requirement that, by October  x7, 1997, LECs transmit payphonespecific coding digits to PSPs, and that PSPs transmit those digits from  S - xitheir payphones to IXCs.<0 e Sh-  Ѝ#K\  P@QɒP#x See Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20,591, paras. 9899; Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd at  yO@-21,26566, para. 64, and 21,27880, paras. 9399. < The provision of payphonespecific coding digits is a prerequisite to payphone  S - xpercall compensation payments by IXCs to PSPs for subscriber 800 and access code calls.c1 Xe {O-#X\  P6G;ɒP#эx Id. c The Report  S - x\and Order required that LECs provide coding digits to enable the identification of payphones.S2 e S-  zЍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20,591, para. 98. In the Report and Order, the Commission concluded  xYthat each payphone should be required to generate "07" or "27" coding digits within the ANI for the carrier to track  yO - xZcalls. The Commission noted that under the Commission's rules, LECs are required to federally tariff originating  xline screening services that provide a discrete code to identify payphones that are maintained by nonLEC providers.  xThe Commission concluded that LECs should be required to provide similar coding digits for their own payphones.  {M #-Id.#&a\  P6G;u&P#S The  Sd- xCommission also required IXCs to implement methods to track payphone calls.3dre Sv%-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id. at 20,59091, paras. 9697.#&a\  P6G;u&P#Ѫ In the Order on  S>- xReconsideration, the Commission clarified that for payphones to be eligible for compensation, "payphones"> 3,N(N(JJ;"  S- xwill be required to transmit specific payphone coding digits."4e Sh-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd at 21,26566, para. 64, and 21,27880, paras. 9399. #&a\  P6G;u&P# The Commission further clarified that each  xpayphone must transmit coding digits that "specifically identify it as a payphone, and not merely as a  S- x[restricted line."5he S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ш Finally, that order clarified that LECs must make available to PSPs, on a tariffed basis,  S- xsuch coding digits as part of their ANI for each payphone.6e S0-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id. at 21,26566, para. 64. #&a\  P6G;u&P#ѧ Pursuant to these requirements, the LECs  xand PSPs were required to provide this information needed by IXCs to identify compensable calls from payphones for percall compensation.  S- px` `  14. Because, in some cases, LECs and PSPs were not prepared to provide coding  xdigits and IXCs were not prepared to track individual calls by October 7, 1997, USTA, the LEC Coalition  S- xand TDS requested waivers of the October 7, 1997 date.7e S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See supra note 15. #&a\  P6G;u&P#ј On October 7, 1997, we provided, on our own  xmotion, a limited waiver until March 9, 1998, for those payphones from which the necessary coding digits  SH - xto identify individual payphone calls were not provided.8H He S0-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See Bureau Waiver Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 16,38788, para. 2#&a\  P6G;u&P#. We noted that sixty percent of payphones  S - xalready transmit unique coding digits. 9 e S-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#LEC Coalition Petition at 2. The Coalition states that forty percent of the payphones in its territories are  x"smart" payphones that do not transmit unique payphone coding digits. These payphones, largely used by  xindependent PSPs, transmit a "07" coding digit that merely identifies a payphone call as coming from a restricted  xline. The remaining payphones are "dumb" payphones that rely on LEC switches for functions and features, and,  {O-as a result, already transmit unique payphone coding digits. Id. at 2, 4, 5.#&a\  P6G;u&P#  The limited waiver was to afford LECs, IXCs, and PSPs an  x.extended transition period for the provision of payphonespecific coding digits without further delaying  xthe payment of percall compensation as required by Section 276 of the Communications Act to ensure  S - xcompensation for each call from a payphone.: e S-ԍ x#X\  P6G;ɒP#47 U.S.C.  276.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ѓ This limited waiver applies to the requirement that LECs  xprovide payphonespecific coding digits to PSPs, and that PSPs provide coding digits from their  x=payphones before they can receive percall compensation from IXCs for subscriber 800 and access code  xcalls. We stated that an immediate waiver was necessary to begin percall compensation on October 7,  x1997, in keeping with the Commission's mandate under Section 276 of the Communications Act to ensure  S- xcompensation for each call from a payphone.;Je {O!-#X\  P6G;ɒP#эxSee Bureau Waiver Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 16,38789, paras. 2, 5 (citing 47 U.S.C.  276). We required, however, that LECs and PSPs capable of  S- xtransmitting coding digits for some or all of their serving area remain obligated to do so.<e S4$-ԍXx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Bureau Waiver Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 16,388, para. 3.#&a\  P6G;u&P#(# Although we  S- xgranted a waiver on our own motion in the Bureau Waiver Order, we recognized in that order that USTA,  xthe LEC Coalition, and TDS filed petitions for waiver of the payphonespecific coding digit requirements. "j |<,N(N(JJ"  S- xWe subsequently sought comment on those requests, which we address in this order.=e Sh-  Ѝ#K\  P@QɒP#xPleading Cycle Established for Petitions to Waive Payphone Coding Digits, Public Notice, 12 FCC Rcd  {O@-17340 (1997) (Public Notice). In response to the  S- x[Bureau Waiver Order, ITA filed for reconsideration of, and AirTouch requested a waiver of, the percall compensation payment obligation during the waiver period.  Sb-  px` ` 15. In addition, in response to the Public Notice, APCC, USTA, and SNET request  xthat the Commission clarify the LEC obligations and tariff requirements, the timetable for implementation,  xlhow the provision of payphonespecific coding digit service should be tariffed, and the payphone  S- x.compensation scheme during the waiver period.>2e S -ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#APCC Comments at iii, USTA Reply at 2; SNET Reply at 1, 5.#&a\  P6G;u&P# We address below the payphonespecific coding digit  xrequirement, the tariffing and cost recovery requirements, waiver requests from USTA, the LEC Coalition,  S-and TDS, the Bureau Waiver Order, and the petitions filed by ITA and AirTouch.  SN -M III. CLARIFICATION OF PAYPHONESPECIFIC CODING DIGIT REQUIREMENTS Đ S& -TP   S -xA. ` ` Statement of the Problem  S - p&x` ` 16. Since the release of the Order on Reconsideration, LECs, PSPs, and IXCs have  xdisagreed on the appropriate method for providing the payphonespecific coding digits that both complies  xLwith the order, and provides the information necessary for IXCs to track and pay percall compensation  S:- xpursuant to the Payphone Orders.?*:e S-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#APCC at Comments at 1517; USTA Petition at 8; Letter from Robert H. Castellano to William F. Caton,  x(Aug. 14, 1997); Letter from Michael K. Kellogg, LEC Coalition, to Robert H. Castellano, AT&T, and Leonard S.  xSawicki, MCI (Sept. 10, 1997). The LEC Coalition notes that AT&T stated in May, 1997 that AT&T central office  x-switches would be unable to support Flex ANI, while in August, 1997 AT&T stated that it was able to overcome  xZthe technical problems associated with the receipt of FLEX ANI. The LEC Coalition also states that MCI stated  xwbefore its August 13, 1997 letter that free line information database (LIDB) service would be sufficient. Letter from  {Ol- x<Michael K. Kellogg, LEC Coalition, to Richard H. Rubin, AT&T, (Sept. 22 1997) at 4. See also Letter form E.  xZEstey, AT&T, to Regina Keeney, FCC (May 23, 1997); AT&T and MCI letter to LEC ANI Coalition (Aug. 13,  S-1997).#&a\  P6G;u&P#  For the implementation of percall compensation, where IXCs must  x=pay PSPs for each and every call from a payphone not otherwise compensated, the IXC must be able to  S- xidentify that the call came from a payphone. LECs have responded to the requirements of the Payphone  S- x.Orders by proposing to implement either LIDB or FLEX ANI,@ e S* -ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#SNET Reply at 1; USTA Reply at 4.@#&S\  P@Qu&P#ѩ while IXCs generally have argued that  S- xonly FLEX ANI complies with the requirements of the Payphone Orders.Ade S"-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#MCI Reply at 2; WorldCom Reply at 34. #&a\  P6G;u&P# h#X\  P6G;ɒP# All of the Bell Operating  xCompanies (BOCs) and GTE state that they either will have implemented FLEX ANI by March 9, 1998,  SR- xpursuant to the Bureau Waiver Order, or are in the process of implementing FLEX ANI and will need"R A,N(N(JJc"  S- x=a further extension of time.UBe Sh-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See, e.g., Ameritech states that it has FLEX ANI loaded in all of its digital switches and will have it loaded  xZin its analog switches by the end of 1997. Ameritech states that it will complete the remainder of the process by  x;March 9, 1998, Ameritech Comments at 2. Letter from Ben G. Almond, BellSouth to John Muleta, FCC (Sept. 30,  x1997); Letter from F. Gordon Maxson, GTE, to John Muleta, FCC (Jan. 16, 1998). Bell Atlantic states that it will  ximplement FLEX ANI by March 9, 1998. Bell Atlantic Comments at 12. Letter from Michael Kellogg, LEC  yO`-Coalition to Rose Crellin, FCC (Feb. 5, 1998). #&a\  P6G;u&P#U USTA claims, however, that implementing FLEX ANI will be very costly  S-and burdensome for midsize and small LECs.CPe S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Letter from Keith Townsend, USTA to William Caton, FCC (Oct. 24, 1997).#&a\  P6G;u&P#  S-xB.` ` Methods for Identifying Payphone Calls  S:-  px` ` 17. A tollfree call transmitted by a LEC to an IXC generally carries with it billing  xkinformation codes, called ANI, which is usually the billing number associated with the originating line  S- xsupplied by the LEC that assists the IXC in properly billing the call.De Sz-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See supra note 2.#&a\  P6G;u&P#і Several methods are available to  xenable IXCs to identify payphone calls as originating from payphones. Using a listing or file of payphone  xyoriginating numbers (LEC ANI lists) allows identification that a call originated from a payphone after the  Sr- x[call is completed.Elr e S-  Ѝx#K\  P@QɒP#Some IXCs use a clearinghouse to perform this function. ANI lists can be used as a means of identifying  {Oz- xJcalls for payphone compensation in the absence of payphonespecific coding digits. See Report and Order, 11 FCC  {OD-Rcd at 20,597 at para. 112; Bureau Waiver Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 16390, para. 9.#&S\  P@Qu&P# There are also several automated methods that enable the identification of payphone calls while the call is being set up. These include: ANI ii, FLEX ANI, LIDB, and IXC databases.  S -x` ` 1. LEC ANI lists   S -  px` ` 18. ANI lists are used by IXCs after the call is completed to match the call  x information (ANI) received with the call (usually the calling number) with the LEC list of payphone  xnumbers (ANIs) in a LEC's serving area in order to identify that the call came from a payphone. These  S2- xlists are used after a call is completed to perform billing and pay compensation.%F2 e S-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 21,284, para. 112; Order on Reconsideration 11 FCC Rcd at 21,284,  yOn-paras. 11113.#&a\  P6G;u&P#% ANI lists are not useful in real time while the call is "live."  S-x` ` 2. ANI ii  Sj-  p4x` ` 19. In most cases, when the IXC subscribes to Feature Group D (FGD access), LECs  xMcurrently provide along with the billing number (ANI), the ANI ii, which identifies calls coming from  S- xLcertain payphones. ANI ii is a widely used technology that sends a twodigit code along with the ANI.~G,e S%-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See Policies and Rules Concerning Operator Service Access and Pay Telephone Compensation, CC Docket  {O&-No. 9135, Third Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 17,021, 17,032 at para. 19 (1996) (OLS Service Order). #&a\  P6G;u&P#~ " G,N(N(JJD"  xFive codes are currently available through the conventional ANI ii methodology. The transmitted ANI  xii codes, hardwired as part of the switch's generic software, identify the call as "27" if the call is from a  xj"dumb" payphone or "07" for a restricted line, which includes "smart payphones" as well as other types  S- x=of calls, such as hotel calls.He S-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#The "27" coding digit identifies a coin line (a smart line) that generally is used with "dumb" payphones,  xwhich are primarily owned by LECs. The coin line rates the call, announces the charge, interrupts the call for coin  xdeposit, terminates the call if coins are not deposited, and controls the acceptance and return of coins. Coin line calls  xare automatically routed to an operator switch that provides the intelligent functionality. Letter from Michael K.  yO - xKellogg, LEC Coalition to William F. Caton, #K\  P@QɒP#FCC (Oct. 2, 1997) at 2. The "07" coding digit, which also identifies  xother calls such as hospital and hotel calls on a restricted line, is used to identify "smart" payphones. "Smart"  x payphones are connected to "dumb lines" that do not perform the coin and control functions performed by the "smart  xYlines" to which dumb payphones ("27" coding digit) are connected. The smart payphone has the intelligence within  xJthe payphone that performs the rating, announcement of rates, coin acceptance and return, as well as accounting in  {O -some cases. Id.#&S\  P@Qu&P#ѝ Thus, ANI ii provides, along with the billing number, a unique coding digit  xidentifying dumb payphones with the "27" code, but not providing a unique coding digit identifying smart  xpayphones, which are identified with the "07" coding digit that also identifies other calls such as hotel and  xMhospital calls. Because the payphonespecific coding digit is not available for a payphone call that is  S- x/coded with the "07" number, call tracking is difficult using conventional ANI ii.Ir e S-ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#Letter from Leonard Sawicki, MCI to William F. Caton, FCC (April 18, 1997). Additional ANI ii  xcodes to enable unique identification of smart payphones can be hardcoded into LEC switch software, but  S- xthis requires substantial vendor involvement and may be very costly.J e SJ-ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#Letter from Keith Townsend, USTA to Michael Carowitz, FCC (July 28, 1997). New codes cannot be added to  Sp-ANI ii without developing a switch generic or switch release and installing it into each switch.Kp e S-ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#Id.#&S\  P@Qu&P#ш  S -x` ` 3. FLEX ANI  S - px` ` 20. FLEX ANI, which is a switch software feature, enables the transmission of a  S - xnumber of additional coding digits with a call that can, inter alia, uniquely identify a call as coming from  xLa payphone. FLEX ANI codes are generated in end office databases and FLEX ANI is more flexible and  SZ- xeasily modified to add additional coding digits than conventional ANI ii.1LZRe SL-  zЍx#K\  P@QɒP#See OLS Service Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 17,032, para. 19; Letter from Keith Townsend, USTA to Michael  yO$-Carowitz, FCC (July 28, 1997). #&S\  P@Qu&P#1 When FLEX ANI codes are  S2- xavailable, they are outpulsed with the call, instead of the embedded hardcoded ANI ii digits.M2e S!-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Open Network Architecture User's Guide, June 1996 at 92. #&a\  P6G;u&P#ѿ FLEX ANI  xenables the assignment of more two digit codes (potentially 0099) for payphones in addition to the "27"  xcode already provided by ANI ii, including "29" for prison/inmate payphones and "70" for "smart"  S- x[payphones.NXZe yO%-  #X\  P6G;ɒP#эx#X\  P6G;ɒP#FLEX ANI codes are developed and assigned through proceedings of industry fora, such as the North  xAmerican Numbering Committee. The coding digit "70" is used for nonnetwork controlled payphones (smart  xwpayphones on dumb lines) owned by LEC and nonLEC PSPs. The coding digit "29" is used to identify prison/inmate"D'M,N(N(g'"  {O- xwpayphones, which include outward call screening.  See Letter from Marie Breslin, Bell Atlantic to William F. Caton,  xhActing Secretary, FCC at 2 (Dec. 18, 1997). Flex ANI is provided by each end office and on a Carrier Identification  {O"- xCode (CIC) basis. See SWBT FCC Tariff No. 73, July 1, 1994 at 665. A CIC is the numeric code that enables  xa LEC providing interstate interexchange access services to identify the IXC through which the caller wishes to  xtransmit its interstate call. LECs use the CICs to route traffic to the proper IXC or other access customer and to bill  {O|- xfor the interstate access service provided. Petitions for Waiver of the FourDigit Carrier Identification Code (CIC)  {OF-Implementation Schedule, DA 972717 (Com. Car. Bur. Dec. 31, 1997). #&a\  P6G;u&P# FLEX ANI is deemed flexible because new codes can be added to each end office database" N,N(N(JJ"  xwith the installation of new switch software. FLEX ANI is not available on nonequal access switches,  x/but is resident on many equal access switches where it must be activated ("turned on") as a software  S- xcapability.Oe S` -ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See Letter from Keith Townsend, USTA, to John Muleta, FCC (Oct. 24, 1997).#&S\  P@Qu&P# FLEX ANI requires a one time switch implementation per end office and associated trunk  xtranslations for each IXC, which ensure that the payphonespecific code will transfer thereafter with all  S`- x/calls from payphones.P`e S -ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See Letter from Michael Kellogg, LEC Coalition to Richard H. Rubin, AT&T (Sept. 22, 1997). The major costs involved in implementing FLEX ANI are the initial generic  xsoftware upgrades if necessary, activating the software, and provisioning end office trunks to provide the  xservice to each IXC. Using FLEX ANI, IXCs can identify the call as a payphone call for call tracking,  xpay percall compensation for the call, bill for the call based on the information provided with the call,  S- xand block the completion of the call if requested by the customer.QP e S-ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See Letter from Robert H. Castellano, AT&T to William F. Caton, FCC (Aug. 14, 1997). By arrangement with their serving  S-LECs, however, IXCs must condition their trunks to receive FLEX ANI.R e S(-ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See Letter from Michael Kellogg, LEC Coalition to Richard H. Rubin, AT&T (Sept. 22, 1997).  SH -x` ` 4. LIDB and IXC Databases  S - px` ` 21. LIDB is provided through regional databases called service control points  S - xj(SCPs)./S e S-  =Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#An SCP may contain a computerized database of information that can be accessed with the Signaling System  yO-7 ("SS7") telephone network. #&a\  P6G;u&P#/ To identify that a call providing a "07" coding digit originated from a smart payphone, an IXC  xmust first either query the LIDB or an internal database. Thus, during the call, when an IXC receives a  x"07" coding digit for a call, the IXC must send a query to the LIDB database for that call, and LIDB must  xlook up the number of the calling party and match it to lists of numbers for payphones. LIDB then  xprovides the IXC with the digit code that identifies whether the call originated from a payphone as opposed to a hospital or hotel phone.  S- px` ` 22. Finally, IXCs can develop their own databases that are similar to the LIDB  xdatabase and contain the telephone numbers for payphones that IXCs can use to identify whether a call  xis from a payphone. Then, when an IXC receives a call with an "07" indicator, the IXC sends a query  S@-to its own payphone database to identify whether a call originated from a payphone.  0 x` `    S-xC.` ` Discussion "S,N(N(JJ"Ԍ S- pbx` ` 23. In response to the concerns raised by LECs, PSPs, and IXCs, we further clarify  S- xin this order the payphonespecific coding digit transmission requirement established in the Payphone  S- x}Orders. We conclude that based on the plain language of the requirements of the Order on  S- xyReconsideration, the only methods discussed above that enable, along with the call ANI, the provision of  x/all of the payphonespecific codes necessary to identify the call as originating from a payphone, and  xidentify it as more than a restricted line, are FLEX ANI and hardcoding of ANI ii coding digits into the  xswitch software. Currently, conventional ANI ii only transmits the "27" payphonespecific code that  S- xZidentifies dumb payphones, owned primarily by LECs.Te SV-ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See Letter from Michael Kellogg, LEC Coalition to William F. Caton, FCC (June 16, 1997). To provide additional codes through conventional  xANI ii, such as the "70" code that identifies smart payphones owned primarily by independent PSPs,  xLECs would have to develop generic switch software and load it into each switch. LECs indicate that the  Sv- xcost and time required to hardcode the switches for additional ANI ii codes are substantial.UTvhe S~ -  [Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#USTA estimate that hard coding additional ANI ii digits will cost $8,000 to $29,000 per switch, replacement  xof electromechanical switches, and upgrade of the digital nonequal access offices. Letter from Keith Townsend,  xYUSTA, to Michael Carowitz, FCC (July 28, 1997). USTA also indicates that a switch generic upgrade or new release  {O- xwould be required to hardcode additional ANI ii digits costing in the range of $125,000 to $500,00 per switch. Id.  {O- xYat 5. See also LEC Coalition Petition. AT&T initially stated that only hardcoding of additional ANI ii digits would  xbe appropriate. Letter from E.E. Estey, AT&T to Regina M. Keeney, FCC (May 23, 1997). AT&T subsequently  xYconcluded FLEX ANI was the technique that should be used to provide payphonespecific coding digits. Letter from  yO -Robert H. Castellano, AT&T to William F. Caton, FCC (Aug. 14, 1997). #&a\  P6G;u&P#Ѧ Because we  xare not aware of any LEC planning to hardcode additional ANI ii payphonespecific coding digits in its  xswitches in its serving area, and we are not aware of any IXC requesting that we adopt such an approach,  xwe do not require this approach for the implementation of payphonespecific coding digits. We note,  xhowever, that a LEC may choose to employ hardcoding of additional ANI ii payphonespecific coding  S - xdigits for all of the switches in its serving area in accordance with the requirements of the Payphone  S - xyOrders as clarified herein. Thus, we conclude that all LECs must implement FLEX ANI to comply with  Sb- x.the requirements set forth in the Payphone Orders, subject to any waivers provided herein. FLEX ANI  xprovides, along with the billing number, the additional "70" and "29," as well as the "27" payphone  xspecific coding digit available through ANI ii, that enables IXCs to specifically identify a call as coming from a payphone.  