WPC? 2BEJ Courier X-#XP\  P6QynXP#3|xRoom 210tHPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\7%aIX@26KF6 Z{3|P"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNl@?$A@l?CTechnical 2Technical 2= Technical 3Technical 3> Technical 4Technical 4?` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 1@ 2IA$CB$FC%HDHTechnical 7Technical 7A` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 8Technical 8B` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#WP Heading 2WP Heading 2C44#6X@C@##Xv6X@CX@#WP Heading 1WP Heading 1D44#6X@C@# #Xv6X@CX@#2OREIFKGNH1Ptoc 1toc 1E` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#toc 2toc 2F` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3G` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4H` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#2QYIRJTKvVL3Wtoc 5toc 5I` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#toc 6toc 6J` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7K toc 8toc 8L` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#2aMYN[O]P_toc 9toc 9M` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#index 1index 1N` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2O` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toa headingtoa headingP` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#25dQv-bRlbSrcTccaptioncaptionQ _Equation Caption_Equation CaptionR endnote referenceendnote referenceS HeadingChapter HeadingTJ d  ) I. ׃  2gUgdVeWeXfRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersU>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheadingV0\ E A.  Default ParaMtDefault Paragraph FontRK+7*P0_ f—+7*bWpara numS3n6OMnumbered indented paragraphs 3H*_0F_8S\EX/'0 1.#Xx{2 PQXP# 1.Ҳ2jY^hZdch[7h\iFOOTNOTES9n6OMFootnote - Appearance8S 9H*_0F_8S\EY78HIGHLIGHT 1n6OMItalics and Bold(_08S :H*_0F_8S\EZ9: DRAFT ONS;n6OMHeader A Text = DRAFT and DateH*_0F_8S\E[;< X 8#Xx6X@QX@#`X (#EDRAFTă `H(#@D3 1, 4D  DRAFT OFF?n6OMTurn Draft Style off8S ?H*_0F_8S\E\D=>    2Xp]cj^c/l_cm`cnLETTER LANDn6OMLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5 AH*_0F_8S\E] AB '3   LEGAL LANDn6OMLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5S BH*_0F_8S\E^ CD 'A   LETTER PORTn6OMLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11S CH*_0F_8S\E_ EF 3'   LEGAL PORTn6OMLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14S DH*_0F_8S\E` GH A'   2GranpbpcdyqdjqTITLESEn6OMTitle of a Document8S EH*_0F_8S\EaIJ* ăBLOCK QUOTEn6OMSmall, single-spaced, indentedH*_0F_8S\EbMN HIGHLIGHT 2n6OMLarge and Bold=(_08S IH*_0F_8S\EcQR HIGHLIGHT 3n6OMLarge, Italicized and UnderscoredH*_0F_8S\Ed S T2xeyrfItgEvh<VwLETTERHEADn6OMLetterhead - date/marginsS KH*_0F_8S\Ee!U V X  3'   * 3' Ѓ   INVOICE FEEn6OMFee Amount for Math Invoice LH*_0F_8S\EfWX X, $0  MEMORANDUMn6OMMemo Page Format(_08S MH*_0F_8S\EgYZ  * M E M O R A N D U M ă y<N dddy INVOICE EXPn6OMExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice*_0F_8S\Eh[\ ,p, $02}i<xjHzkXH}l[}INVOICE TOTn6OMTotals Invoice for Math MacroOH*_0F_8S\Ei]^ p,p, $0INVOICE HEADn6OMHeading Portion of Math InvoiceH*_0F_8S\Ejv_`l   p,X 9H#Xx6X@QX@# XX  *$HHީH  ӧ   XX H#Xx6X@QX@# XX  *$HHީHNORMALSSn6OMReturn to Normal TypestyleS SH*_0F_8S\EkabSMALLSTn6OMSmall Typestyle=(_08S TH*_0F_8S\Elcd2m[-~n[~o[~p[>FINE8SUn6OMFine Typestyle=(_08S UH*_0F_8S\EmefLARGESVn6OMLarge Typestyle=(_08S VH*_0F_8S\EnghEXTRA LARGEn6OMExtra Large Typestyle8S WH*_0F_8S\EoijVERY LARGEn6OMVery Large Typestyle8S XH*_0F_8S\Epkl2 qrXsXtgENVELOPESYn6OMStandard Business Envelope with Header0F_8S\Eqmn V,  X  , 8N#Xx6X@QX@#   N `   MACNormal[n6OM Z/08=(_08S [H*_0F_8S\Erop2X_8S\n6OM Z/08=(_08S \H*_0F_8S\EsqrStyle 14S]n6OMSwiss 8 Pt Without MarginsS ]H*_0F_8S\Et's't#Co> PQP##)a [ PQXP#2u?v( ws xStyle 12S`n6OMDutch Italics 11.508S `H*_0F_8S\Eu'u'v#)^ `> Xi QXX##)a [ P QXP#Style 11Sbn6OMInitial Codes for Advanced IIbH*_0F_8S\Evwx#)a [ P QXP# dn  #  [ b, oT9 !#)a [ P QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi QXX#`e%%Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   #)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiQXX#Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   #)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiQXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  #)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiQXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3Shn6OMDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs*_0F_8S\Ewyz#)a [ PQXP# n  ## b, oT9 !Style 4Sin6OMSwiss 8 Point with MarginsS iH*_0F_8S\ExG{|#Co> PQP# dd  #  2yQz{_|Style 1Sjn6OMDutch Roman 11.5 Font8S jH*_0F_8S\Ey7}~#)a [ PQXP# dn Style 2Skn6OMDutch Italic 11.5_08S kH*_0F_8S\Ez'#)^ `> XiQXX#Style 5Sln6OMDutch Bold 18 Point8S lH*_0F_8S\E{''#T~> pQp##)a [ PQXP#Style 7Snn6OMSwiss 11.5Z/08=(_08S nH*_0F_8S\E|''#)ao> PQXP##)a [ PQXP#2S}ݑ~F F ɛD Style 6Spn6OMDutch Roman 14 Point8S pH*_0F_8S\E}''#w [ PQP##)a [ PQXP#Style 10Srn6OMInitial Codes for AdvancedS rH*_0F_8S\E~#)a [ PQXP# dn   #  [ b, oT9 !