S- px` ` 24.  FLEX ANI transmits coding digits as part of the caller information provided by  xa LEC with the call while the call is being placed in "real time," and specifically identifies the call as  SL- x|coming from a payphone.V0L e Sp-  Ѝx#K\  P@QɒP#Because FLEX ANI provides the payphonespecific coding digits with the call ANI in "realtime" while the  xcall is live, an IXC can identify whether the call is from a payphone, where to bill the call, whether payphone  xicompensation is due for the call, and whether to block the call at the request of the access code or subscriber 800 customer.  Hardcoded ANI ii is the only other method that would have these  xcharacteristics, but in this proceeding no LEC has supported increasing the number of ANI ii digits  xj(hardcoding) to comply with the Commission's payphonespecific coding digit requirements. USTA has  xindicated that this would be a more costly approach than FLEX ANI. In addition, IXCs generally support  xthe implementation of FLEX ANI. None of the other techniques complies with the requirements to  xtransmit unique coding digits with a call ANI to determine if the call originates from a payphone in real xtime while the call is "live." ANI lists cannot be used to determine if a call came from a payphone until"\| V,N(N(JJ"  xafter the completion of a call. LIDB and individual IXC databases do not provide the coding digits  xidentifying the call as coming from a payphone until after the IXC has queried a specific database to  xydetermine whether the call is from a payphone. This database query procedure must be performed on all  xcalls designated with an "07" number, including, for example, hotel calls, requiring a large number of  S`- x\unnecessary database queries to identify calls originating from payphones,W`e S-  Ѝx#K\  P@QɒP#See Letter from Richard H. Rubin, AT&T to Michael K. Kellogg, LEC Coalition at 4 (#K\  P@QɒP#Sept. 29, 1997).  yO-Letter from Richard H. Rubin, AT&T to Michael K. Kellogg, LEC Coalition (Sept. 15, 1997). #&S\  P@Qu&P#є Using LIDB or an IXC  xdatabase, the payphonespecific coding digits are not outpulsed with the call ANI as in the operation of  S- x.ANI ii and FLEX ANI, as required by the Payphone Orders. Moreover, based on analysis provided by  x>USTA, it does not appear that the implementation of FLEX ANI, with certain exceptions, will be as  S-onerous as LECs originally estimated.X0e S -  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Letter from Keith Townsend, USTA to William Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC (Oct. 24, 1997). USTA  {Oj -estimates a cost of $61.2 million for most of the switches if the switch generics have already been upgraded#X\  P6G;ɒP#. Id.#&a\  P6G;u&P#Ѩ  Sr- pax` ` 25.  The provision of payphonespecific coding digits through FLEX ANI most closely  xresembles the automatic provision of payphonespecific coding digits for LEC dumb payphones, "27",  xwhich is already provided through the ANI ii resident in most equal access switches. Thus, by  ximplementing FLEX ANI, LECs will provide payphonespecific coding digits in the same manner from  x"dumb" and "smart" payphones, thereby responding to any concerns that the codes for these two types of  x=payphones are not being provided in a similar manner. By providing the payphonespecific coding digit  xthough FLEX ANI rather than LIDB, the coding digit automatically is sent with every payphone call and  SZ-does not require a database query for each "07," call which may or may not be a payphone call.YZe S-  kЍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#IXCs have indicated that the necessity to do a database dip for each call from a restricted line "07" incurs  {Ol-additional cost and setup time for these calls.  See, e.g., MCI Reply at 2; AT&T Opposition, Oct. 7, at 4.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ц  S - pTx` ` 26.  IXCs generally interpret the Payphone Orders as requiring the provision of  S- xpayphonespecific coding digits through FLEX ANI.Ze S-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See, e.g., MCI Reply at 2, 3 n.6; AT&T Comments at 1, 2, n.5; WorldCom Reply at 4; CompTel Comments  yO`-at 2.#&a\  P6G;u&P# WorldCom argues that LECs must provide FLEX  xzANI because the option to choose FLEX ANI or LIDB provided by the Commission in the toll fraud  xproceeding for OLS service does not apply to the requirements of the Payphone proceeding and does not  Sl- xexcuse LECs from the requirements of paragraph 64 of the Order on Reconsideration.[ll e Sx-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#WorldCom Reply at 6.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ѓ AT&T and MCI  SF- xclaim that LIDB does not comply with the Payphone Orders, because it does not pass a unique payphone S - xspecific coding digit with ANI, but only an "07" code that requires a LIDB or other IXC database query.x\  e S"-  MЍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#MCI Reply at 2. MCI argues that the LECs' arguments are untimely petitions for reconsideration Id. at  {O#- x-3. See also AT&T Opposition, October 7, at 4. See also WorldCom Reply at 5; Sprint Comments at 4; Sprint  xKReply at 2; Frontier Comments at 6; MCI Comments at 4, 69; and WorldCom at 24, 78. AT&T Reply at 4.  {O6%- xJAT&T also claims that the language of the Second Report and Order supports a finding that FLEX ANI is required.  {O&- xId. at 5 n.13. APCC notes that until May 23, 1997 AT&T insisted that FLEX ANI could not be supported (citing Letter from E.E. Estey, AT&T to Regina M. Keeney, FCC at 3 (May 23, 1997). APCC Comments at 8.x " \,N(N(JJD"  S-   S- px` ` 27.  IXCs argue that the LEC provision of FLEX ANI is necessary to provide  S- x-payphonespecific coding digits for several reasons. Pursuant to the requirements of the Payphone Orders,  S- x.IXCs are required to track and pay percall compensation.j]2e S-  {Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#The Commission concluded that it is the responsibility of the IXC, whether it provides intraLATA or  xinterLATA services, as the primary economic beneficiary of the payphone calls, to track the calls it receives from  xpayphones, although the carrier has the option of performing the tracking itself or contracting out these functions  {OZ-to another party, such as a LEC or a clearinghouse. Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20,59091, paras. 9697. j IXCs state that they have built systems to  xaccommodate the FLEX ANI coding digits and would have to make substantial investments to build  S:- xadditional systems to accommodate LIDB and the additional costs for such database queries.^h:e S -  =Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Sprint states that it would require one year and millions of dollars to accommodate LIDB. Sprint Comments  x<at 4; Sprint Reply Comments at 3. AT&T argues that to implement a LIDB based system would require $1622  yO< -million and 1824 months. AT&T Opposition, Oct. 7, 1997, at 6.#&a\  P6G;u&P# CompTel  x states that carriers owing percall compensation have spent millions of dollars and personnel time to  x=prepare call processing, call recording and rating, and billing systems on the assumption that they would  S- x{receive ANI digits uniquely identifying payphones._e ST-  MЍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#CompTel Comments at 23. CompTel argues that payphone coding digits have three purposes: 1) reject payphone calls; 2) surcharge payphone calls; and 3) billing purposes.  MCI states that it is unable to use LIDB to  S- xdetermine whether subscriber 800 calls originate from payphones.`Z e S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Letter from Mary J. Sisak, MCI to Michael Kellogg, LEC Coalition at 3 (Sept. 30, 1997).#&a\  P6G;u&P# MCI asserts that LIDB would be  xcostly for IXCs to implement, degrade the efficiency of the network because of the large number of LIDB  SJ -queries, and would require 12 months for MCI to implement.OaxJ e S-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#MCI Reply at 3. MCI states that it would cost between eight million and 50 million dollars for vendor  xcosts, and hardware and software upgrades to its operator software of six million dollars. Letter from Mary J. Sisak,  S-MCI, to Michael Kellogg, LEC Coalition, at 3 (Sept. 30, 1997).#&a\  P6G;u&P# #K\  P@QɒP# See also Frontier Comments at 8. #&S\  P@Qu&P#O  S - px` ` 28. Independent PSPs generally support the use of FLEX ANI to provide payphone xspecific coding digits. APCC states that the advantages of FLEX ANI are that: (1) identification of  S -payphone calls is more efficient; and (2) calls can be blocked.b` :e S-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#APCC Comments at 15. Peoples argues that only FLEX ANI readily permits the identification of the PSP  S\- xand allows IXCs to block calls. Peoples Reply at 3.#&a\  P6G;u&P# #K\  P@QɒP# APCC argues that PSPs should not be required to subscribe  xto specific FLEX ANI service, but that it should automatically be provided with payphone line service. APCC also  xargues that PSPs should also be able to obtain FLEX ANI separately. APCC states that with USTA's revised  xestimate of costs to implement FLEX ANI of $50100 million, the implementation of FLEX ANI should not cost  xmore than one cent per call. APCC Comments at 17. Peoples argues that since USTA has revised substantially its  xcost for FLEX ANI implementation, the Commission should require that all LECs implement FLEX ANI. Peoples  yO#-Reply at 3.#&a\  P6G;u&P#р  S -   SZ- px` ` 29.  By March 9, 1998, the BOCs and GTE either will have already begun  xkimplementation of FLEX ANI, or will be capable of providing FLEX ANI. Some LECs, on the other  S - xhand, argue that LIDB satisfies the coding digit requirements of the Payphone Orders and that because" bb,N(N(JJ "  S- x/the toll fraud proceedingc e Sh-  >Ѝx#K\  P@QɒP#The Commission instituted CC Docket 9135 (toll fraud proceeding) to implement the provisions of the  {O@- xTelephone Operator Consumer Services Improvement Act ("TOCSIA").  Telephone Operator Consumer Services  {O - xhImprovement Act of 1990, which added Section 226 of the Communications Act of 1934, Pub. L. No. 101435, 104  xStat. 986 (1990) (codified at 47 U.S.C.  226). Subsection 226(g), directed the Commission to require such actions  xxas are necessary to ensure that aggregators are not exposed to undue risk of fraud, 47 U.S.C.  226(g). In the toll  xfraud proceeding, the Commission required, among other things, that all LECs provide a federally tariffed originating  xline screening service (OLS) for fraud prevention that provides a discrete code to identify independentowned  xipayphones. OLS service gives an operator service provider ("OSP") information concerning the subscriber's line  xfrom which a call originates, that the OSP can use in processing the call. OLS service sends a twodigit code  x(potentially 00 through 99) that indicates the nature of the originating line to the OSP. The two methods that LECs  x=are allowed to use to implement OLS screening services are FLEX ANI and LIDB. Some LECs have received  x,temporary waivers of the requirement to provide OLS after demonstrating that it would not be "technically feasible  {O - xor economically reasonable" to provide the service. See Policies and Rules Concerning Operator Service Access and  {O - xPay Telephone Access and Pay Telephone Compensation; Petitions Pertaining to Originating Line Screening Services,  {Op -12 FCC Rcd 14,857, 14,86263, paras. 68. (Com. Car. Bur. 1996) (OLS Waiver Order). #&a\  P6G;u&P##&a\  P6G;u&P#я allowed either FLEX ANI or LIDB to respond to the OLS requirement to  xprovide coding digit information, either methodology should suffice to respond to the requirements of the  S- xPayphone Orders.,d. b e yO-  #X\  P6G;ɒP#эx#X\  P6G;ɒP#NTCA Reply Comments at 23 (arguing that the Commission has previously "recognized the public interest  xJbenefits of permitting LECs to satisfy technology requirements via the lowest cost and greatest efficiency" and that  x=requiring FLEX ANI would slow implementation of payphone coding and unreasonably burden LECs); SNET  xComments at 1 (supporting giving LECs a choice in technology selection); US West Reply at 2 (arguing that LIDB  xYsatisfies the requirement for payphone specific coding digits). SNET Comments at 1 (arguing that LIDB is sufficient  xito meet call tracking obligations of the IXCs). TDS Comments at 4 (TDS arguing that the language of paragraph  x64 is far from clear and if the Commission had required a specific technology it would have said so). USTA notes  x=that the Commission has recognized that the tracking capabilities of carriers vary and that the record in this  x;proceeding establishes that LIDB meets the tracking requirements and should be accepted by the FCC. USTA Reply  xat 5. SNET argues that IXCs do not have to use LIDB for payphone compensation, when they can develop their  {O- xiown databases. SNET Reply at 4. TDS argues that paragraph 64 of the Order on Reconsideration refers back to  {OL- xLthe Report and Order at para. 98, which cites to the Third Report and Order in CC Docket No. 9135. TDS  {O-Comments at 4 n.10. See also SNET Reply at 3.#&a\  P6G;u&P#, We have indicated in both proceedings that requirements adopted in one proceeding  S- xdo not affect the requirements of the other.[eXe S-  \Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See, e.g., Bureau Waiver Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 16,39192, para. 9, n.20;#X\  P6G;ɒP# OLS Waiver Order, 12 FCC Rcd  yOZ-at 14,864, para. 12 n.28.#&a\  P6G;u&P#[ The purpose of the toll fraud proceeding is distinct from  xthe purpose of this proceeding"to implement Section 276 of the Act. Additionally, the requirements  xkestablished in the orders in these proceedings are not the same. We have established requirements for  xIXCs and LECs with regard to payphone compensation, percall tracking, percall compensation, and the  xprovision of payphonespecific coding digits that are very different from the OLS requirements established in the toll fraud proceeding.  Sr- px` ` 30.  We acknowledge, however, that both proceedings require LECs to provide coding  xdigits with caller information. We also acknowledge that some LECs may have incorrectly interpreted  S" - xthe language of the Payphone Orders and some IXCs have vacillated on the method they prefer for the  xprovision of payphonespecific coding digits to their networks. Moreover, we emphasize the importance  xzin this proceeding of the availability of payphonespecific coding digits as part of the ANI of a call to  S - xfully implement the percall compensation requirements of the Payphone Orders. Thus, we have" e,N(N(JJ\ "  S- xprovided below time extensions for LECs needing additional time to implement FLEX ANI.:fe Sh-  {Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#These waivers do not change the obligations of LECs pursuant to our requirements in the OLS Service  {O@-Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 17,021. #&a\  P6G;u&P#: SNET  xyrequests that if we conclude that the provision of payphonespecific coding digits though LIDB does not  xLcomply with the requirements of this proceeding, as we do here, it should be relieved of its requirements  S- xpursuant to the toll fraud proceeding so that it can avoid spending further on LIDB implementation.g2e SZ-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#SNET Reply at 3.#&a\  P6G;u&P#я This request should be resolved in the toll fraud proceeding.  S8- x  S- px` ` 31. Because we conclude that hardcoding ANI ii payphonespecific coding digits and  S- xZFLEX ANI, not LIDB, are the only approaches that comply with the requirements of the Payphone Orders  xfor the provision of payphonespecific coding digits, we reject the claim that we should find that LIDB  S- x-also complies with those requirements because the implementation of FLEX ANI is too costly for LECs.he S -ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#Such a revision to the requirements of the Payphone Orders is beyond the scope of this order.#&S\  P@Qu&P#  0  xUSTA, SNET, and TDS argue that the cost of implementing FLEX ANI will be too burdensome and that  SJ - xLIDB is an economical method of complying with the requirement.#iJ re S\-  ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See SNET Comments at 1; USTA Reply Comments at 10 (arguing that the Commission should not require  xwspecific percall tracking methodology because small, rural, and midsize LECs would bear unnecessary administrative,  xtechnological, and financial burdens); Illuminet Comments at 23, 5 (arguing that technical solutions should not be  xlimited, it should be allowed to choose the most economically rational method, and that it provides LIDB services  xxto over 900 LECs). TDS Reply at 2 (TDS argues that it will cost $2,055,000 in order to install FLEX ANI in its equal access switches, approximately $2,700 per payphone). # MCI asserts, however, that the  xCommission already has included the cost of this upgrade in the payphone compensation amount and thus  S - xthe cost cannot be the basis for a waiver.Xj2 e S-  \ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#MCI Reply at 2. In contrast, MCI contends that LECs do not argue that FLEX ANI or hardcoding is not  {Ol- xfeasible but only that it is more cost effective to use LIDB. Id. AT&T claims that the revised USTA estimate for  x<LECs to implement FLEX ANI, $61.2 million for equal access switches, forecloses the claim that implementing  yO-FLEX ANI is prohibitively expensive. AT&T Opposition at 3. #&a\  P6G;u&P#X We conclude that mechanisms established by the Commission  S - xin the Payphone Orders and the Second Report and Order, and waivers we grant herein, respond to those  S - xconcerns. In the Payphone Orders, the Commission required that the LECs provide the payphonespecific  S - x coding digits through tariffed services.Bk e S-  ԍx#K\  P@QɒP##K\  P@QɒP#Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 21,284, para. 112; Order on Reconsideration 11 FCC Rcd at 21,284,  yO-paras. 11113.#&S\  P@Qu&P#B In the Second Report and Order, the Commission included  xestimated costs for implementing FLEX ANI in the percall compensation default rate paid by IXCs to  S8- xPSPs for dial around calls,l8\e S4#-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Second Report and Order at paras. #K\  P@QɒP#5253.#&S\  P@Qu&P# and we discuss below how LECs may recover those costs from PSPs through  S- x[tariffs required by the Payphone Orders.  We provide waivers in certain circumstances for LECs that are unable to recover their costs for FLEX ANI implementation in a reasonable time.  S- ppx` ` 32.  Finally, we clarify that the requirement to transmit payphonespecific coding digits  xapplies only to payphone service provided by LECs to dumb, smart, and inmate payphones. It does not"rl,N(N(JJ"  x{apply to any other LEC provided service such as business lines, PBX, or Centrex lines to which a  S- xypayphone may be connected. me S@-  yЍx#K\  P@QɒP#In the Payphone Orders, the Commission defined a payphone as "any telephone made available to the public  xon a feepercall basis, independent of any commercial transaction, for the purpose of making telephone calls,  {O- xwhether the telephone is coinoperated or is activated either by calling collect or using a calling card." Report and  {O- xyOrder, 11 FCC Rcd at 20,567, para. 66. In the Order on Reconsideration, the Commission clarified that this  x;definition of "payphone" excludes from the compensation mechanism phones in hotel rooms, dormitory rooms, or  {O<- xhospital rooms. See Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd at 21,26566, para. 64. In addition to this general  yO- xdefinition, the Commission noted that it previously adopted a definition of "payphone" in the access code call  {O- xcompensation proceeding for purposes of the billing and collection of the compensation in that proceeding. Policies  {O - xand Rules Concerning Operator Service Access and Pay Telephone Compensation, Report and Order and Further  {Ob - xhNotice of Proposed Rulemaking, 6 FCC Rcd 4736 (1991) (First Report and Order). The Commission concluded that  xLpayphones appearing on the LECprovided customerowned, coinoperated telephone ("COCOT") lists were  {O - xpayphones that are eligible for compensation. Reconsideration Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 715657. The Commission  x,further stated that if a payphone provider does not subscribe to an identifiable payphone service, or if its payphone  xis omitted from the COCOT list in error, the provider is required to provide alternative verification information to  {ON- xthe IXC paying compensation. The Commission concluded in the Report and Order that this definition of  x"payphone," regardless if the payphone in question is independently provided or LEC provided, would be sufficient  {O- xfor the payment of compensation as mandated by Section 276 and the instant proceeding. Report and Order, 11 FCC  {O- xRcd at 20,567 para. 66. Subsequently, in the Order on Reconsideration, the Commission clarified its definition of  xa payphone. 11 FCC Rcd at 2126566, para. 64. In that order, the Commission explained that once percall  xcompensation became effective, payphones would be required to transmit payphonespecific coding digits to be  {O-eligible for such compensation. See Id.  #&S\  P@Qu&P# US West requested that the Commission clarify whether LECs, such as  xUS West, are required to provide payphonespecific coding digits to all types of telecommunications lines  xthat might possibly be connected to a payphone or solely to those payphones that are connected to  S`- xpayphone lines.Fn`e S-  .ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See Letter to Robert W. Spangler, Acting Chief, Enforcement Division, Common Carrier Bureau, FCC from  yO-James T. Hannon, Senior Attorney, U S West (Feb. 25, 1998).#&S\  P@Qu&P#F US West contends that it interpreted the Commission's coding digit requirements to  x0require US West to provide such digits solely to those payphones connected to payphone lines.  x.According to US West, two states within its calling area, Minnesota and Iowa, permit PSPs to purchase  xlines other than specifically identified payphone lines, in US West's case, Public Access Lines (PALs).  x.For example, in Minnesota, PSPs can employ business lines in lieu of PALs. US West contends that an  xexpansion of the coding digit requirement to include these lines would significantly increase the cost and  Sp- xtime to implement FLEX ANI, due to increased translation costs.ope S-ԍXx#K\  P@QɒP#See id. at 2.#&S\  P@Qu&P#(#ƚ US West further argues that if the  xjcoverage of FLEX ANI for percall compensation purposes is to include all lines that could be connected to a payphone, FLEX ANI implementation will be delayed significantly.  S - px` `  33.  As discussed above, in this Order, we conclude that LECs must implement FLEX  S - x<ANI to comply with the requirements set forth in the Payphone Orders, subject to any waivers we provide  xherein. At this time, we clarify, however, that LECs are required to provide payphonespecific coding  xdigits only from those payphones that are connected to tariffed payphone lines (for dumb, smart, and  xinmate payphones) as compared with, for example, payphones connected to business or Centrex lines.  S - xThe Payphone Orders specifically required that payphone lines be available in every state; thus illustrating" &o,N(N(JJ"  S- xkthat the Commission contemplated that coding digits would be sent over such lines.pe Sh-ԍXx#K\  P@QɒP#See Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd at 21,308, paras. 16263.#&S\  P@Qu&P#(# The Payphone  S- x.Orders did not intend to require that LECs provide payphonespecific coding digits to all types of lines  xto which a payphone could conceivably be attached. To reach such a result, and require that LECs  xprovide payphonespecific coding digits to a plethora of different types of LEC service lines, would be  xunduly burdensome, resulting in increased FLEX ANI implementation costs for translations and delays  x.in the implementation of FLEX ANI. Moreover, because LECs often do not know when a payphone is  xattached to business lines or PBX lines, requiring the provision of FLEX ANI for those payphones would  S- xresult in increased complexity and possibility of error in identifying payphones. In the Bureau Waiver  S- xOrder, we stated that payphones appearing on the LECprovided lists of payphones (LEC ANI lists) will  x{be eligible for percall compensation even if they do not transmit payphonespecific coding digits.  xAlthough payphones on the LEC ANI lists are eligible for percall compensation during the waiver period  SP - xof the Bureau Waiver Order, and this order, to ensure an orderly transition to the provision of FLEX ANI  xfor all payphones on LEC payphone service lines, not just any LEC service line, PSP payphones must be  x.on LEC payphones lines within 30 days of the release of this order to continue to be eligible for percall compensation, even if the PSP payphones are on the LEC ANI lists.  S -  S -x` `  IV. TARIFFING AND COST RECOVERY  S:-xA.` ` Introduction   S-  S- pbx` ` !34. In response to the concerns raised by LECs, PSPs, and IXCs, we further clarify  xyin this order the tariffing requirements for the provision of payphonespecific coding digits established in  S- x[the Payphone Orders. The Order on Reconsideration required that LECs "must make available to PSPs,  Sv- xon a tariffed basis, such coding digits as part of the ANI for each payphone.";qvhe S~-  ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#The Bureau Waiver Order extended that period for LECs that were unable to provide coding digits until  yOV-March 9, 1998. 12 FCC Rcd at 16,387, para. 1. #&a\  P6G;u&P#; In the Second Report and  SP- xOrder, we included the estimated cost of providing coding digits in the percall default compensation rate  S*- xto be paid by IXCs to PSPs for subscriber 800 and access code calls.r*e S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Second Report and Order at paras.#K\  P@QɒP# 5253.#&S\  P@Qu&P# In this order, we further clarify the tariffing and cost recovery requirements established in those orders.  S-xB.` ` Availability of Coding Digits to IXCs  Q-x   Sd- pSx` ` "35. To comply with the requirements of the Payphone Orders, LECs must provide  x FLEX ANI to IXCs through their interstate tariffs, so that IXCs can identify which calls come from  S- xpayphones.:spe S&#-  ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See also supra n. 9. BellSouth and Bell Atlantic have filed revisions to their interstate tariffs to provide  xFLEX ANI to IXCs for payphone compensation. Bell South Transmittal No. 426, October 3, 1997; Bell Atlantic  S$- xTransmittal No. 1026 and NYNEX Transmittal No. 483, Jan. 30, 1998. #&S\  P@Qu&P# #K\  P@QɒP#The transmission of payphonespecific  xcoding digits through FLEX ANI for the purpose of payphone compensation requires only the transmission of coding  {Of&- xdigits to identify payphones, i.e., "27," "70," and "29." LECs, PSPs, and IXCs can make arrangements to transmit  xother FLEX ANI coding digits, but the transmission of coding digits beyond those necessary to identify payphones"0'r,N(N(m'"  {O- xare not required for the purpose of payphone compensation.#K\  P@QɒP# Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 21,284, para. 112;  {OZ-Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd at 21,284, paras. 11113. #&S\  P@Qu&P#: The LEC Coalition, Bell South, and Bell Atlantic have proposed that LECs modify their"$s,N(N(JJM"  xKinterstate access tariffs to provide that IXCs may request FLEX ANI without charge if it is for the purpose  S- xof complying with the percall compensation requirements of the Payphone Orders.th$e S-  kԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Letter from Michael K. Kellogg, LEC Coalition, to Robert Spangler, FCC at 2 (Dec. 18, 1997). The LEC  xKCoalition states that Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, Pacific Bell, Nevada Bell, and Southwestern Bell would  yO<-provide FLEX ANI digits to IXCs at no charge on an expedited basis. #&a\  P6G;u&P# The LEC Coalition  xalso proposes that LECs recover the costs of providing FLEX ANI to IXCs for payphone compensation  xjfrom PSPs through a new federal rate element to be applied to all payphone lines on a nondiscriminatory  Sb- xbasis.ubTe SV -ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See id. #&a\  P6G;u&P#č That proposed rate is to be charged monthly on a perline basis until the costs for implementation  S:- xof FLEX ANI for payphone compensation are recovered.vh:e S -  ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#Bell Atlantic suggests that the Commission prescribe a recovery period similar to the method approved by  xithe Commission for the recovery of equal access nonrecurring costs. Letter from Marie Breslin, Bell Atlantic to  yOn-Magalie Roman Sales, Secretary, FCC (Jan. 12, 1998). #&S\  P@Qu&P# We conclude that this approach is consistent  S- xkwith the tariff requirements of the Payphone Orders.w$ e S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#APCC also argues that FLEX ANI should be federally tariffed. APCC Comments at 18 n.25.#&a\  P6G;u&P# PSPs will pay the costs incurred by LECs to  xKimplement FLEX ANI for payphone compensation through the rate applied to all payphones by the LECs.  xLECs must provide FLEX ANI to IXCs and the IXCs are charged for this service through the percall  x[payphone compensation rate which IXCs pay to PSPs. Thus, IXCs will not be charged directly for this  St-service by the LECs.xt e S-  >ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Bell Atlantic states that it will make a minor language modification to its Feature Group D access service  xoffering to state that the nonrecurring charges associated with FLEX ANI will not be charged if a customer requests  xwFLEX ANI for the purpose of complying with the payphone requirements. Bell Atlantic states that FLEX ANI will  xcontinue to be provided as an unbundled, optional feature of Feature Group D service. Letter from Marie Breslin,  xiBell Atlantic, to Magalie Roman Sales, Secretary, FCC (Jan. 12, 1998). Bell Atlantic made this filing on January  S-30, 1998.#&a\  P6G;u&P# #K\  P@QɒP# See supra note 115.#&S\  P@Qu&P#ѕ  S$ - pb x` ` #36. Thus, LECs must file revisions to their interstate access tariffs to reflect FLEX  xANI as a nonchargeable option available to IXCs no later than March 31, 1998, for areas for which FLEX  S - x[ANI is available, if FLEX ANI is available for 25% or more of the smart payphones in its service area.y \e S-  ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See infra para. 72, which states that a LEC must tariff FLEX ANI service to IXCs as required in this order  xKno later than when 25% or more of the "smart" payphones it serves are capable of providing payphonespecific  xcoding digits through FLEX ANI. We grant an extension for filing a FLEX ANI tariff from March 9, 1998 up to  xKMarch 31, 1998 (with a scheduled effective date of April 15, 1998) for those LECs that have not filed tariffs to  S#-provide FLEX ANI to IXCs in compliance with the requirements of this order.#&S\  P@Qu&P#   xThereafter, within the waiver period it is granted in this order, a LEC must file its FLEX ANI tariff to  xprovide FLEX ANI to IXCs no later than when it is able to provide FLEX ANI to 25% or more of the  xsmart payphones in its service area. Beginning March 27, 1998, until a LEC has implemented FLEX ANI  xfor all payphones it serves, it must provide monthly to IXCs and PSPs, upon request, information on: (1)  xend offices where FLEX ANI is available; and (2) proposed dates for the availability of FLEX ANI by" ,y,N(N(JJ "  xend office for all areas where it is not yet available. Beginning March 27, 1998, all LECs must provide  x=on a monthly basis to IXCs, upon request: (1) the number of smart and the number of dumb payphones  xthat are owned by the LEC PSP and independent PSPs in the LEC service area; and (2) the ANI for smart  xpayphones and the ANI for dumb payphones owned by the LEC and independent PSPs that are providing  xpayphonespecific coding digits and those that are not providing payphone specific coding digits in the  xLEC service area. Because many LECs have reported technical problems in transmitting payphone x\specific coding digits even when FLEX ANI is available for a payphone, we require that in these two  x reports required herein, that LECs indicate which end offices and payphone ANI's are "codingdigit x-capable." A payphone is "codingdigitcapable" when it is able to transmit payphonespecific coding digits  xthat are capable of reaching an IXC point of presence (POP) for subscriber 800 and access code calls from  xpayphones using 10XXX and 101XXXX. LECs may provide these reports earlier and LECs do not have  xto provide this information to an IXC that indicates that it does not require this information to pay percall compensation.  S - p x` ` $37. As discussed above, as we required in the Bureau Waiver Order, and we require  xkherein, LECs and PSPs must transmit payphonespecific coding digits as soon as they are technically  xcapable, and no later than the waivers they have been granted. We note, however, that IXCs must request,  xtest, and coordinate with LECs to obtain this service under carrier to carrier procedures to ensure that there  S2- x are no problems in providing and receiving the FLEX ANI digits for a particular IXC or LEC.z2e S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See, e.g., Letter from Michael Kellogg, LEC Coalition to Robert Spangler, FCC (Dec. 18, 1997). #&a\  P6G;u&P# We  x[expect, however, that LECs will reduce the burden on IXCs of requesting FLEX ANI by simplifying the  S- xservice request process. While PSPs are obligated, pursuant to the Payphone Orders, to compensate LECs  xZfor coding of the PSPs payphone lines for the transmission from the PSPs payphones of payphonespecific  xcoding digits through LEC tariffed payphone services, PSPs are not required to request the LEC payhonespecific coding digits transmission service to IXCs.  S-xC.` ` Charge to PSPs for FLEX ANI  S-  S- pSx` ` %38. As established in the Second Report and Order, the costs incurred by the LECs  xin providing the coding digits necessary to identify calls that originate from each payphone is a cost of  S- xbusiness of the PSPs for which they receive compensation from the IXCs on a percall basis.{he S-  kԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP##X\  P6G;ɒP#See Second Report and Order at 5253. APCC states that if additional charges for FLEX ANI are placed  x-on dumb lines, and not smart lines, then the compensation rate should be adjusted for dumb lines. APCC argues  xthat PSPs should not be charged for more than their fair share of the costs, not including calls for equal access  xconversion. APCC argues that some of the costs of implementing FLEX ANI should be paid by IXCs, and that charges should be equally shared by PSPs with smart and dumb payphones. APCC Comments at 19.  We  xzauthorized LECs to recover from PSPs their incremental costs of providing payphonespecific coding  xdigits for purposes of enabling PSP calls to be identified by IXCs to pay compensation for each and every  xcompleted intrastate and interstate telephone call made using a payphone that is not otherwise  x]compensated. LECs that are not currently providing FLEX ANI will incur costs in acquiring that  xcapability in order to provide payphonespecific coding digits. LECs that already offer FLEX ANI, either  xzas a Basic Service Element (BSE) or as a nonchargeable option, may need to upgrade their FLEX ANI  xservices in order to provide payphonespecific coding digits, and so may also incur some costs as a result  xLof this Order. In this section, we address tariffing issues related to the method for LECs to recover from  xPSPs their incremental costs of providing payphonespecific coding digits for purposes of enabling PSP" ({,N(N(JJ!"  xcalls to be identified by IXCs to pay compensation. We specify rate structure and rate level requirements,  xand price cap treatment of the rate element that we have allowed LECs to create for the purpose of recovering their costs of implementing payphonespecific coding digits.  S`- x` ` 1. Rate Structure and Rate Level Issues   S8-  S- px` ` &39. We require LECs to recover the costs of their provision of payphonespecific  S- xMcoding digits through nonrecurring charges (NRCs). |0e SP-  Mԍx#K\  P@QɒP#The costs of implementing FLEX ANI to transmit payphonespecific coding digits must be spread across  x,all payphones served by a LEC. Thus, a LEC must charge the same recovery rate element for payphones owned by  xMa LEC PSP and independentowned PSPs to recover the costs of implementing FLEX ANI for payphone  yO -compensation. #&S\  P@Qu&P#  Based on the Bureau's analysis of prior FLEX  S- x[ANI tariff filings, it appears that LECs incur only nonrecurring costs in their provision of FLEX ANI.E}e S -  {ԍx#K\  P@QɒP# US West Communications, Inc., Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, Order, 7 FCC Rcd 3460, paras. 56  {O -(Com. Car. Bur. 1992) (US West Flex ANI Order). #&S\  P@Qu&P#E  xOur general rate structure policy is that LECs should recover costs in the manner in which those costs are  Sp- xlincurred.~jp*e S:-  ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#Access Charge Reform, First Report and Order, CC Docket No. 96262, 12 FCC Rcd 15982 (1997) ;  {O- xh Investigation of Interstate Access Tariff NonRecurring Charges, CC Docket No. 85166, Phase I, Part 3, 2 FCC Rcd  yO-3498, 350102 (paras. 3233) (1987). #&S\  P@Qu&P# Therefore, we require LECs in this proceeding to establish NRCs for the provision of  xpayphonespecific coding digits no later than 30 days after full FLEX ANI implementation. In order to  xspread the burden on PSPs for recovering the NRCs, we would consider rate structures, such as, one in  S -which the LEC's nonrecurring costs are recovered in monthly installments over a specific period.- \ e S-  ԍx #K\  P@QɒP#We anticipate that the time period for LECs to recover the incremental costs of implementing FLEX ANI  xfor the purposes of payphone compensation may vary. Therefore, we do not herein specify a recovery period, but  x;allow LECs to propose reasonable recovery periods when they file their tariffs for FLEX ANI. BellSouth states that  xafter implementation is complete it will file a federal tariff to charge PSPs on payphone access lines similar to the  xfederal tariff for subscriber line charges. Letter from Ben Almond, BellSouth to John B. Muleta, FCC at 12 (Sept.  yO-30, 1997).#&S\  P@Qu&P#-  S - px` ` '40. We also conclude that any LEC revising its tariffs pursuant to this Order should  xbe authorized to recover no more than the incremental costs of implementing the requirement that they  SX- xprovide payphonespecific coding digits for payphone compensation.Xe S-  ԍx #K\  P@QɒP#The incremental costs incurred by LECs that already have implemented FLEX ANI for other purposes  xgenerally will be less than the incremental costs for those LECs that have not already incurred the costs of installing,  xactivating, and performing translations for FLEX ANI delivery. The costs also will vary depending on whether  xsoftware upgrades are needed, whether FLEX ANI software must be loaded, or if FLEX ANI software merely needs  yO #-to be activated.#&S\  P@Qu&P#ѡ We conclude that it is reasonable  xto permit LECs to recover the costs they incur solely to come into compliance with this Order, but we see  xno reason to permit LECs to increase their rates above that level, or to shift any portion of their overhead costs to PSPs by including overhead loadings in the rate charged to PSPs.  S- x` ` 2. Price Cap Issues",N(N(JJ"Ԍ S-  pԙx` ` (41. Under the price cap rules, a "new service" is one that expands the range of service  x.options available to a LEC's access customers, while a "restructure" is simply a modification of charging  xor provisioning a service that does not result in a net increase in the range of service options available to  S- x\customers.le S-  ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#Policy and Rules Concerning Rates for Dominant Carriers, 5 FCC Rcd 6786, 6824 (1990), para. 312 (LEC  {O- xPrice Cap Order). See also Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Third Report and Order, and Notice of Inquiry, 12 FCC  {O-Rcd 21,354, 21,372 (1996) at n. 48 (Access Reform Third Report and Order).#&S\  P@Qu&P# For those price cap LECs that do not already offer FLEX ANI, the tariff filing to offer  x\payphonespecific coding digits needed to comply with this Order would ordinarily constitute a new  x.service. For price cap LECs that need to revise an existing FLEX ANI tariff to comply with this Order,  xthat revision would ordinarily constitute a restructure. For reasons discussed below, however, we require  xthe price cap LECs to provide payphonespecific coding digits outside price cap regulation pursuant to Section 61.42(f) of the Commission's rules (47 C.F.R. 61.42(f)).  Sp- pqx` ` )42. With respect to new services, LECs ordinarily are required to incorporate a new  x>service into the appropriate price cap basket at the time of the first annual access filing following the  S - xkcompletion of the base period in which that new service is introduced. e S-ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See 47 C.F.R.  61.45(f).#&S\  P@Qu&P#ѡ The Commission permitted  xLECs to keep new services outside of price cap regulation, and then increase their price cap indices (PCIs)  S - xyto reflect the introduction of new service, at least in part to encourage price cap LECs to be innovative. e S -ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#LEC Price Cap Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 6825, paras. 31819.#&S\  P@Qu&P#ѻ  x=In this case, however, we are directing LECs to provide payphonespecific coding digits to comply with  x.Section 276 of the Communications Act. Therefore, encouraging or rewarding innovation is not relevant  xhere. Furthermore, if we were to permit incumbent price cap LECs to incorporate this new service into  xztheir PCIs, it would be necessary to mandate an exogenous cost decrease at some time in the future to  S- xreflect the LECs' completion of the recovery of their costs.<e S-  zԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See, e.g., Access Reform First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 1611319, paras. 30214 (requiring price  yO-cap LECs to reduce their PCIs to reflect the completion of the recovery of amortized equal access costs). #&S\  P@Qu&P# Thus, we can avoid unnecessary complexity  x-and PCI fluctuations by requiring price cap LECs to recover their costs of implementing payphonespecific coding digits outside of price cap regulation.  Sh- pDx` ` *43. With respect to restructures, price cap LECs are not permitted to increase their  S@- xPCIs in their next annual access filings, as they are incorporate new services into their price cap baskets.@ e S-ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See 47 C.F.R.  61.49(e).#&S\  P@Qu&P#ѡ  xAs a result, the price cap rules could prevent LECs from recovering their incremental costs of providing  xLpayphonespecific coding digits to comply with this Order. By holding this service outside of price cap  xregulation, however, price cap LECs already offering Flex ANI will be able to recover those incremental costs.  Sx-  SP-x` ` 3.  Other  S- px` ` +44. We reject the argument that IXCs should not be required to compensate PSPs for"D ,N(N(JJk"  S- xthe costs they incur in paying LECs to implement FLEX ANI for payphone compensation.3e Sh-  ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Sprint opposes the petitions for waivers, argues that IXCs need FLEX ANI only for payphone compensation, and that IXCs should not have to pay for the implementation of FLEX ANI. Sprint Reply Comments at 4. 3 That issue  S- xywas previously addressed by the Commission. The Commission concluded in the Payphone Orders that  xIXCs are the primary beneficiaries of dialaround calls and they should perform percall tracking and pay  S- x.percall compensation. In addition, the Commission concluded in the Second Report and Order that the  xcosts of providing coding digits to IXCs is a cost of doing business of PSPs for which IXCs must provide  S<-compensation as part of the percall rate.<0e S -ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Second Report and Order at paras. 5253. #&a\  P6G;u&P#ѯ  S- x  S- pEx` ` ,45. USTA contends that the Commission must authorize full cost recovery and  xzadditional time for LECs that implemented LIDB for CC Docket No. 9135. As discussed below, we  x=grant LECs that have implemented LIDB for CC Docket No. 9135, and assumed that it would meet the  St- xrequirements of the Payphone Orders, additional time to implement FLEX ANI for the payphone  xproceeding. With regard to cost recovery for LIDB expenditures, it is unclear what additional costs would  xhave been incurred to implement LIDB to comply with the payphonespecific coding digit requirement  S - xof the Payphone Orders, separate from those incurred for CC Docket No. 9135. Because we do not have sufficient information on the record, we deny USTA's request.  