#)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi QXX#`Ue%'Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P!QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi"QXX#Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P#QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi$QXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  #)a [ P%QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi&QXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8Swn6OMInitial Codes for Beginning wH*_0F_8S\E#)a [ P'QXP# dn  ## b, oT9  [ #)a [ P(QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi)QXX#`1e%&Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P*QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi+QXX#Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P,QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi-QXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  #)a [ P.QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi/QXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9S|n6OMInitial Codes for IntermediateH*_0F_8S\E#)a [ P0QXP# dn  ## b, oT9 Њ [ #)a [ P1QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi2QXX#`ke%%Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P3QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi4QXX#Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P5QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi6QXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`e%APage  #)a [ P7QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi8QXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2:U ڷpYqɸUpdateSn6OMInitial Codes for Update ModuleH*_0F_8S\E#)a [ P9QXP# dn  ##  [ b, oT9 !#)a [ P:QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi;QXX#`e%"Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   #)a [ P<QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi=QXX#Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   #)a [ P>QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi?QXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  #)a [ P@QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiAQXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 head1Sn6OMb Z/08=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E'#2pDC #3X_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E` ` ` 4X_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E  . 29eleѹ6pɺ5X_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E  6X_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E  7X_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E*   8X_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E` ` ` 2ѽk-9X_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\E8@   10_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\EA@` `  ` ` ` 11_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E0    12_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\EJ` ` @  ` `  2f%13_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\ES` `  @  14_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\E\` `  @hh# hhh 15_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 16_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\En` `  hh#(@- ( 2/17_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 18_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\EF D*  ׃  19_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&  . 20_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&  . 2[21_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E*    22_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E'   23_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&   24_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E4$     2}25_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&  . 26_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&  . 27_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E$ 28_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E/` ` ` 2\a29_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E:` ` `  30_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\EE` ` `  31_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\EP` ` ` hhh 32_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E[ 2M2I33_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\Ef 34_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\Eq toa_8Sn6OMtoa Z/08=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E` hp x (#_Equation Can6OM_Equation Caption_08S H*_0F_8S\E;;#Xx{2 PGQXP##C\  PHQP#2Iqe$endnote refen6OMendnote reference_08S H*_0F_8S\E>>#Xx{2 PIQXP##C\  PJQP#footnote refn6OMfootnote reference08S H*_0F_8S\E>#Xx{2 PKQXP#35_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E  . 36_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E  2e p#37_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E  38_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E*   39_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E` ` ` 40_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\E8@   2h41_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\EA@` `  ` ` ` 42_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E0     43_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\EJ` ` @  ` `  44_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\ES` `  @  2P45_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\E\` `  @hh# hhh 46_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\Ee  ` `  hh#@( hh# 47_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\En  ` `  hh#(@- ( 48_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\Ew ` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2:49_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\EF D*  ׃  50_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&  . 51_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&  . 52_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E*    2lE53_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E'   54_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&   55_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E4$     56_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&  . 