S -xD. ` `   Blanket Waiver and Blanket Permission Under Part 69     S:- px` ` -46. Under Part 69.4(g) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  69.4(g), a LEC subject  x\to price cap regulation may establish a switched access rate element for a new interstate service upon  xapproval of a petition demonstrating that establishment of the new rate element would be in the public  S- xinterest.he S2-  Ѝx#K\  P@QɒP#Section 69.4(g)(1)(i) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  69.4(g)(1)(i). See, e.g., Petition of Ameritech  {M - xto Establish a New Access Tariff Service and Rate Elements Pursuant to Part 69 of the Commission's Rules,  yO-CCB/CPD File No. 9746, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 97229 (rel. Oct. 30, 1997). #&S\  P@Qu&P# Because Part 69 authorizes only a limited number of rate elements, a nonprice cap LEC must  xjstill obtain a waiver of that Part to establish any rate element for a new interstate service. In response to  xythe request of the LEC Coalition for a blanket waiver of Part 69 and to the separate petition of BellSouth  xfor permission to establish such a new rate element under Part 69.4(g) of the Commission's rules, we take  xtwo actions below: first, for LECs not subject to price cap regulation that must secure such waivers, we  xgrant a blanket waiver of Part 69.4(b) and (c) of the Commission's rules to enable those LECs to establish  xan appropriate new rate element in their interstate tariffs that reflects the incremental costs directly  x>attributable to the implementation of FLEX ANI to transmit payphonespecific coding digits for the  xpurposes of payphone compensation as described elsewhere in this Order and to file the necessary  xyrevisions to their interstate tariffs. Second, we grant to those price cap LECs that must secure it, blanket  xpermission under Part 69.4(g) of the Commission's rules to establish a new rate element in their interstate tariffs that reflects those same incremental costs and to file the necessary revisions to their tariffs.  S- px` ` .47. The LEC Coalition states that carriers need a blanket Part 69 waiver to establish  S- xa new rate element to recover these transmission costs from PSPs.ue S2'-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#LEC Coalition Petition at 4. u BellSouth, a price cap LEC, also" ,N(N(JJ"  xseeks permission under Part 69.4(g) to establish a new rate element to be assessed on PSPs to recover the  S- xsuch costs.e S@-  Ѝx#K\  P@QɒP#BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Petition to Establish New Rate Element, filed Jan. 16, 1998. See also  {O- xBellSouth Petition to Establish New Rate Element to Recover Pay Telephone Digit Transmission Costs, CCB/CPD  xFile No. 984, Public Notice (DA 98112) ( rel. Jan. 22, 1998). BellSouth filed this Part 69.4(g) petition to establish  x<a rate element to recover over a fixed period certain costs associated with its transmission of payphonespecific  yOr-coding digits.#&S\  P@Qu&P# We believe that the requested blanket waiver of Part 69 and that a similar blanket  xpermission under Part 69.4(g) would serve the public interest by expediting the filing of the tariff revisions  xxnecessary to recover the costs of transmitting these payphonespecific digits and by preventing the repeated  xexpenditure of carrier and staff resources to revisit public interest and other issues already examined in  S8- xthe Payphone Orders, the Second Report and Order, and this Order. We will review the details of the individual LEC Part 69 offerings upon the filing of the relevant tariff transmittals.  S- px` ` /48. Under Section 1.3 of the Commission's rules, we are authorized to grant waivers  S- x"if good cause therefor is shown."e S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#47 C.F.R.  1.3.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ђ Generally, this requires that a petitioner demonstrate that "special  xkcircumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule and that such a deviation will serve the public  SJ - xinterest."hJ *e S-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990); WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418  xF.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969). The Commission may exercise its discretion to waive a rule where particular facts  yO-would make strict compliance inconsistent with the public interest. pp#&a\  P6G;u&P# Under Part 69.4(g), price cap LECs need only show that establishment of a new rate element would be in the public interest.  S - p x` ` 049. We conclude that special circumstances exist and that it would be in the public  xinterest to grant a blanket waiver of the rate structure requirements of Part 69.4(b) and (c) to allow non xzprice CAP LECs to develop a new rate element to recover the incremental costs specified earlier from  SZ- xPSPs.jZZ e ST-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See, e.g., Ameritech Operating Companies, Petition for Waiver of Section 69.4(b) of the Commission's  {O,- xRules, 6 FCC Rcd 1541, 1542, paras. 1718 (Com. Car. Bur. 1991) (granting a blanket waiver authorizing the  yO-establishment of separate rate elements for operator services costs).#&a\  P6G;u&P# As discussed above, in the Payphone Orders, the Commission required that LECs provide  S4- xpayphonespecific coding digits to identify payphones for percall compensation.k4 e S`-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd at 21,258, paras. 50 and 21,26669, paras. 6671; Second Report  {O8-and Order at paras. 2328, 42, 44. #&a\  P6G;u&P##&a\  P6G;u&P#k We find in this order  xthat FLEX ANI is an acceptable method for transmitting these digits as part of the ANI ii under the  S- xPayphone Orders. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission concluded that the costs to be  xcharged by LECs for providing FLEX ANI would be a cost of doing business for PSPs, and that IXCs  xshould reimburse PSPs for those costs as part of percall compensation. The proposed Part 69 rate  xelement for which we grant a blanket Part 69 waiver to nonprice cap LECs and blanket Part 69.4(g)  xpermission for price cap LECs is a key part of the compensation mechanism developed by the  xCommission. Thus, we find that the special circumstances necessary for a blanket waiver of Part 69 have  S- x.been established by the unique requirements of the Payphone Orders and the Second Report and Order.  xAlso, for purposes of both the blanket Part 69 waiver and the blanket Part 69.4(g)permission, we find that",N(N(JJ"  x it is in the public interest for LECs to be able to recover the costs of transmitting payphonespecific  xcoding digits through implementation of FLEX ANI so that IXCs will receive those digits and will be able  xto compensate PSPs in an appropriate and timely manner and otherwise comply with the requirements of  S-the Payphone Orders.  S:-z V. REQUESTS FOR WAIVERS OF CODING DIGITS REQUIREMENTS ĐTP  S-xA.` ` Background  S- px` ` 150. Shortly before October 7, 1997, the date on which percall compensation and the  xpayphonespecific coding digit requirements were to go into effect, the Commission received requests from  xseveral LECs seeking waivers of the requirement to provide payphonespecific coding digits and the  xrequirement that providing payphone specific coding digits is a prerequisite to receiving percall  S - xcompensation as required by the Payphone Orders. e Sd -ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd at 21,26566, para. 64. #&a\  P6G;u&P# We did not specifically address those requests, but  xwe granted, on our own motion, a waiver of the requirement to transmit coding digits until March 9,  S - xz1998. he S-ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#Bureau Waiver Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 16,38788, para. 2.#&S\  P@Qu&P#ѻ Subsequently, we sought comment on the waiver requests of USTA, the LEC Coalition, and  S -TDS, which are briefly described below.^ e {O.-  #K\  P@QɒP#эx#K\  P@QɒP#Public Notice at 1. AT&T also made a request for a waiver for which we sought comment in the Public  {O- x-Notice. We do not address that request in this order. The AT&T request will be addressed in a subsequent order.  {O-See supra para. 4.  S6-  pbx` ` 251.  On September 30, 1997, USTA petitioned the Commission for a waiver of the  S- xrequirement that LECs supply the requisite coding digits to PSPs by October 7, 1997..e S-ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See USTA Petition at 1.#&S\  P@Qu&P#ќ USTA requested  xthat LECs with digital, equalaccess switches be given an additional nine months to provide the technology  x>required to supply and accommodate the coding digits; that LECs with nonequalaccess switches be  xjexempt from providing payphone identification information until their switches are replaced or upgraded  xfor equalaccess; and that LECs be permitted to use whatever technology they select for digital, equal x!access switches to provide information that will permit IXCs to track payphone calls in order to  S-compensate PSPs.me {O-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э xSee id. at 11.m  S- p x` ` 352. On September 30, 1997, the LEC Coalition requested that the Commission waive  xKthe October 7, 1997 deadline, stating that LECs would be unable to supply forty percent of payphone lines  S~- xwith the requisite coding digits by that date.~` e {O~$-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э xSee LEC Coalition Petition. The Coalition requested that the deadline be extended until  SV-the Commission issues an order clarifying the LECs' payphonespecific coding obligations.sV e {O&-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э xId. at 3, 5. s "V ,N(N(JJ"Ԍ S- pԙx` ` 453. On October 1, 1997, TDS, an owner of local exchange carriers, petitioned the  x=Commission to extend the deadline for payphonespecific coding digits from October 7, 1997, until July  S- x1, 1998.oe {O-#X\  P6G;ɒP#эxSee TDS Petition.o TDS states that it needs additional time to arrange agreements with database suppliers, and  S- xto complete transmission tests to IXCs selected by its subsidiaries.jZe {O-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э xId. at 23.j TDS requests a waiver to begin  S`-providing coding digits through LIDB, beginning July 1, 1998.`e S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#TDS Reply at 3.#&a\  P6G;u&P##X\  P6G;ɒP#ѵ  S8-  S-xB. ` ` Discussion  S-  S- pcx` ` 554. We address herein the waivers filed by USTA, the LEC Coalition, and TDS,  xkincluding their requests for time extensions, the methodology for providing payphonespecific coding  xLdigits, and the Commission's waiver standard. We have concluded above that FLEX ANI and hardcoded  xANI ii digits are the only acceptable methods for providing payphonespecific coding digits as required  S" - xby the Payphone Orders." e SN-ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See supra paras. 2325. #&S\  P@Qu&P#ѝ Thus, we reject the requests from these LECs that they may comply with the payphonespecific coding digit requirement through LIDB.  S - px` ` 655. In the Bureau Waiver Order, we provided, on our own motion, a time extension  xzuntil March 9, 1998, for LECs and PSPs to provide payphonespecific coding digits to IXCs and as a  xprerequisite for percall compensation. The LEC Coalition, USTA and TDS requested extensions beyond  x>March 9, 1998. We discuss below those requests for additional time to provide FLEX ANI. We are  xjpersuaded that some LECs reasonably will need additional time to implement FLEX ANI, and that some  xLECs should receive waivers because of technical reasons or the inability to recover costs of implementing  xFLEX ANI over a reasonable period. Accordingly, in this order, we provide additional waivers beyond  S- xthe waivers provided in the Bureau Waiver Order for LECs that will require additional time to implement  xFLEX ANI, and those that require a waiver for technical reasons or because they could not recover the costs of implementing FLEX ANI in a reasonable time period as discussed below.  S- px` ` 756. We affirm our conclusions in the Bureau Waiver Order that waiving the payphone xspecific coding digit requirement for percall compensation until March 9, 1998, is in the public interest  S- xand appropriate in the context of the implementation of the requirements of the Payphone Orders.  S- xPursuant to the Bureau Waiver Order, LECs were required to make available payphonespecific coding  xdigits to IXCs as soon as they were able. The record indicates, however, that many LECs were not  xyprepared on October 7, 1997 to implement FLEX ANI due to many factors including their interpretation  S- xof the requirements of the Payphone Orders,,e S#-ԍ x#X\  P6G;ɒP#See LEC Coalition, TDS and USTA Petitions. the complexity of implementing FLEX ANI in different  S- xytypes of switches with varying capabilities,3e ST&-  ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#USTA Reply at 45. See also Letter from James T. Hannon, US West, to John Muleta, FCC#X\  P6G;ɒP# (Jan. 16,  yO,'-1998).#&a\  P6G;u&P#3 and the uncertainties regarding the types of methodologies"4 ,N(N(JJL"  S- xfor the provision of payphonespecific coding digits that would be responsive to the needs of IXCs.*x e Sh-  [ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#The LEC Coalition indicated on June 16, 1997, that in discussions with AT&T and MCI to resolve technical  xZissues related to providing payphonespecific coding digits, AT&T was requesting modifications to LEC switches  x<to alter the ANI ii coding digits because its central offices switches could not support FLEX ANI, while MCI was  xYasking for access to LIDB and FLEX ANI. LEC Coalition Whitepaper on the Provision of ANI coding Digits, June  {O- x16, 1997. See Letter from Leonard S. Sawicki, MCI, to William F. Caton, Secretary, FCC (Mar. 7, 1997); Letter  {Ob- xfrom E. E. Estey, AT&T to Regina Keeney, FCC (May 23, 1997).#X\  P6G;ɒP# See also LEC Coalition Reply at 3. In August  xand September, however, AT&T and MCI indicated that only FLEX ANI would comply with the requirements of  {O- xZthe Payphone Orders. #K\  P@QɒP# See ex parte from Robert H. Castellano, AT&T to William Caton, FCC (Aug. 14, 1997);  xwLetter from Richard H. Rubin, AT&T to Michael K. Kellogg, LEC Coalition (Sept. 29, 1997); Letter from Leonard  {O - xZS. Sawicki, MCI to Michael K. Kellogg, LEC Coalition (Sept. 30, 1997). #X\  P6G;ɒP# See also ex parte Robert H. Castellano,  xAT&T to Magalie Roman Salas, FCC (Feb. 12, 1998) Attachment, Letter from Shannie Martin, AT&T to Robert  yO -O' Brien, Pacific Bell (July 29, 1997) (requesting two new ANI ii digits). #&a\  P6G;u&P#*  xjWe have clarified in this order the requirements for the provision of payphonespecific coding digits. As  xof October 7, 1997, approximately 60% of the payphones already provided payphonespecific coding  S- x!digits. By March 9, 1998, the deadline included in the Bureau Waiver Order, over 80 percent of  Sb- xLpayphones will be providing payphonespecific coding digits.Bb e S -  ԍx #X\  P6G;ɒP#See Letter from LEC Coalition to Rose Crellin, Common Carrier Bureau, FCC at 1 (Mar. 4, 1998) (stating  xthat by March 9, 1998, more than 86 percent of the payphone lines in the Coalition members' service areas will be  {O- xKcapable of passing payphonespecific coding digits); see also Letter from Marie Breslin, Bell Atlantic to Magalie  xRoman Sales, Secretary, FCC (Jan. 12, 1998) (stating that 100% of payphone lines in the premerged Bell Atlantic  x.area are FLEX ANI capable and that by the end of February 1998, 100% of the New York and New England Telephone Companies, d/b/a Bell Atlantic payphone lines will be FLEX ANI capable). B Thus, IXCs will be able to identify the  S:-majority of payphone calls for percall compensation using payphonespecific coding digits.j:e Sl-  =ԍx #X\  P6G;ɒP#We note that although Bell Atlantic indicates that on December 17, 1997, it informed all customers of Bell  xAtlantic's access services about the availability of FLEX ANI without charge when ordered to comply with payphone  {O -percall compensation requirements, as of January 12, 1998, no customer had ordered FLEX ANI. Id.  S- ` x857.` ` We conclude that granting a number of waivers of the payphonespecific coding digit  xMrequirement for the implementation of FLEX ANI in LEC switches, including the waiver on our own  S- xmotion granted in the Bureau Waiver Order, is in the public interest. In the Bureau Waiver Order, we  xLgranted waivers until March 9, 1998, to those LECs and PSPs that could not provide payphonespecific  SL - x[coding digits as required by the Payphone Orders.L e S-ԍ x#X\  P6G;ɒP#Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd at 21,26566, para. 64, and 21,27880, paras. 9399. #&a\  P6G;u&P# This limited waiver applies to the requirement that  xLECs provide payphonespecific coding digits to PSPs, and that PSPs provide coding digits from their  xjpayphones, before they can receive percall compensation from IXCs for subscriber 800 and access code  xcalls. In this proceeding, LECs have shown that because of special circumstances related to the  xcomplexities of implementing FLEX ANI, among other things, they require an extension of the waiver  S - x.granted in the Bureau Waiver Order. As discussed further below, we conclude, as we did in the Bureau  S`- xWaiver Order, that it is in the public interest for IXCs to pay payphone compensation beginning October  x7, 1997, despite the limited waivers of the requirement to provide payphonespecific coding digits  S- xprovided in the Bureau Waiver Order and this order, because of the clear mandate of Section 276 that  S- xPSPs be paid compensation for each and every call. The Second Report and Order established a default  x=percall compensation rate and extended the period of its applicability to address the problem presented"d,N(N(JJ"  S- xby the LECs, IXCs, and PSPs in these waiver requests.e Sh-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Second Report and Order at para. 121. #&a\  P6G;u&P#ѫ Pursuant to the waivers we grant herein, if a  xpayphone does not provide payphonespecific coding digits, the default percall rate established in the  S- xySecond Report and Order for the first two years of percall compensation, $0.284 percall, will continue  xLto be the percall default rate for that payphone until that payphone provides payphonespecific coding  Sb-digits.bhe Sj-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See supra note 47.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ї  S:-  S- ppx` ` 958. Parties oppose the grant of waivers in the Bureau Waiver Order and any additional  S- xwaivers to LECs for the provision of payphonespecific coding digits primarily because the Payphone  S- xOrders required that the provision of payphonespecific coding digits was a prerequisite to percall  xcompensation obligations, and because parties claim they require payphonespecific coding digits to block  Sx- xMcalls from payphones.,xe S -  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Parties that argue that the waiver should be rescinded include, for example: Comptel Comments at 35;  xWorldCom Comments at 1012; MCI Opposition at 4, 910; Opposition of Frontier Corporation at 57. AT&T  xOpposition, October 7, 1997, at 8; WorldCom Reply at 2, 11. See also Letter from Richard S. Whitt and Douglas  {O- xF. Brent, WorldCom to Magalie Roman Sales, FCC (Mar. 5, 1998). APCC reluctantly supports the Bureau Waiver  {OR- xiOrder until March 9, 1998, while Peoples argues that the Bureau Waiver Order should not be extended. See also APCC Comments at ii; Peoples Reply at 24. , With regard to the justification for LECs and PSPs to obtain waivers of the  SP - xrequirement to provide payphonespecific coding digits, IXCs and other parties argue that the Bureau  S* - xZWaiver Order should be rescinded because LECs knew about the requirement to provide payphonespecific  S - xycoding digits for over a year. e S8-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#CompTel Comment at 4; Frontier Comments at 4; AT&T Opposition, Oct. 7, 1997 at 8.#&a\  P6G;u&P# IXCs state that they spent millions of dollars establishing systems based  xjon the availability of FLEX ANI coding digits to identify payphone calls, and thus, the LEC proposal to  S - x{provide the LIDB approach is unresponsive.9 4 e S-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#WorldCom Reply at 12. AT&T states that it spent $20 million to develop the capability to receive coding  xdigits and track, pay and block calls from payphones. AT&T Comments, Oct. 7, 1997 at 3. On the other hand, the  xLEC Coalition argues that the validity of the waiver order is not at issue. It argues that these parties selected a  {O- x;procedurally improper vehicle for the request.  See 47 C.F.R.  1.115 The LEC Coalition asserts that penalties are  xnot appropriate since they are acting pursuant to the waiver. The LEC Coalition argues that the waiver is appropriate  xZbecause of legal, technological, and economic disagreements about the appropriate way to meet the requirement.  xThe LEC Coalition notes that AT&T initially insisted that hardcoding of ANI ii digits was necessary and that MCI  x<argues that FLEX ANI or LIDB would be sufficient provided these services were offered to IXCs without charge.  xiThe LEC Coalition asserts that MCI and AT&T did not argue that FLEX ANI was the appropriate solution until  xAugust, only two months before implementation was required. Therefore, the LEC Coalition argues there was good  xcause for a waiver. The LEC Coalition also notes that the waiver only affects a minority of payphones and does  S2"-not preclude IXCs from identifying calls for compensation purposes.#&a\  P6G;u&P# #X\  P6G;ɒP#LEC Coalition Reply at#K\  P@QɒP# 23, 6#&S\  P@Qu&P#.9 We reject the IXCs' argument regarding the LECs'  x]knowledge of the coding digit requirement because of the uncertainty evidenced in this proceeding  xregarding the methodology that complied with the coding digits requirements, and the methodology that  S<- x/would meet the needs of IXCs. As we did in the Bureau Waiver Order, we find the need for limited  xcontinuing waivers because of the reasonable delay by some LECs in implementing FLEX ANI caused  x0by the uncertainty regarding the required method to provide payphonespecific coding digits, the  xkcomplexity of implementing FLEX ANI, and the importance of ensuring that PSPs receive payphone"~,N(N(JJ"  xcompensation. We are persuaded that LECs are making substantial efforts to comply with the requirements.  S- px ` ` :59.  Waiver of Commission rules is appropriate only if special circumstances warrant  S`- xa deviation from the general rule, and such a deviation will serve the public interest.`e S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP# #X\  P6G;ɒP#WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969).#x6X@`7 X@# Several LECs  xhave pleaded with particularity the problems they have encountered in complying with the payphone xspecific coding digit requirement. We are persuaded that these are special circumstances associated with  xLEC implementation of FLEX ANI for payphone compensation. By granting these waivers, we do not  S- xhave in mind changing any of the provisions of the Payphones Orders, but instead, we recognize that in  xthe implementation of those provisions, specific circumstances arise which require waivers that are in the  xjpublic interest. We grant waivers to LECs and PSPs to address the special circumstances faced by LECs  xand PSPs that are not yet ready to provide payphonespecific coding digits on all the payphones they  xserve, where FLEX ANI may be technically infeasible, or where a LEC is unable to recover the costs of  S - x.implementing FLEX ANI within a reasonable time period.v he {O-  0#X\  P6G;ɒP#эx#X\  P6G;ɒP##X\  P6G;ɒP#See OLS Waiver Order regarding waivers granted for technical and economic reasons.  12 FCC Rcd at  yO-14,86214,864, paras. 712.#&a\  P6G;u&P#v We note that there have been complexities  xassociated with implementation of FLEX ANI, including the uncertainty about the method of providing  xpayphonespecific coding digits that would in fact comply with the Commission's requirements and  xprovide the information required by IXCs to identify calls from payphones given their disparate network  xarrangements. The number and types of switches involved create additional problems in implementing  S2- xkFLEX ANI.2e S-ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See, e.g., Letter from James T. Hannon, U S West to John Muleta, FCC (Jan. 16, 1998). Ļ Moreover, as discussed below, for some switches, such as nonequal access switches,  xFLEX ANI cannot be implemented without switch replacement. Nevertheless, the industry continues to  xwork expeditiously in implementing the payphonespecific coding digit requirements, and the waivers  S-affect a limited number of payphones and for a limited period of time.hbe S-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See Letter from Michael Kellogg, LEC Coalition to Rose Crellin, FCC (Feb. 5, 1998) (stating that LEC  xCoalition members plan to have 86% the payphones in their serving area capable of passing payphonespecific coding  yO\-digits by March 9, 1998).#&a\  P6G;u&P#ĺ  Sj- px ` ` ;60.  We reject WorldCom's argument that the waiver granted in the Bureau Waiver  SD- xOrder does not meet the waiver standard. D e Sv-  Mԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#WorldCom Comments at 11. WorldCom argues that LECs should not be allowed to evade the effects of  xithe rule. WorldCom argues that the Commission is allowed to grant waivers only if special circumstance warrant  x,a deviation from the general rule and that such deviation is in the public interest and that standard is not reached by  x-the waiver requests. WorldCom argues that the function of a waiver is not to justify an ad hoc exception to the  S"-standard in a case. #&a\  P6G;u&P#Id.  The special circumstances for a waiver were made clear in  S- xythe Bureau Waiver Order and some of those circumstances still exist. We note that in the Second Report  S- xand Order, the Commission acknowledged that the Bureau had adopted a waiver of the payphonespecific  xcoding digit requirement. The Commission stated that "[t]his limited waiver was granted by the Bureau  xto afford LECs, IXCs, and PSPs an extended transition period for the provision of payphonespecific  xcoding digits without further delaying the payment of percall compensation as required by Section 276" d,N(N(JJ"  S- xof the Act and this order."e Sh-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Second Report and Order at paras. 5, 121#&a\  P6G;u&P#. The Commission specifically acknowledged the release of the Bureau  S- x.Waiver Order and the need for such a waiver in granting an extension for the period in which the default  S- xpercall rate is in effect.he S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ш The importance of ensuring the payment of percall compensation as mandated  S- xby Section 276 provides a substantial public interest argument for granting the waiver.e S4-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Bureau Waiver Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 16,391, para 13.#&a\  P6G;u&P#Ѹ We note the  Sd- xsignificant progress made by LECs during the period covered by the Bureau Waiver Order. We  x.emphasize the importance of implementing payphonespecific coding digit transmission as quickly as is reasonably possible.  S-  S- px` ` <61.  To the extent that LECs argue that they should be allowed to implement either  S- xLIDB or FLEX ANI, we decline to waive the requirements established in the Payphone Orders as clarified  Sx- xin this order that LECs must implement FLEX ANI to provide payphonespecific coding digits.xe S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See, e.g., USTA Petition, TDS Petition, LEC Coalition Petition.#&a\  P6G;u&P#  xBecause in some cases this requirement places substantial burdens on those LECs that interpreted the  xCommission's orders to allow for the use of LIDB to provide payphonespecific coding digits, we grant  S -limited waivers for those LECs to implement FLEX ANI. pp  S - px` ` =62.  As discussed further below, we conclude that a continuing waiver of this rule  xrequiring the provision of payphonespecific digits as a prerequisite to payphone compensation in the  x[circumstances identified in this proceeding will serve the public interest, because it will allow us to move  xforward in implementing the statutory requirement that PSPs receive fair compensation for calls placed  x[from their phones while continuing to progress to a marketbased structure for payphone compensation.  x Refusing to waive this requirement would lead to the inequitable result that many PSPs, particularly  xindependent PSPs, who do not control the network modifications necessary to permit payphonespecific  x[coding digits to be transmitted, would be denied any compensation, while implementation of FLEX ANI  xcontinues, even though IXCs would continue to receive the benefits of calls made from payphones. We  SH- xystated in the Bureau Waiver Order that the unavailability of the payphonespecific coding digits will not  xpreclude IXCs from identifying payphone calls for the purpose of determining the number of calls for  S- xywhich compensation is owed.He S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Bureau Waiver Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 16,39091, para. 12.#&a\  P6G;u&P#Ѽ Nor will the waiver interfere with the payphones that currently are able to transmit payphonespecific coding digits.  S-  px` ` >63. The waivers we grant in this order to LECs and PSPs are effective March 9, 1998,  xto ensure that all PSPs continue to receive percall compensation after the expiration of the waiver granted  S2- xmin the Bureau Waiver Order. The immediate implementation of these waivers is crucial to the  xjCommission's efforts to ensure fair compensation for all PSPs, encourage the deployment of payphones,  xand enhance competition among PSPs, as mandated by Section 276 of the Act. We grant these waivers  x.to all similarly situated LECs and PSPs to avoid a significant administrative impact and further delay of the payment of payphone compensation as required by Section 276. "l!,N(N(JJ"Ԍ S- px` ` ?64. Finally, we do not find that granting these waivers undermines any of the policies  S- xzthat the Commission established in the Payphone Orders and the Second Report and Order.e S@-  /ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#In Wait Radio v. FCC, the court held that: (1)"[t]he very essence of [a] waiver is the assumed validity of  xthe general rule, and also the applicant's violation unless waiver is granted;" and (2) "the provision for waiver may  xhave a pivotal importance in sustaining the system of administration by general rule." Moreover, the court held that  x"a rule is more likely to be undercut if it does not in some way take into account consideration of hardship, equity,  xor more effective implementation of overall policy, considering that an agency cannot realistically ignore, at least  {O8- xYon a continuing basis. The limited safety valve permits a more rigorous adherence to an effective regulation."   418  yO-F.2d at 1158. #&a\  P6G;u&P# In the  S- xSecond Report and Order, the Commission acknowledged that the Bureau Waiver Order provided  xLadditional time for LECs, PSPs, and IXCs to establish mechanisms to provide payphonespecific coding  Sd- xdigits.de S -ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Second Report and Order at paras. 5, 121.#&a\  P6G;u&P#Ѯ Moreover, the default percall rate was specifically established in the Payphone Orders because  x[it was anticipated that LECs, IXCs, and PSPs would require some additional time to transition to a truly  S- xcompetitive payphone market.e Sp-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20,56873, paras. 5262.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ѽ Thus, contrary to the arguments of some parties, the availability of  S- xpayphonespecific coding digits was never a sin qua non for the payment of payphone compensation.  xRather, the interim compensation mechanism specifically recognized the need for a transitional scheme  xpending the development of, among other things, percall tracking and the ability of IXCs to block calls  xfrom payphones. The Commission extended this transition default percall rate period for an additional  SP - xyear in the Second Report and Order to allow LECs, PSPs and IXCs to resolve issues related to call  S* - x.tracking and the provision of payphonespecific coding digits.* Z e S$-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Second Report and Order at para. 121.#&a\  P6G;u&P#Ѫ Finally, the Commission has in similar  xcircumstances provided waivers to provide carriers additional time to comply with Commission  S -requirements.-2 e St-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See, e.g.,  MTS and WATS Structure, Phase III Order, CC Docket No. 7872, 100 FCC d 860, 875 (1985);  {ML- xPolicies and Rules Concerning Operator Service Access and Pay Telephone Access and Pay Telephone  {O- xCompensation; Petitions Pertaining to Originating Line Screening Services, 12 FCC Rcd 14,857, 14,86263 at paras.  yO-68 (Com. Car. Bur. 1996).-  S -  S -x` ` 1. LEC Coalition, USTA, and TDS Waiver Requests  S:-x` `  a.LEC Coalition Waiver Request  S- p x` ` @65. The LEC Coalition requests a waiver of the payphonespecific coding digit  S- xyrequirements until the Commission clarifies the coding digit requirement.e SV#-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#LEC Coalition Petition at 4.#&a\  P6G;u&P# #K\  P@QɒP# Prior to identifying a number  xof technical problems discussed below in transmitting payphonespecific coding digits, the LEC Coalition  xindicated that FLEX ANI would be implemented in 86.3% of the payphones it serves by the end of March  x1998. The LEC Coalition stated that Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, and Nevada Bell indicate that"J",N(N(JJr"  S- x.they will implement FLEX ANI for 100 percent of the payphones they serve by March 9, 1998.ke Sh-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id. at 2. The LEC Coalition reports the following plan for FLEX ANI implementation by March 9, 1998:  x;Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, and Nevada Bell 100 percent; SNET 96.7%; SWBT and Pacific Bell 75%;  xGTE 60.4%; U.S. West 49.6%. Letter from Michael Kellogg, LEC Coalition to Rose Crellin, FCC at Attachment  {O- xJ(Feb. 5, 1998).   In total, the LEC Coalition estimates that 1.7 million of 2.0 million payphones served by the LEC  xCoalition will pass payphonespecific coding digits. The LEC Coalition indicates that FLEX ANI should be  {Ob- xKprovisioned on a carrier by carrier basis. If FLEX ANI is provisioned on a flash cut basis, i.e., transmitted to all  xcarriers at one time, carriers should be warned, otherwise carriers that are not prepared to receive the coding digits  xmight drop calls. The LEC Coalition also indicates that it may take less time to provision FLEX ANI if not all  {O- xZinterexchange carriers request the service.  See infra para. 81 regarding technical problems identified by the LEC Coalition LECs in implementing FLEX ANI.k The  xLEC Coalition states that implementation of FLEX ANI requires loading of the software in switches that  S- xdo not have it, provisioning, translations, and trunk conditioning.v e S -  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#The LEC Coalition states that many LEC switches have not had their switch generics upgraded and thus  xthe generic must be installed before FLEX ANI can be offered from these switches. Letter from Michael Kellogg,  xLEC Coalition to Richard H. Rubin, AT&T at 23 (Sept. 22, 1997). In addition, for many switches FLEX ANI is  xnot part of the switch generic and so a separate installation process is required. After the software is installed,  xhprovisioning and translations are necessary. Provisioning requires adjustments to screening tables and testing of new  xyscreening indices, and trunks must be conditioned for each carrier that wants FLEX ANI. Each trunk must be  {O- xJconverted individually and must be coordinated closely with each carrier. Id. The LEC Coalition estimates that the  xprocess of converting a single carrier /end office takes 30 days. The LEC Coalition indicates that this process will  yO-take at least 2 years to complete.#&a\  P6G;u&P# The LEC Coalition also indicates that  x[LECs must test FLEX ANI with IXCs that wish to receive it and ensure proper functioning so that calls  S`-are not dropped.u`Xe SX-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Letter from Michael Kellogg, LEC Coalition to Robert Spangler, FCC (Dec. 18, 1998). The LEC Coalition  {O0-indicates that MCI has declined to engage in tests and has not requested FLEX ANI service. Id.#&a\  P6G;u&P#u  S- px` ` A66. The LEC Coalition originally indicated that GTE, SNET, Bell Atlantic (North)  xand US West would be prepared to provide coding digits through LIDB by March 9, 1998, but not via  xFLEX ANI. Since that letter, however, Bell Atlantic (North), GTE, and US West indicate that they are  S- ximplementing FLEX ANI. GTE and US West state that they previously had interpreted the Payphone  Sr- xOrders to enable the use of LIDB to comply with the payphonespecific coding requirement.yXre yO-  =#X\  P6G;ɒP#эxLetter from F. Gordon Maxson, GTE to Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, FCC (Jan. 23, 1998) (attachment letter  xifrom Gordon Maxson, GTE to John Muleta, FCC (Jan. 16, 1998); Letter from James T. Huyghenian, U S West, to John Muleta, FCC (Jan. 16, 1998). y GTE  xjstates that it will implement FLEX ANI as soon as technically possible, if it is given waivers for its non xequal access switches, which it proposes to replace by the second quarter of 1999. GTE states that it will  xzturn on FLEX ANI on a rolling basis as end offices are properly equipped to provide FLEX ANI and  S - xIXCs request the service.O e SV$-  =Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Letter from F. Gordon Maxson, GTE to Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, FCC (Jan. 23, 1998) (attachment letter  yO.%-from Gordon Maxson, GTE to John Muleta, FCC (Jan. 16, 1998)).#&a\  P6G;u&P#O GTE states that it currently provides the "27" code in 57% of payphones.  xIt indicates that it does not currently have an interstate FLEX ANI and it would take between 8 and 18  xmonths for it to implement FLEX ANI in all of its equal access switches. GTE states that it must" #J,N(N(JJ["  S-implement FLEX ANI in 1700 switches which have six versions of FLEX ANI. e Sh-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ш  S- px` ` B67. US West requests that if the Commission concludes that LIDB does not comply  S- x[with the Payphone Orders, that it receive a waiver until March 30, 1999, to implement FLEX ANI in all  Sb- xof its switches.hbhe Sj-  Ѝ#X\  P6G;ɒP#xLetter from James T. Hannon, US West to John Muleta, FCC (Jan. 16, 1998). See also US West Reply at  xx3. US West provides a detailed description of the implementation process including activities by switch type and  yO -line translations for PSP lines that provide FLEX ANI.#&a\  P6G;u&P##&a\  P6G;u&P# US West states that it already provides payphonespecific coding digits for 75 percent  x=of its payphones, the dumb payphones that provide the "27" coding digits. It states that it will provide  S-FLEX ANI for 90% of all "smart" payphones by June 1998.ae SJ -ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id.a  S- px` ` C68. SNET states that although it is not prepared to provide FLEX ANI, it currently  S- xztransmits the "27" coding digit for 96% of the payphones in its serving area.8e Sr-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Letter from Wendy Bluemling, SNET to John Muleta, FCC at 1 (Oct. 4, 1997). We note that because  xxindependent PSPs have only recently been allowed to provide payphones in SNET's serving area, only 4% of the  xLpayphones in SNET's serving area are nonLEC payphones for which payphonespecific coding digits are not  xavailable. We anticipate that there will be more independent PSP payphones in SNET's serving area in the future  {O- xfor which payphonespecific coding digits will be needed.#X\  P6G;ɒP# #X\  P6G;ɒP#See New England Public Communications Council Petition  {Ol-for Preemption Pursuant to Section 253, 11 FCC Rcd 19713 (1996).#&a\  P6G;u&P#Ѳ SNET states that it is  ximplementing LIDB and will require an extension if the Commission decides that FLEX ANI  SJ - ximplementation is required.J e S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP##X\  P6G;ɒP#Id. at 2.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ѵ We have stated above that LIDB does not meet the requirements of the  S" - xPayphone Orders. Because SNET already transmits the "27" digit for 96% of the payphones, it should  xnot have a problem targeting those locations with more independent PSP payphones in order to enable the  xidentification of those payphones through FLEX ANI. SWBT requests a waiver until April 15, 1998,  x.to implement FLEX ANI and indefinite waivers for certain identified switches and call types because of  xtechnological limitations, but indicates that it will have over 70% of the lines FLEX ANI capable by  S\-March 9, 1998.w\de S`-  LЍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#SWBT Comments at 13. SWBT indicates that it needs the additional 5 weeks until April 15, 1998 to install  xFLEX ANI properly. It states that it is installing FLEX ANI in over 360 switches and must perform switch  xtranslations and testing in all of its switch types. Letter from Chris Jines, SBC to William F. Caton, Secretary, FCC  xK(Oct. 1, 1997). AT&T opposes an extension. AT&T Reply at 3. AT&T supports SBWT request for a limited  xwaiver for limited calls that present a technical problem, but states that no compensation should be required for those  {OX"-calls. Id.  See infra para. 81 regarding SWBT technical waiver request.#&a\  P6G;u&P#w  S - p5x` ` D69. Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth and SBC state that they plan to implement" $,N(N(JJ "  S- xFLEX ANI on all payphones as soon as technically feasible.he Sh-  ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#BellSouth states that FLEX ANI was loaded in all of its switches by October, 1, 1997 and all translation  xwork will be completed by March 1, 1998 for BellSouth to provide the "70" coding digit. Letter from Ben Almond, BellSouth, to John B. Muleta, FCC (Sept. 30, 1997). These LECs state that they will implement  S- x=FLEX ANI on a rolling basis as end offices are equipped and IXCs request the service.e Sp-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Letter from Michael Kellogg, LEC Coalition to Robert Spangler, FCC at 1 (Dec. 18, 1998).#&a\  P6G;u&P# BellSouth and  xjBell Atlantic state that they have filed a tariff that allows IXCs to order and receive FLEX ANI without  S- xLcharge for payphone compensation.e S -ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP##X\  P6G;ɒP#See supra note 115.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ѿ All of the BOCs have indicated problems in implementing FLEX  xANI, because of problems, for example, with software upgrades, certain switch types, and network  S8-configurations that required heavy vendor software development and network reconfiguration.|88e S -  ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See infra para. 81; see also e.g., Letter from Marie Breslin, Bell Atlantic to Magalie Roman Salas, FCC  yO -(Mar. 3, 1998); Letter from Celia Nogales, Ameritech to Rose Crellin, FCC (Mar. 2, 1998).xx#&S\  P@Qu&P#|  S- px` ` E70. We conclude that the LEC Coalition has shown that limited waivers are justified  xto allow for additional time to implement FLEX ANI. As discussed above, some LECs including GTE,  S- x[US West, and SNET have interpreted the Payphone Orders as allowing the use of LIDB to comply with  Sr- xLthe payphonespecific coding digit requirement.0r e S-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP##X\  P6G;ɒP#The LEC Coalition indicates that these carriers are willing to provide free access to OLS service to identify  xwhich "07" calls are from payphones until the Commission addresses the coding digit issues. The LEC Coalition  xpoints out that this will provide IXCs a mechanism to identify which "07" calls are from payphones, in addition to  yO-the use of LEC ANI lists. LEC Coalition Petition at 4. #&a\  P6G;u&P#р Because of the reasons discussed above, we conclude  xthat it is in the public interest to provide additional time for these LECs, and other LECs to implement  xLFLEX ANI. Although the BOCs, GTE and SNET indicate that they plan to provide payphonespecific  xLcoding digits to over 80% of the payphones in their service areas by March 9, 1998, they all indicate the need for additional time to implement FLEX ANI.  S - p6x` ` F71. Accordingly we grant a number of waivers to allow LECs additional time to  ximplement FLEX ANI. We grant Bell Atlantic, SBC, Ameritech, and BellSouth no more than a 90 day  x=waiver to resolve technical and other implementation problems with specific switch types and some call  S - x=types.R  e SB-  \ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See infra para. 81; see, e.g., Letter from Marie Breslin, Bell Atlantic to Magalie Roman Salas, FCC (Mar.  yO -3, 1998); Letter from Celia Nogales, Ameritech to Rose Crellin, FCC (Mar. 2, 1998).  R In addition, we grant US West a waiver for provide payphonespecific coding digits until June  x=30, 1998, to be able to provide FLEX ANI for 90 percent of the smart payphones in its service area and  xuntil December 31, 1998, to complete FLEX ANI implementation. With regard to all other LECs that  xmay require additional time to implement FLEX ANI, including GTE and SNET, we grant each LEC a  x\waiver until no later than September 30, 1998, to be able to provide FLEX ANI for 75 percent of the  xsmart payphones in its service area and until December 31, 1998, to complete FLEX ANI implementation  xto be able to provide payphonespecific coding digits, subject to any additional waivers for which they"%,N(N(JJS"  S- xmay qualify as discussed below.#&S\  P@Qu&P# e Sh-  @Ѝx#K\  P@QɒP#Several LECs have requested extensions beyond March 9, 1998. See, e.g., Matanuska Telephone  xAssociation, Inc. (MTA) (filed Feb. 17, 1998) requests an extension beyond March 9, 1998, because MTA claims  xxits switch manufacturers, Nortel and Redcom have advised MTA the switches that are needed to comply with the  xCommission's Order will not be available by the March 9, 1998 deadline; Deerfield Farmers' Telephone Company  x(Deerfield) (filed Feb. 20, 1998) is seeking a temporary waiver, until April 30, 1998, of the requirement that LECs  xKprovide payphonespecific coding digits to IXCs by March 9, 1998. Deerfield claims that this waiver will enable  xit to continue its planned deployment and testing of a new switch capable of providing the payphone coding function;  xHardy Telecommunications, Inc. filed a petition on February 27, 1998, requesting a waiver to provide payphone xKspecific coding digits until June 30, 1998. The additional time is requested to complete planned deployment and  x@testing of a new switch capable of providing payphonespecific coding digits; San Carlos Appache  xTelecommunications Utility, Inc. (filed Mar. 3, 1998) requests a waiver of the coding digit requirement until such  xtime as it implements equal access in its switch facilities; Ringgold Telephone Company (filed Mar. 4, 1998) requests  xLa waiver of the requirement for 90 days following the release of an order mandating the use of FLEX ANI to  yO - ximplement FLEX ANI. #K\  P@QɒP#These petitions are granted to the extent described in the waivers provided herein and are otherwise denied.  Those LECs and PSPs that are able to transmit the required coding  x?digits by March 9, 1998, remain obligated to do so. Similarly, all LECs and PSPs are obligated to  x=transmit the required coding digits as soon an they are technically capable, but in any event no later than the end of the waiver period for which they are eligible pursuant to this order.  S8- px` ` G72. We require that LECs that have been granted a waiver for additional time beyond  x.March 9, 1998, to implement FLEX ANI, must implement FLEX ANI first in locations where there are  xylarger numbers of payphones owned by independent PSPs for which payphonespecific coding digits are  x!not available. This will enable the identification, as soon as possible, of independent PSP owned  xpayphones, for which payphonespecific coding digits generally are not available. All LECs also must  Sp- xfile tariffs, as discussed above,pX e Sh-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See supra paras. 3537.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ќ indicating the availability of FLEX ANI to IXCs, no later than March  x31, 1998, with a scheduled effective date of April 15, 1998, for areas for which FLEX ANI is available,  xif FLEX ANI is available for 25% or more of the smart payphones in their service area. Thereafter,  xwithin the waiver period it is granted in this order, a LEC must file its FLEX ANI tariff to provide FLEX  xANI to IXCs when it provides FLEX ANI to 25% or more of the smart payphones in its service area.  x/After filing the FLEX ANI tariff LECs will continue to make FLEX ANI available as each end office  xbecomes FLEX ANI capable. No later than March 27, 1998, LECs must be prepared to provide IXCs  SX- xand PSPs information,upon request, regarding their plans to implement FLEX ANI by end office.Xe S-ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See supra para. 36.#&S\  P@Qu&P#ј LECs  xoperating under this waiver must roll out FLEX ANI service for each end office as it becomes available.  xLECs must notify IXCs regarding the availability of the service that IXCs may request. We require, as  xdescribed above, that LECs provide to IXCs, upon request, ANI lists that include lists of switches and  xsmart and dumb payphone ANI that do and do not transmit payphonespecific coding digits owned by  S- xLECs and independent PSPs.Ae S$-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See supra para. 36. APCC also requests that LECs be required to notify PSPs when FLEX ANI is available  yO%-on its lines. APCC Reply at 4. #&a\  P6G;u&P#A These lists of ANI for payphones in a LEC's service area must be updated"&,N(N(JJ"  S-monthly, and be made available as ANI lists have been previously provided.He Sh-  ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP##K\  P@QɒP#Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 21,284, para. 112; Order on Reconsideration 11 FCC Rcd at 21,284,  yO@-paras. 11113.#&S\  P@Qu&P#H  S-x` `  b.USTA Waiver Request  S`- pbx` ` H73. USTA makes three requests. First, it requests that LECs be allowed to provide  S8- xpayphonespecific coding digits through either FLEX ANI or LIDB.80e S -ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#USTA Petition. #&a\  P6G;u&P#і We deny this request, because,  S- x.as discussed above, we conclude that LIDB does not meet the requirements of the Payphone Orders.e S -ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See supra paras. 2324.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ќ  xSecond, USTA requests that we grant digital equal access switches an additional nine months (from  xzOctober 7, 1997) to provide payphonespecific coding digits through either FLEX ANI or LIDB. As  xdiscussed above, we generally grant LECs until September 30, 1998, to be able to provide FLEX ANI  xto 75 percent of the smart payphones in their serving areas and until December 31, 1998, to complete  SJ - xFLEX ANI implementation subject to certain conditions.hJ pe SZ-  zЍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See supra paras. 7172. NTCA supports the requested nine month waiver for LECs to implement FLEX  x,ANI or LIDB, to allow LECs to phase in mandatory or voluntary upgrades, switch replacements and tariffs. NTCA  yO-Reply at 1.#&a\  P6G;u&P#Ѡ For the reasons set forth below, we also grant  xadditional waivers for small and midsize companies that may not be able to recover the costs of  xkimplementing FLEX ANI within a reasonable time period. Finally, we grant USTA's request that we  xwaive the payphonespecific coding digit requirement for nonequal access switches until the switches are upgraded to equal access or replaced.  SZ-x` `  i.hhMidsize and Small LECs with Digital Equal Access Switches  S - pqx` ` I74. USTA and several LECs argue that the cost of implementing FLEX ANI will be  S- xcostly and burdensome for midsize and small LECs.  e yO"-  #K\  P@QɒP#эxUSTA surveyed 43 small and midsized companies and developed average per payphone costs for  ximplementation of FLEX ANI. USTA estimates a wide variation in costs perpayphone depending on the generic  xupgrades, software costs, and the number of payphones per switch. Letter from Keith Townsend, USTA to Rose Crellin, FCC (Jan. 30, 1998). USTA states that midsize and small companies  xserve approximately 125,000 payphones. USTA estimates that midsize companies serve 71,500 network  xcontrolled payphones, 150 smart payphones owned by its members, and 17,000 independent PSP owned  Sj- xpayphones.7j e S"-  zԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Letter from Keith Townsend, USTA to John Muleta, FCC at 12 (Oct. 3, 1997). These estimates exclude  {Oj#-SNET and GTE but include Cincinnati Bell. Id. #&a\  P6G;u&P#7 USTA estimates that its small company members have approximately 27,000 network  x.controlled payphones, 700 smart payphones owned by its members, and 8000 independent PSP owned  xpayphones. USTA provides information from some of its smaller LECs with few switches and payphones  x{indicating that the costs per payphone of implementing FLEX ANI for small companies with few"',N(N(JJ4"  S- xpayphones can be substantial.e Sh-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id.#&a\  P6G;u&P#Ĉ USTA estimates that to implement FLEX ANI it will cost $400,000 to  x>replace a nonequal access switch, $35,000 to upgrade a nonequal access switch to equal access, and  S- x$9000 to upgrade an equal access switch that has the FLEX ANI software loaded.he S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Letter from Keith Townsend, USTA to Michael Carowitz, FCC (July 28, 1997).#&a\  P6G;u&P# USTA states that  x\the costs indicated will be particularly onerous for small, rural, and midsize LECs, and states that the  S`- x.Commission must provide for full cost recovery by LECs of all network upgrades.`e S -ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Letter from Keith Townsend, USTA to William Caton, Secretary, FCC at 24 (Oct. 24, 1997)#&a\  P6G;u&P#. USTA states that  S8- xzFLEX ANI has been deployed by approximately 63% of the small and midsize companies.8e S -ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Letter from Keith Townsend, USTA to William Caton, Secretary, FCC at 12 (Oct. 3, 1997).#&a\  P6G;u&P# NECA  xsupports a waiver stating that equal access LECs will need 9 months to phasein necessary technology,  S-perform tests, establish arrangements for coordinating signaling and databases, and file tariffs.He S-ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#NECA Comments at 2. #&S\  P@Qu&P#ѓ  S- px` ` J75. In this order, we include three mechanisms that respond to these concerns. First,  Sp- xwe clarified above the cost recovery mechanism established in the Payphone Orders and the Second  SJ - xReport and Order for the provision of payphonespecific coding digits.J e S-ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See supra paras. 3843.#&S\  P@Qu&P#ќ Pursuant to that cost recovery  xmechanism, LECs will charge PSPs a monthly perphone charge for recovery of the incremental costs that  xare directly attributable to the costs of implementing FLEX ANI. The costs of implementing FLEX ANI  xcan include, for example, generic upgrades excluding the costs of other software features, loading the  xksoftware, paying a fee for usage of the software, translations and conditioning the trunks for each end  S -office. These costs will be distributed over a reasonable period and be paid by all PSPs. e S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id. #&a\  P6G;u&P#щ x` `   S4- px` ` K76. Second, as discussed above, we grant small and midsize LECs an extension to  ximplement FLEX ANI until September 30, 1998, to be able to provide payphonespecific coding digits  xthrough FLEX ANI to 75 percent of the smart payphones in its service area and until no later than  S- xDecember 31, 1998, to complete FLEX ANI implementation.( e S-ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See supra para. 7172. #&S\  P@Qu&P#ќ Third, we grant a limited waiver to  xmidsize and small LECs where a LEC is unable to recover its costs, through a monthly charge for no  Sl- xlonger than a 10 year period, from all payphones in its serving area.Ul e S"-  ]Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP##K\  P@QɒP#In making this evaluation, LECs should not include costs for switch replacements. Below, we grant a  xwaiver for nonequal access switches until they are upgraded to equal access or replaced. If a switch is replaced,  xhowever, the costs incurred in implementing FLEX ANI can be included. This limited waiver for small and midsize  xLECs that are not able to recover their costs of implementing FLEX ANI over up to a 10 year period is not available  {O&- xyto price cap, CLASS A, and Tier 1 LECs. In 1996, the Class A LECs included all price cap LECs. See Access  {O&- xZReform Third Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 21,370, n.42. The 1996 threshold for CLASS A LECs was $109"&,N(N( '"  {O- xmillion in annual operating revenues. See Commission adjusts its annual Threshold to Account for Inflation for 1996  {OZ- xhin Accordance with Section 402 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Public Notice, Report No. CC9721, DA 97 {O$- x932 (May 2, 1997). See also Automated Reporting Requirements for Certain Class A and Tier 1 Telephone  {O- xCompanies (Parts 31, 43, 67, 69 of the FCC's Rules), Report and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 5770 (1987) (ARMIS Order),  {O- xmodified on recon., 3 FCC Rcd 6375 (1988) Order on Reconsideration. See OLS Waiver Order regarding waivers  yO-granted for technical and economic reasons. 12 FCC Rcd at 14,86264, paras. 712.#&S\  P@Qu&P#U This waiver is specifically granted"l(J,N(N(JJ"  xfor small and midsize LECs for which the cost of implementing FLEX ANI would be unreasonably  xburdensome, despite provisions in this order for cost recovery. For determining whether a small or  x[midsize LEC qualifies for this waiver, we use the following analysis that must be performed annually by  xthe LEC. The LEC may assume that the payphone rate element established to recover the cost over a  xperiod not greater than 10 years would not be greater than 20% of the national average payphone line cost  S8- xLof $38.90,h8Je S" -  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#In the Second Report and Order the Commission concluded that the average per line cost was 7 cents per  S - x<call times an average of 542 calls resulting in an average per line rate of $38.90.  Id. at para. 102.#&a\  P6G;u&P# #X\  P6G;ɒP#We conclude  xithat up to a ten year recovery period to implement FLEX ANI would not be unreasonable for this limited waiver  xfor small and midsize LECs to recover their costs. We note that the Commission adopted an eight year recovery  {Ob- xperiod for equal access expenses. See Accounting Reconsideration Order, 1 FCC Rcd 434 (1986) (Accounting  {O,- xReconsideration Order). We granted a number of waivers of the equal access expense amortization requirement. Ä  {O- xSee e.g., National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc., Petition for Waiver of Sections 36. 191(a) and 36.421(a) of  {O-the Commission's Rules, 3 FCC Rcd 6042 (1988) (NECA Wavier Order).  or $7.78 per line per month.Aj8z e SR-  kԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#As discussed below, this analysis should not include switch replacements for which we give a waiver in this  xJorder. The analysis can include such costs as FLEX ANI software and software upgrades necessary to operate FLEX  {O-ANI, as well as translations. #&a\  P6G;u&P##X\  P6G;ɒP#See supra para#X\  P6G;ɒP#. 3843. #&a\  P6G;u&P#A LECs must make this evaluation and qualify for this waiver  xindividually and not as part of a holding company. LECs must make this evaluation within 30 days of  x=the release of this order, and notify IXCs, upon request, that they will not be implementing FLEX ANI  S- x.pursuant to this waiver. LECs must provide, upon request, information required from LECs.e S -ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See supra para. 36.#&S\  P@Qu&P#ј A LEC  xdelaying the implementation of FLEX ANI pursuant to this waiver provision, must be prepared to submit  xits analysis of cost recovery for implementing FLEX ANI, if we request the analysis. We may at such  xtime determine whether there continues to be a justification to grant a waiver to that LEC because it is unable to recover its costs of implementing FLEX ANI.  S -x` `  ii.hhNonequal Access Switches  S - px` ` L77. We grant LECs a waiver of the payphonespecific coding digit requirement  xythrough FLEX ANI for nonequal access switches until such switches are either upgraded to equal access  S0- xor replaced.0Le S#-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#This waiver for nonequal access switches also covers switches that employ Bell I signaling. Bell I signaling  xmust be used with nonequal access switches and uses a single information digit to identify classes of service. This  xtype of signaling is not compatible with ANI ii coding digits. Letter from Keith Townsend, USTA, to Michael  yO%- xCarowitz, FCC at 1 (July 28, 1997). N#X\  P6G;ɒP#ECA supports a waiver for nonequal access until switches are upgraded or  xreplaced. APCC argues that the Commission should not require LECs to upgrade nonequal access switches to equal  yO'-access to provide payphonespecific digits, until they are upgraded. APCC Comments at 11n.20. 0#&a\  P6G;u&P# USTA requests a waiver for nonequal access offices from FLEX ANI implementation"0),N(N(JJ"  S-because these switches would have to be replaced in order to implement FLEX ANI. se Sh-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP# USTA states that there are 533 electromechanical switches that would require replacement in order to  ximplement FLEX ANI. USTA also indicates that there are 760 nonequal access switches that would need upgrades  xZto equal access before FLEX ANI could be implemented. USTA estimates that it would cost nearly $240 million  xto provide FLEX ANI from nonequal access switches: $212 million for nondigital, nonequal access switches and  xJ$26.6 million to upgrade digital, nonequal access switches. Letter from Keith Townsend, USTA to Magalie Roman  xSalas, Secretary, FCC (Dec. 2, 1997). NECA states that it has 172 NECA members with 552 nonequal access  xswitches and an average of 450 lines per switch that would be negatively impacted by a such a requirement. NECA  {O- xYComments at 3. NECA cites CIC proposals. See CIC Code Reconsideration Order, FCC 97386, rel. Oct. 22, 1997.  {O- x<Petitions for Waiver of the FourDigit Carrier Identification Code Implementation Schedule, 12 FCC Rcd 17876  yO -(Com. Car. Bur. Dec. 31, 1997) at para. 1.#&a\  P6G;u&P#s  S- pbx` ` M78. USTA states that parties do not oppose a waiver for nonequal access switches  S- xfrom the coding digit requirements.!t e S -  ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#USTA Reply Comments at 5 citing AT&T Comments at 7 (Oct. 7, 1997); MCI Comments at 3; NECA  yOt-Comments at 23; Sprint Comments at 3. #&a\  P6G;u&P#! USTA asserts that this waiver also should be granted to LECs that  S`- xyemploy Bell I signaling.` e S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#USTA Reply Comments at 6. #&a\  P6G;u&P#љ USTA indicates that many of the nonequal access switches are in rural areas,  S8- xand have few smart payphones or prison payphones.h8| e ST-  ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#USTA letter, at 4 (July 28, 1997). #K\  P@QɒP#Based on a survey of its members, USTA indicates that the average  xnumber of payphones per nonequal access switch is 5.6 payphones per switch. Letter from Keith Townsend, USTA  yO-to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC (Dec. 2, 1997). #&S\  P@Qu&P# NTCA also supports an exemption for nonequal  xaccess switches until the switches are replaced or upgraded for equal access because otherwise the cost  S- xof replacement would be prohibitive.e S4-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#NTCA Reply Comments at 4.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ј IXCs generally support the grant of waivers for nonequal access  S- x<switches subject to certain modifications in the payphone compensation requirements.jLe S-  ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#AT&T Opposition, Oct. 7, 1997 at 7; MCI Reply at 5.#K\  P@QɒP# Although parties agree with a waiver for nonequal  x,access switches, several IXCs request that conditions be placed on compensation in areas served by nonequal access  {OL-switches.  #&S\  P@Qu&P# We conclude that  xjUSTA has shown special circumstances with regard to nonequal access switches and switches with Bell  xI signalling, because LECs are not able to implement FLEX ANI in those switches at reasonable costs.  xLWe conclude that it would not be in the public interest to require the replacement of these switches with  S - x.the expenditure of substantial investment solely for the provision of payphonespecific coding digits. ~e S>!-  zԍx#K\  P@QɒP#In the MTS and WATS Structure, Phase III Order in CC Docket No. 7872, the Commission required that  xxthe nonGTE independent telephone companies convert end offices equipped with stored program control (SPC)  xswitches to equal access within three years of a reasonable request for conversion. Absent a request, such offices are  xto be converted as soon as practicable in light of capital constraints and local business conditions. Independent  xcompanies were not generally required to convert end offices equipped with electromechanical switches according  yO6%-to a specific schedule regardless of whether conversion is request#X\  P6G;ɒP#ed. 100 FCC 2d 860, 875. #&a\  P6G;u&P#ѩ  x\When LECs replace or upgrade these switches, however, we require that FLEX ANI be implemented  xMwithin 60 days unless they qualify for another waiver discussed herein. LECs with nonequal access" *,N(N(JJ "  S-switches must provide information as required above regarding payphones in their service areas.e Sh-ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See supra para. 36.#&S\  P@Qu&P#ј  S-x` `  c.TDS Waiver Request  S`- px` ` N79. Because we require LECs to implement FLEX ANI, we deny TDS's request that  xyit be allowed to implement LIDB to comply with the payphonespecific coding digits requirement. TDS  S-is eligible, however, for one or more of the waivers described above.he S -ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Letter from R. Edward Price, TDS to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC (Jan. 29, 1998). #&a\  P6G;u&P#  S-x` ` 2. Other Waiver Requests  Sp- px` ` O80. Some LECs indicate that it would be costly to implement FLEX ANI now for  SH - xswitches that they plan to replace in the near future.H e S-  ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#TDS states that it will cost $1,560,000 to add FLEX ANI to switches that it may eventually replace. TDS  yO-Reply at 2.#&a\  P6G;u&P# We conclude that it is not cost effective to require  x[LECs to implement FLEX ANI in switches that are going to be replaced before October 6, 1999, the end  S - x.of the default compensation period.j pe S-  ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#We note that in the OLS Waiver Order, we granted waivers to carriers implementing FLEX ANI because  xwhile it is technically feasible to add FLEX ANI to most, if not all, LEC end offices, adding FLEX ANI to all such  {O-end office can entail significant expenditures. OLS Waiver Order, 12 FCC Rcd 14,86263, para. 8.#&a\  P6G;u&P# Accordingly, we grant LECs that plan to replace switches before  x[October 6, 1999, a waiver until that date to provide FLEX ANI through those switches. In reaching this  x?decision, we balance the need to implement FLEX ANI as soon as possible against the inefficient  xapplication of LEC resources, and we conclude that providing a waiver until the end of the period in  SX-which the default percall rate is in effect best balances those concerns. X e S-ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#USTA Reply Comments at 4, citing Bell Atlantic Comments at 1; SBC Comments at 26.#&S\  P@Qu&P#  S0-  S- p&x` ` P81. SBC, BellSouth, Ameritech, SNET, and Bell Atlantic have requested additional  S- xtime to implement FLEX ANI to resolve specific problems with certain switches and call types,B e S-  ?Ѝx#K\  P@QɒP#See, e.g., BellSouth states that it has the same problem as SBC's problem (3) below. Letter from Ben  xAlmond, BellSouth to Rose M. Crellin, FCC at 2 (Feb. 10, 1998). BellSouth also states that it has a problem with  xNortel Digital Multiplex System (DMS) switches, because these switches are not able to provide FLEX ANI for  {O* - xsmart payphones. BellSouth requests 45 days after March 9, 1998 to resolve this problem. See also, e.g., Letter  xfrom Marie Breslin, Bell Atlantic to Magalie Roman Salas, FCC (Mar. 3, 1998); Letter from Celia Nogales,  yO!-Ameritech to Rose Crellin, FCC (Mar. 2, 1998).@#&S\  P@Qu&P#h#K\  P@QɒP#ј and  xrequest waivers because there are technical limitations in passing FLEX ANI payphonespecific coding  xMdigits on certain types of calls and switches, and the modifications cannot be completed by March 9,  Sh- x1998.jhe S%-  .Ѝx#K\  P@QɒP#See Letter from Jeffrey B. Thomas, SBC to Rose Crellin, FCC (Jan. 23, 1998); Letter from Chris Jines, SBC  {O&- x=to Magalie Roman Salas, FCC (March 5, 1998);#&S\  P@Qu&P##K\  P@QɒP# see also Letter from F. Gordon Maxson, GTE to Mary Beth  yOv'-Richards, FCC (Feb. 24, 1998).#&S\  P@Qu&P# SBC lists the following technical problems: (1) 0 transfer calls from DMS 200 and DMS"h+,N(N(JJ"  S- x100/200 switches affecting less than 1% of all payphone calls;e Sh-  ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#A 0 transfer occurs when a customer dials "0" without any additional numbers and requests a transfer to  {O@-a carrier that participates in 0 transfer service with SWBT or Pacific. #K\  P@QɒP# Id. at 3.#&S\  P@Qu&P#щ (2) Feature Group B (FGB) 950 calls  x(tandem and end office) affecting less that 1/4 of 1% of payphone calls; (3) 800 or 888 calls routing to  xka plain old telephone (POTS) phone number affecting less that 1% of all payphone calls; (4) CICs on  xLfeature group D (FGD) and/or GR394 signaling affecting up to 79% of all payphone calls; and (5) calls  xreceived over EAOSS trunk groups from DMS end offices affecting less than 1/2 of 1 percent of  S8- xLpayphone calls; (6) 800 calls at the tandem switch.b82e S -ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id. b SBC requests the following waivers for additional  x.time to provide FLEX ANI based on these technical problems: problem 1 October 15, 1999; problems  x.2 and 3 until 5 months after a standard is developed or five years; problem 4 until October 15, 1999; and problem 5 until August 15, 1998.  Sp- p5x` ` Q82. As discussed above, we grant the BOCs 90 days to resolve technical problems  SH - xin implementing FLEX ANI.rH e S-ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See supra para. 71. r Although we discuss herein only the problems raised by SBC, we note  xthat other BOCs have raised additional technical problems that also are encompassed by the waiver we  xgrant for 90 days. BOCs must provide payphonespecific coding digits earlier than the end of the waiver  xyperiod for each technical problem, if these problems are resolved earlier than the end of the waiver period  x.granted herein. BOCs must notify IXCs regarding the call and switch problems the BOCs are having on  xza monthly basis. It is our expectation that BOCs and other LECs will share information regarding the  xtypes of problems that they are having and solutions developed to resolve those problems to minimize the  xdelay for the provision of payphonespecific coding digits. With regard to these technical problems, BOCs  xand other LECs must notify IXCs regarding these problems in implementing FLEX ANI. With regard  x{to problem (2), cited by SBC, FGB service, we note that there is currently no standard to provide  xpayphonespecific coding digits and carriers wishing to receive FLEX ANI must take FGD service. Thus,  xpending the development of standards, we grant all LECs a waiver and require that carriers taking FGB service pay PSPs percall compensation using ANI lists or other means they may identify.  S-Q VI. REQUESTS FOR WAIVER OF PAYPHONE COMPENSATION REQUIREMENTS  ĐTP  S-xA.` ` Introduction  S-   S{- px` ` R83. The Bureau Waiver Order granted limited waivers to afford LECs, IXCs, and  xPSPs an extended transition period for the provision of payphonespecific coding digits without further  S-- xdelaying the payment of percall compensation as required by Section 276 of the Communications Act.-re S?"-ԍ x#X\  P6G;ɒP#47 U.S.C.  276.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ѓ  xThese limited waivers apply to the requirement that LECs provide payphonespecific coding digits to  xPSPs, and that PSPs provide coding digits from their payphones before they can receive percall compensation from IXCs for subscriber 800 and access code calls.  Se- pcx` ` S84. On November 6, 1997, ITA filed a petition for partial reconsideration of the"e,,N(N(JJ"  S- xBureau Waiver Order.e Sh-  >ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Pleading Cycle Established for Petition for Reconsideration of Coding Digit Waiver Order, DA 972734, Dec. 31, 1997. ITA requests that the Commission preclude PSPs from assessing percall  xcompensation payment obligations on prepaid phone card services for the duration of the waiver, and until  S- xaccurate coding digit information is provided.0e S-Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#ITA Petition at 2, 6. #X\  P6G;ɒP# #&a\  P6G;u&P# ITA claims that providers of prepaid cards will be  x.irreparably harmed without the ability to track and block payphone calls in real time, because this is the  Sb-only time a prepaid provider can recover a charge from its customer.be S -ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id. at 2.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ю  S- p'x` ` T85. On December 15, 1997, AirTouch filed a petition for a limited waiver of its  xpayment obligations to pay any payphone service providers (PSPs) on a percall basis from October 7,  x1997, until those PSPs provide payphonespecific coding digits allowing AirTouch to selectively block  S- xcalls from payphones operated by that PSP.Epe S-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#AirTouch Petition at ii, 6.  See Pleading Cycle Established for Petition for Waiver of the Coding Digit  {O-Waiver Order, DA 972735, Dec. 31, 1997.#&a\  P6G;u&P#E AirTouch claims that because of the Bureau Waiver Order  St- x{and other circumstances, AirTouch will not receive coding digits and will not be able to block calls  SL - xcoming specifically from payphones.L e S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#AirTouch Petition at 9.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ќ AirTouch states that it will suffer substantial harm if it must pay  x[compensation on a percall basis without the ability to block calls selectively, because PSPs will have no  S -incentive to negotiate rates and AirTouch's liability will be unlimited for calls from payphones. z e S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id. at 12.#&a\  P6G;u&P#я  S -xB.` ` Discussion  S^- px` ` U86. Subsequent to the Bureau Waiver Order, IXCs and other parties argued in  xpleadings in response to that order that they should be relieved of the payphone compensation obligation  S- xbecause LECs were not providing payphonespecific coding digits.q e S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See supra para. 87.q For the reasons discussed below,  xjwe decline to relieve IXCs of the obligation to pay percall compensation during the waiver period of the  S- x=Bureau Waiver Order and the additional waivers we grant herein. The Payphone Orders concluded that  x=the primary economic beneficiaries of a subscriber 800 and access code call are the carriers that carry the  Sr- xcall.r e S"-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 21,275 at para. 88.#&a\  P6G;u&P#Ѿ We are not persuaded that our waivers of the provision of payphonespecific coding digits revises  xjthe Commission's conclusion. Nor do the waivers preclude IXCs from identifying and paying payphone  S"- xcompensation."Ze S&-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Bureau Waiver Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 16,39091, para. 12.#&a\  P6G;u&P#Ѽ The Bureau Waiver Order required that IXCs pay percall compensation during the""-,N(N(JJq"  S- xcoding digit waiver period as required by the Payphone Orders.ze Sh-  ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#The Bureau noted that for 60% of the payphonespecific coding digits were already being provided and that  {O@- xIXCs could use ANI lists to identify payphone calls if payphonespecific coding digits were not available. Bureau  S -Waiver Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 16,389, para. 6.#&a\  P6G;u&P#  During that period, IXCs and their customers continued to use payphones to make calls  S- x-that must be compensated pursuant to the Payphone Orders and the Second Report and Order. Moreover,  xIXCs already have implemented surcharges for percall compensation and they would be benefiting  xunreasonably if we were to grant them a waiver of the payphone compensation obligations so that they  S<- xdo not have to pay percall compensation when payphonespecific coding digits are not available.< e S -  Nԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP##X\  P6G;ɒP##X\  P6G;ɒP#See AT&T News Release, April 30, 1997 ("AT&T adjusts business longdistance prices to offset new  xwpayphone costs." "To recover this cost, AT&T will increase prices for interstate tollfree services by 7 percent and  {O - xprices for business international and interstate outbound services by 2 percent."); "800" Data Toll Hike Hits Users,  xCommunications Week, Aug.18, 1997 (MCI raises its 800 service rate in March 1997 by 3 percent and in May by  x3 percent; AT&T added 35 cent surcharge to coinless payphone calls effective June 1, 1997; MCI added a $0.30 surcharge to tollfree calls from payphones effective October 13, 1997). The  S- xKBureau Waiver Order waived the requirement that LECs and PSPs provide payphonespecific coding digits  S- xLas a precondition to percall compensation. The Bureau Waiver Order did not waive any compensation  xrequirements. For the reasons discussed herein, we similarly decline to provide such a waiver or  S- xreconsider our decision in the Bureau Waiver Order to waive the coding digit requirement while continuing to require the payphone compensation obligations.  S* - px` ` V87. Several IXCs and other parties argue that they should be relieved of payphone  x=compensation obligations because: (1) LECs were aware of the clear language and requirements specified  S - xin the Payphone Orders that payphonespecific coding digits must be provided by October 7, 1997, so  xjthey should not be absolved of the requirement and should be legally liable for any compensation lost by  S - xPSPs due to their inability to comply; e S-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See, e.g., Comptel Comments at 2; Sprint Reply at 4; WorldCom Reply at 16; Excel Reply Comments at  x=7. APCC and the LEC Coalition, however, argue that IXCs should not be excused from payment obligations  {O`- xrequired by the Payphone Orders implementing Section 276. APCC Reply at 2; LEC Coalition Reply at 2. APCC  xargues that although allowing PSPs to seek damages is not an adequate substitute for the IXC payment obligation,  x;the Commission should rule that PSPs are entitled to recourse against LECs that fail to transmit ANI. APCC Reply  xat 3. APCC argues that LECs that fail to implement the required system by March 9, 1997, should be ineligible for  x,payphone compensation and should be liable for any resulting losses to PSPs, and IXCs that fail to accept and track  xcalls based on FLEX ANI should be subject to double compensation based on reasonable estimates of dial around  yO-call volumes. APCC Comments at iii. #&a\  P6G;u&P# (2) the payment obligation should have been waived for IXCs  Sd- xand other payors;dve yOz!-#K\  P@QɒP#э xAT&T Opposition, Oct. 7, 1997 at 8; Sprint Reply at 4. and (3) IXCs and other payors should not have to pay compensation because they are  x.unable to block calls from payphones and must therefore pay compensation they could otherwise avoid  S- xif payphonespecific coding digits were available.Be S$-  ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Frontier Comments at 67; RCN Comments at 4; Excel Reply at 57; LCI Reply at 13. AT&T restates its  xposition that carriers should not be required to pay compensation unless payphones transmit payphone specific coding  xdigits, because carriers will not be able to block calls from such phones and cannot bill customers on a percall basis  S"'-from those phones.#&a\  P6G;u&P#  #X\  P6G;ɒP#See AT&T Comments, Oct. 7, 1997 at 3.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ѧ For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that".,N(N(JJ"  xLECs are entitled to waivers to complete implementation of FLEX ANI. In addition, we reject the  x=argument that LECs that are unable to provide FLEX ANI on October 7, 1997, during the waiver period  S- xin the Bureau Waiver Order or for the duration of the waivers granted in this order, should be responsible  S- xjfor the payphone compensation due from IXCs to PSPs.g4e S-  ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#In the Payphone Orders the Commission concluded that expenses associated with administering  xxcompensation rules . . . must be borne by the entity that receives the primary economic benefit of the payphone  {O- xYcalls." Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd at 21,284, para. 111. The IXC is responsible for paying for the cost  {O\-of administering compensation. Id. at 21,275, para. 88. h#X\  P6G;ɒP#g We conclude that the need for these waivers  Sb- x/does not alter the conclusions in the Payphone Orders that the IXCs are the economic beneficiary of  xsubscriber 800 and access code calls and should be the party to pay payphone compensation in light of  S-the Congressional mandate in Section 276.ke yOx -#X\  P6G;ɒP#эx47 U.S.C.  276.k x  S- pCx` ` W88. We deny ITA's petition for reconsideration of the obligation to pay compensation  xduring the waiver period, and AirTouch's petition for waiver seeking similar relief, both of which were  St- xfiled in response to the Bureau Waiver Order. We also deny the requests of ITA and AirTouch that they  SN - x=be granted relief from the payment obligations of the Payphone Order and the Second Report and Order  xuntil they can block calls. Although AirTouch and ITA use different administrative mechanisms, they  xboth argue that they should be relieved of the payphone compensation obligations because they will be  xharmed if they are unable to identify and block payphone calls while the waiver of the payphonespecific  xcoding digit requirement is in effect, or until they can block calls. ITA argues that the Commission should  xdeny in part the requested LEC waivers because granting them would result in harm to prepaid card  S`- xproviders.`Te ST-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#ITA Reply at 1; WorldCom at 2. #&a\  P6G;u&P#ў ITA requests a waiver of payphone compensation until "accurate" payphonespecific coding  S8- x\digits are provided.8e S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#ITA Petition at 4.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ё ITA claims that it will incur $31.8 million in unrecoverable charges on prepaid  S- xcards. e SD-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#ITA Reply at 3.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ю ITA asserts that prepaid providers cannot recover payphone charges from customers unless  S- xypayphone calls can be identified/blocked in realtime; otherwise, they will be irreparably harmed.4 e S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id. at 2.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ю ITA  xcontends that because prepaid card service providers have postalized rates and are paid in advance, the  S-only way to recover a payphone charge is at the time a payphoneoriginated call is placed. e S !-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id. at 3. #&a\  P6G;u&P#я  SH- px` ` X89. ITA and AirTouch argue that relieving the LECs and PSPs of the obligation to  xprovide payphonespecific coding digits while requiring payors to continue payment obligations  S- xundermines the marketbased approach used to establish the percall default compensation rate.te S &-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#ITA Petition at 3; AirTouch Petition at 5.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ѩ "/,N(N(JJC"  S- x:AirTouch seeks a waiver until it can selectively block calls.e Sh-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#AirTouch Petition at 6 n.21.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ћ  x/AirTouch argues that it could be obligated to pay as much a $1 million in compensation for calls it is  S- xunable to block because the calls do not provide payphonespecific coding digits.he S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#AirTouch Comments at 2.#&a\  P6G;u&P#і AirTouch asserts that  x=it is entitled to the waiver because it detrimentally relied on the fact that coding digits would be available  S`- xto block payphone calls.`e S -ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id. at 3.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ю AirTouch argues that it should be provided with a waiver because unlike other  xpaging companies, such ,as Paging Network and Metrocall who do not plan to block calls from payphones,  S- xMit offers call blocking, which enables customers to avoid additional charges.e SX -ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id.#&a\  P6G;u&P#Ĉ Because it is unable to  xblock 40 percent of the payphone calls, it states that it will be obligated for that compensation. Several  xparties support AirTouch's petition for waiver and ITA's request for reconsideration and request that they  S- x>also be exempted from the payphone obligations established in the Payphone Orders and the Second  Sr- xReport and Order. rHe SZ-Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See, e.g., TRA Comments at 2; Dispatchers Comments at 4; PageMart Comments at 2. #&a\  P6G;u&P# On the other hand, APCC and the LEC Coalition argue that the Commission should  xdeny both petitions because AirTouch and ITA are not underlying facilitiesbased carriers obligated to pay  S$ - x<percall compensation, $ e S-  yЍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#APCC Reply at 2. The LEC Coalition points out that the Commission did consider that there were problems  x[in implementing blocking capabilities in adopting the percall rate, that IXCs are the parties obligated to pay  xcompensation, and that IXCs can, but do not have to, recover the percall rate charges from their customers. LEC  {O- xwCoalition Opposition at 23 (citing the Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 20,541, 20,584, and 20,586 at paras. 83, 86;  {O-Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 21,233, 21,275, 21,277, paras. 88, 92).#&a\  P6G;u&P# the default rate established in the payphone orders does not depend on the ability  x>to block payphone calls, and it would not be in the public interest for the Commission to grant these  S - xZpetitions because delaying payphone compensation would be contrary to Congressional intent.  e S -ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#APCC Comments at 14; LEC Coalition Comments at 18.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ѳ The LEC  xCoalition argues that IXCs have already increased subscriber 800 rates, increased percall charges on  S -customers, and gained from reductions in state and federal access charges.  Le Sp-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#LEC Coalition Opposition at 3. #&a\  P6G;u&P#ў  S4- px` ` Y90. We conclude that AirTouch has not shown special circumstances or that a waiver  x.is in the public interest. We also decline to reconsider, in response to ITA's Petition, our decision in the  S- xBureau Waiver Order to waive payphonespecific coding digit requirements while maintaining, and not  xwaiving, the percall compensation requirements during the waiver period. We note that carriers have  x=known since the adoption of the 1996 Act, in February 1996, that Congress required in Section 276 that  Sn- xPSPs be compensated for "each and every call." ne S%-#K\  P@QɒP#эx#X\  P6G;ɒP#47 U.S.C. #&a\  P6G;u&P# 276. Moreover, on September 20, 1996, parties were  x=notified that the percall default compensation rate in the first year of percall compensation, the default"F0 ,N(N(JJ"  x[rate adopted because the payphone market would require a period of transition, would be $0.35 percall.  S- xDespite the court decision vacating, in part, the Payphone Orders in July 1997, and the adoption of the  xnew default compensation rate of $0.284 in October 1997, parties have been on notice that they must pay  S- xpercall compensation. In creating the default rate in the Payphone Orders and the Second Report and  Sd- xOrder, we also put carriers on notice that there may be transitional problems in moving to a totally unregulated percall rate.  S- psx` ` Z91. In the Payphone Orders, the Commission established a requirement that  S- xunderlying facilitiesbased interexchange carriers pay percall compensation.e S0 -ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#LEC Coalition Opposition at 1.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ѝ We concluded in the  S- xReport and Order that the "carrierpays" system for percall compensation places the payment obligation  Sz- x=on the primary economic beneficiary in the least burdensome, most cost effective manner.zhe S -ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20,584, para. 83. In addition,  xunder the carrierpays system, individual carriers, while obligated to pay a specified percall rate to PSPs,  S* - xLhave the option of recovering a different amount from their customers, including no amount at all.* e S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id.#X\  P6G;ɒP#Ď We  S - xnoted in the Report and Order, however, that under the carrierpays approach, carriers have "the most  xflexibility to recover their own costs, whether through increased rates to all or particular customers,  x[through direct charges to access code call or subscriber 800 customers, or through contractual agreements  S - xwith individual customers." e S-  1ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id. In the Order on Reconsideration, the Commission clarified which carriers are required to pay  x compensation and provide percall tracking. The Commission clarified that "a carrier is required to pay compensation  xand provide percall tracking for the calls originated by payphone if the carrier maintains its own switching  xcapability, regardless if the switching equipment is owned or leased by the carrier." Moreover, the Commission  xYclarified that, "if a carrier does not maintain its own switching capability, then, as set forth in the Report and Order,  x-... the underlying carrier remains obligated to pay compensation to the PSP in lieu of its customer that does not  {O-maintain a switching capability." Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd at 21,277, para 92. #d6X@`7 N@#  As discussed below, the Commission adopted a percall default rate that  xprovides fair compensation to PSPs for the use of payphones to originate access code and subscriber 800  xcalls. Percall compensation to PSPs is a cost of providing service that IXCs can pass on to their own customers, just as they pass on other costs.  S- p%x` ` [92. In Illinois Public Telecomm., the court remanded the percall default compensation  xissue to the Commission on the ground that the Commission had not justified its conclusion that the costs  Sv- xof local coin calls were similar to those of subscriber 800 and access code calls.v e S!-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Illinois Public Telecomm., 117 F.3d at 564.#&a\  P6G;u&P#Ѷ The court did not hold,  xhowever, that the Commission erred in using a marketbased rate because some carriers lack the ability  xto block calls. Although the court noted that call blocking technology was available, and acknowledged  xthat the ability to block calls gave IXCs leverage in negotiating rates, the court held that the percall  xdefault rate adopted by the Commission should be reasonably justified so that IXCs are "not forced to  S- xjresort to call blocking only because the default rate has been set at an unreasonable level." e S&-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id. #&a\  P6G;u&P#щ On remand,"1:,N(N(JJ"  xthe Commission obtained further data on cost differences, and explained fully the cost adjustments to the  xlocal coin rate, which justified a reduction in the percall compensation for subscriber 800 and access code  S- xcalls, absent a negotiated agreement, from $0.35 to $0.284.v0e S-  ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Second Report and Order at paras. 1667. Thirty comments and 30 reply comments were received in  {O- xresponse to the Notice. In the remand proceeding, parties claimed that only a rate derived from cost data on the  {O- xrecord, rather than a marketbased approach adjusted for cost differences, would provide a valid percall rate. Second  {O- x;Report and Order at paras. 6975. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission performed an analysis of the  xhlong run costs of payphone service based on cost information on the record that concluded that the cost percall for  {O- xa provider to install a payphone was in the range of $0.247 to $0.281, per call.  Second Report and Order at para.  x119. Assumed to be a lower boundary of percall compensation, this alternative approach, which the Commission  xrejected as not being consistent with the goals of Section 276, resulted in a percall rate not significantly different  Sp -from the adjusted marketbased rate of $0.284 that the Commission ultimately adopted. Id. at para. 119. #&a\  P6G;u&P# v The Commission considered alternatives  xto the marketbased approach to establish a default rate, but rejected them as not required either by the  x]court's remand or by the statutory standards. The Commission also concluded that the proposed  S8- xalternatives were inferior to its chosen approach.j8e S-  ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Second Report and Order at paras. 1628. The Commission concluded that the adjusted marketbased per x: call rate it established promotes the goals of Section 276 of the Act, fair compensation, the deployment of payphones,  {O8-and competition. Id. at para. 117. #&a\  P6G;u&P# The Commission's actions are consistent with the  S-agency's statutory mandate to ensure fair compensation for "each and every" call.x6 e S-  kԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#The Commission has the authority to employ different methodologies and/or regulatory models to arrive  {Oz- xat a particular rate (see Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 767 (1968)), has the authority to exclude  {OD- x;suspicious data or statistical outliers, and is not required to include all data when determining a rate (see Bell Atlantic  {O-Tel. Co. v. FCC, 79 F.3d 1195, 1202 (D.C. Cir. 1996)). #&a\  P6G;u&P#x  S- px` ` \93. We cannot at this late date find that certain parties, although they have continued  x>to use payphones to make subscriber 800 and access code calls, which PSPs cannot block because of  Sp- xstatutory limitations,pe S-ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#See Second Report and Order at para. 122 n.325.#&S\  P@Qu&P#Ѵ may be relieved of the statutory requirement that there be compensation for these  x calls as required by Section 276. As the Commission already stated "because Section 276 creates no  xLexceptions for calls facilitated by reseller or debit card providers, such exemptions from the obligation to  x\pay compensation, even on an interim basis, would be contrary to the congressional mandate that we  S -ensure fair compensation for 'each and every completed intrastate and interstate call.'"m0 e S-  ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20,586, para. 87.  See also LEC Coalition Reply at 12. We are not  x<persuaded by AirTouch's claim that it is entitled to a waiver because other paging companies have chosen not to  x[block calls and it has chosen to block calls. This is purely a business decision and AirTouch has the ability to  yOh!-structure its business offering given the requirements of percall compensation. #&a\  P6G;u&P#m  S - p%x` ` ]94. We decline to grant a waiver to ITA and AirTouch of the payphone compensation  SX- xrequirements of the Payphone Orders because they are unable to block payphone calls, nor do we find  xthat the inability to block payphone calls undermines the marketbased approach for payphone  S - xcompensation. In the Second Report and Order the Commission established a default rate for percall  xLcompensation and extended the period for default compensation for to years while acknowledging that it"2,N(N(JJ"  S- xywas granting the limited waiver for the provision of payphonespecific coding digits.e Sh-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP##X\  P6G;ɒP#Second Report and Order at para. 121.#&a\  P6G;u&P# In that order, the  xCommission addressed concerns, among other things, that there may be market imperfections in the  xnegotiation process among IXCs, LECs, and PSPs with regard to the transition to unregulated market xbased percall compensation. The Commission stated that it "recognized that competitive conditions,  xzwhich are a prerequisite to a deregulatory marketbased approach, did not exist yet, and would not be  S8- xachieved instantaneously."28he S@-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id. at para. 11. The Commission noted that imperfections in the marketplace had led it to establish a default  xirate and acknowledged that additional time is necessary to transition to marketbased rates. On the record, IXCs  xexpressed concerns about deregulated percall rates after the default rate period, and LECs claimed that there were  {O -problems in providing coding digits as required by the Payphone Orders. Second Report and Order at para. 121. #&a\  P6G;u&P#ѩ The Commission indicated that over time the marketbased approach would  xnot overcompensate PSPs because carriers have significant leverage, including the ability to block calls,  S- xjand to negotiate for lower rates.be S -ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id. at para. 97.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ѕ The establishment of a default compensation rate was itself intended,  xin part, to compensate for any unequal bargaining power arising out of the inability of carriers to block  S- x!payphone calls.e S:-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP# Second Report and Order at paras. 2328, 4167, 117122. #&a\  P6G;u&P#ѿ Additionally, recognizing problems that some carriers are having in providing  Sp- xpayphonespecific coding digits and concerns due to potential unequal bargaining power, the Commission  SH - xextended the one year percall default rate time period established in the Payphone Orders to two years  S" - xin the Second Report and Order." e Sd-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Second Report and Order at para. 121.#&a\  P6G;u&P#Ѫ Moreover, in the Payphone Orders the Commission required that  xLECs and PSPs provide payphonespecific coding digits to "assist in identifying them to compensation  xpayors," not because they also can be used for blocking calls from payphones during the interim period  S -while the default percall rate is in effect.  B e S-  ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20,591, paras. 9899; Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd at 21,26566, para. 64, and 21,27880, paras. 9399.   S\-  px` ` ^95. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission stated that it established a  xdefault percall rate "because certain call blocking capabilities are not yet available to participants in the  xprovision of access code and subscriber 800 calls from a payphone, and thus the market is not yet free  S- xof impediments that interfere with the competitive negotiated process." e S0 -ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Second Report and Order at para. 122, n.325.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ѱ Thus, the establishment of a  xkdefault percall compensation rate was itself intended to address the possibility of unequal bargaining  S- xpower between PSPs and carriers. In the Payphone Orders, the Commission concluded that, once  xcompetitive market conditions exist, the most appropriate way to ensure that PSPs receive fair  SH- xcompensation for each call is to let the market set the price for individual calls originated on payphones. HJe S2%-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20,577, para 70; see also Second Report and Order at paras. 2328.#&a\  P6G;u&P#  xIt is only in cases where the market does not or cannot function properly that the Commission needs to" 3 ,N(N(JJq"  S- x?take affirmative steps to ensure fair compensation.!e Sh-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Second Report and Order at para. 122 n.325.#&a\  P6G;u&P#Ѱ For example, because TOCSIA requires all  xpayphones to unblock access to OSPs through the use of access codes (including 800 access numbers),  x=PSPs cannot block access to 800 numbers generally. TOCSIA does not, however, prohibit an IXC from  xblocking subscriber 800 numbers from payphones, particularly if the IXC wants to avoid paying the per S`- xcall compensation charge on these calls."`he Sh-ԍx#K\  P@QɒP#Id.#&S\  P@Qu&P#ш Payphones that are not capable of transmitting payphone S8- xspecific coding digits must maintain the default rate established in the Second Report and Order for the  S-waiver period until FLEX ANI coding digits are available.#e S -ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See id. at para. 121. #&a\  P6G;u&P#ћ x  S- px` ` _96. In addition, the waiver of the payphonespecific coding digits requirements is  S- xlimited. The Bureau Waiver Order stated that at most 40 percent of the payphones were affected by the  St- xwaiver.$te S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See Bureau Waiver Order, 12 FCC Rcd 16,390, para. 10 n. 22.#&a\  P6G;u&P# As of March 9, 1998, the payphones not receiving payphonespecific coding digits will be  SL - xLreduced to almost 20 percent.%L He S4-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See supra para. 56. #&a\  P6G;u&P#њ Moreover, as discussed above, pursuant to the waiver, LECs and PSPs  S$ - xthat are capable of transmitting coding digits are obligated to do so.i&$ e S-  /Ѝx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id.Ġat para. 3. Thus, we anticipate that over the waiver period the number of payphones affected by the  yO-waiver will continue to decrease as LECs are able to provide the coding digits. #&a\  P6G;u&P#i AirTouch and ITA argue that they  xare unable to block certain calls for which its customers must pay compensation. As discussed above,  xyhowever, due to statutory constraints, LECs and PSPs are unable to block the use of their payphones by  S - xjtheir customers,' P e S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See supra para. 95.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ј and absent a negotiated agreement, the PSPs would not receive compensation without  S - x/the requirements of the Payphone Orders and the Second Report and Order.( e S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20,567, para. 49.#&a\  P6G;u&P#Ѷ We concluded in the  S^- xBureau Waiver Order that, on balance, the public interest warranted granting the waiver.)^e S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#Bureau Waiver Order, 12 FCC Rcd 16,39091, para. 1113.#&a\  P6G;u&P#Ѽ We similarly  xkconclude here that the equities under the circumstances and the goals of Section 276 make it clear that  xthe substantive grounds in support of the ITA and AirTouch petitions do not justify a delay in percall  S-compensation for subscriber 800 and access code calls.   S-  S-  px` ` `97.  The waivers granted in the Bureau Waiver Order and this order to the LECs and  x[PSPs will, we recognize, require AirTouch, ITA and IXCs to pay compensation for certain calls without  xthe ability to block those calls on a realtime basis. We find that it is nonetheless in the public interest  xto grant the waiver because the mandate of Section 276 is that the Commission adopt rules that provide  xPSPs with percall compensation, and the waiver will most expeditiously lead to this result. In light of  xthis mandate, we conclude that the potential harm from the absence of compensation to PSPs would be"40),N(N(JJB"  xzgreater than the potential harm to AirTouch, ITA, IXCs, and other payors from the inability to block certain payphone calls.  S- p%x` ` a98. We conclude consistent with our decisions in the MCI Order and the PCIA Order,  xthat delaying percall compensation for AirTouch and ITA would be harmful to other parties and adverse  x[to the public interest because it would deprive PSPs of compensation for subscriber 800 and access code  S- xcalls.%*e Sz-  Ѝx #X\  P6G;ɒP#See Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,  {OR- xiMO&O, DA 972565 (Com. Car. Bur. Dec. 5, 1997) ("MCI Order"); MO&O, DA 972622 (Com. Car. Bur. Dec.  {O - x17, 1997) ("PCIA Order"). See LEC Coalition at 7. In contrast, Congress expressly required the Commission to  xadopt rules "within 9 months" after the enactment of the 1996 Act "to ensure that all payphone service providers are  yO -fairly compensated for each and every" payphone call. 47 U.S.C.  276(b)(1)(A).#&a\  P6G;u&P#%  IXCs that provide interexchange service to payors such as AirTouch and ITA already have been  xkrelieved of part of their burden of paying carrier common line access charges to LECs insofar as those  S- xcharges previously subsidized LEC payphone operations.+e S -ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#MCI Order at para. 8 n. 28, para. 12.#&a\  P6G;u&P#Ѫ Additionally, IXCs already have increased  S- x[interstate rates and implemented percall charges for payphone compensation.,,e Sf-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See ex parte from Michael Kellogg, LEC Coalition to Magalie Salas, Attachment at 1 (Feb. 10, 1998) Moreover, considering  xythe access charge reduction, delaying percall compensation requirements, in addition to the access charge  SJ - x[reduction, would aggravate the immediate revenue loss to LEC providers of payphone services.-J e S-ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#See LEC Coalition Opposition at 7.#&a\  P6G;u&P#ѧ Thus,  xbalancing the equities, the public interest is best served by the immediate implementation of the  xCommission's compensation rules. Congress specifically provided for setting an expedited deadline for  S - xCommission action..h l e S-  Ѝx#]\  PCɒP#Congress made clear that time was of the essence by requiring the Commission to take all actions necessary  x,to implement Section 276 within 9 months "[i]n order to promote competition among payphone service providers  yO~-to the benefit of the general public." 47 U.S.C.  276(b)(1). #&a\  P6G;u&P# In the long term, of course, depriving PSPs of fair compensation would discourage  xthem from deploying their payphones widely, which would be inconsistent with an express congressional  S -purpose.h/ e S-  zЍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#A purpose of the payphone provision of the Act is to "promote the widespread deployment of payphone  yO-services to the benefit of the general public . . . ." 47 U.S.C.  276(b)(1).#&a\  P6G;u&P#h  SZ- x  S2-x` `  hh VII.@CONCLUSION  S- px` ` b99. In this order, we clarify that LECs must implement FLEX ANI to transmit  xzpayphonespecific coding digits that are not already provided as part of ANI ii. We grant waivers to  x.LECs, PSPs, and IXCs and conclude that the waivers are in the public interest to facilitate the transition  xjto percall compensation. We find that special circumstances with regard to the provision of FLEX ANI  xand the identification of calls coming from payphones justify these waivers. We conclude that the waivers  xwe grant in this order are necessary to facilitate the identification of calls coming from payphones in order for IXCs to pay payphone compensation consistent with Section 276 and are in the public interest. "5/,N(N(JJ"Ԍ S-x` `  hh VIII.@ORDERING CLAUSES  S-#&S\  P@Qu&P#  S- px` ` c100. Accordingly, pursuant to authority contained in Sections 1, 4, 201205, 218, 226,  xyand 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154, 201205, 218, 226, and 276, that the policies and requirements set forth herein ARE ADOPTED.  S- pRx` ` d101. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order is effective immediately upon release  S-thereof, and that the waivers included in this order are effective March 9, 1998.0e SP-  /ԍx#X\  P6G;ɒP#We find, for the reasons set forth in paragraphs 15 supra, that good cause exists for these waivers to be effective immediately.  0  S- pax` ` e102. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Section 203 of the Communications  x=Act, 47 U.S.C.  203, each of the LECs, absent a waiver, SHALL FILE tariff revisions to their interstate  xaccess tariffs to reflect the availability of FLEX ANI for IXCs for the purpose of payphone compensation  xno later than March 31, 1998, with a scheduled effective date of April 15, 1998, if FLEX ANI is available  xzfor 25% or more of the smart payphones in its service area. Thereafter, within the waiver period it is  xgranted in this order, a LEC must file its tariff revision to provide FLEX ANI to IXCs no later than when it provides FLEX ANI to 25% or more of the smart payphones in its service area.  SX- pax` ` f103. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Section 203 of the Communications  xAct, 47 U.S.C.  203, each of the LECs providing FLEX ANI SHALL FILE tariffs to recover the cost  xof implementing FLEX ANI as required herein no later than 30 days after full implementation of FLEX ANI.  S-  px` ` g104. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that LECs are granted a waiver of Part 69 of the  xzCommission's rules to develop a rate element for recovery of costs incurred to implement FLEX ANI from PSPs for the requirements of this order to provide FLEX ANI to IXCs.  S- px` ` h105. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the ITA Petition for Reconsideration and the  S-AirTouch Petition for Waiver of the Bureau Waiver Order ARE DENIED.  S- px` ` i106.  1. a. i.(1)(a)(i) 1) a)j I. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the waiver requests of USTA, the LEC Coalition, and TDS ARE GRANTED to the extent described herein, and otherwise ARE DENIED. x` `  hhA. Richard Metzger, Jr. x` `  hhChief, Common Carrier Bureau  S!-#&S\  P@Qu&P# x` `  hh@ "r#600,N(N(JJ$"  R- Bureau Waiver Order  x` `   Comments AT&T Corporation (AT&T) Ameritech (Ameritech) American Communications Council (APCC) Bell Atlantic (Bell Atlantic) Competitive Telecommunications Association (CompTel) Frontier Corporation (Frontier) MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI) National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. (NECA) RBOC/GTE/SNET Payphone Coalition (LEC Coalition) RCN Telecom Services, Inc. (RCN) Southern New England Telephone Company (SNET) Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT) Pacific Bell (Pacific) Nevada Bell (Nevada) Sprint Corporation (Sprint) TDS Telecommunications Corporation (TDS) US West WorldCom Replies American Public Communications Council (APCC) AT&T Corporation (AT&T) Excel International Telecard Association (ITA) LCI International Telecommunications, Inc. (LCI) MCI NTCA Peoples RBOC/GTE/SNET Payphone Coalition (LEC Coalition) RCN Telecom Services, Inc. (RCN) Southern New England Telephone Company (SNET) Sprint TDS Telecommunications Corporation (TDS) USTA U.S. West (US West) WorldCom, Inc. (WorldCom)  SH$- "&70,N(N(JJn("Ԍ S-ԙITA Petition  S- Comments AirTouch Paging (AirTouch) American Public Communications Council (APCC) RBOC/GTE/SNET Payphone Coalition (LEC Coalition) SmarTalk Teleservices, Inc. Telecommunications Resellers Association (TRA) WorldCom, Inc. (WorldCom) Replies LEC Coalition ITA  S -  S -AirTouch Petition  SX-Comments  S0- American Communications Council (APCC) AirTouch Paging (AirTouch) American Alpha Dispatch Services, Inc. Dispatchers: xAbsolute Best Monitoring, Inc. Affordable Message Center, Inc. Procommunications, Inc. xNational Dispatch Center, Inc. xAbacus, Inc. xUnited Cellular Paging, Inc. xDispatch America, Inc. xAll Office Support Mobile Telecommunications Technologies Corp. (Mtel) PageMart Wireless, Inc. (PageMart) RBOC/GTE/SNET Payphone Coalition (LEC Coalition) Telecommunications Resellers Association (TRA) Replies LEC Coaltition AirTouch