2}57_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&   . 58_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E$!" 59_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E/#$` ` ` 60_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E:%&` ` `  2KF61_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\EE'(` ` `  62_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\EP)*` ` ` hhh 63_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E[+, 64_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\Ef-. 2765_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\Eq/0 66_8Sn6OMDefault Paragraph Font8S H*_0F_8S\EO1O2#PLP##PMP#67_8Sn6OM_Equation Caption_08S H*_0F_8S\EO3O4#PNP##POP#68_8Sn6OMendnote reference_08S H*_0F_8S\ER5R6#PPP##PQP#23OZ69_8Sn6OMfootnote reference08S H*_0F_8S\ER78#PRP#endnote textn6OMendnote text08=(_08S H*_0F_8S\ECDfootnote texn6OMfootnote text8=(_08S H*_0F_8S\EEF1, 2, 3,Sn6OMNumbers Z/08=(_08S H*_0F_8S\EIJ1.2depq;A, B,Sn6OMUppercase Letters_08S H*_0F_8S\E KL.70_8Sn6OMfootnote text8=(_08S H*_0F_8S\EZMPN71_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\EOP` ` ` 72_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\EQ R . 2eeCp;73_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E ST 74_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E UV 75_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E*WX   76_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\EYZ` ` ` 2Co 77_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\E8[\@   78_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\EA]^@` `  ` ` ` 79_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E0_ `    80_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\EJab` ` @  ` `  2Mu"81_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\EScd` `  @82_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\E\ef` `  @hh# hhh 83_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\Eegh` `  hh#@( hh# 2WG84_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\Enij` `  hh#(@- ( 85_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\Ewkl` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 86_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\EFmn D*  ׃  87_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&op  . 2?88_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&qr  . 89_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E*st    90_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E'uv   91_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&wx   2<:}92_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E4y$z     93_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&{|  . 94_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&}~  . 95_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E$ 2n'96_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E/` ` ` 97_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E:` ` `  98_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\EE` ` `  99_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\EP` ` ` hhh 2uF?100_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E[ 101_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\Ef 102_8S n6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\Eq 103_8S n6OMDefault Paragraph Font8S H*_0F_8S\Eww#PSP##PTP#2FLI104_8S n6OM_Equation Caption_08S H*_0F_8S\Eww#PUP##PVP#105_8S n6OMendnote reference_08S H*_0F_8S\Ezz#PWP##PXP#106_8S n6OMfootnote reference08S H*_0F_8S\Ez#PYP#107_8Sn6OMfootnote text8=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E2 pq_ e e5 108_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E` ` ` 109_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E  . 110_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E  111_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E  2  p_  a 112_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E*   113_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E` ` ` 114_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\E8@   115_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\EA@` `  ` ` ` 2G.  KgW116_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E0     117_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\EJ` ` @  ` `  "i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`lBdYddBoBBBYYFdBNB2Bdddd(dB7dqBdPn<dYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddTimes New RomanArialCG Omega  P6G;P7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP^ ,` 2PG;` P3rE<,qr2PG;qPEEtt.EEENErrzSxzttx::Jtt(EEQz:E::tttttttttt::zzztӋ:htċ:::btEtthtt:tt..h.ttttEh:thhhhE6Ez.tEttEЋE..EEItEhE:Etttt6tEMtzEsSrEEExp:EELtЖ::::ztttttthtttt::::tttttttrttttht24yKKKTimes New RomanArialCG OmegaTimes New Roman Bold New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)Courier New (TT)"i~'^<8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""ddzzzzzzzzzzBBBBozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYdTimes New RomanArialCG OmegaTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicCourier7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP^ ,` 2PG;` P!3rE<,qr2PG;qP"q%R2+,R2PG;P6#7wC8,Xw5 P7XP$7nC:,/?p// ?/ /? /? /? /? /? ??/? /? 0?? 0? ?03332?233p?3?x4>NONNN?QPQPQPO??O?PO Q PSRRRSRR0Q?R?QQQ?????>?>?BAA@@@? @??? ?? ?? ?? ??  &?   % ? $  ?$  $   _ ?                  ?             ?     ?    ?? ? ~  ?   ??       ?              ? ?        ?   ?  ??      ?   ?     ?     ?  ?   ?     ??  ?  ?  ??  ?? ???  ? ?  ? ?  ?  ?  ? ?  ? ?   ??  ??       ?  ?            ?      ? ?  ?         ?    ?  ?  ?          ?  ? ?? ? ?   ?   ?  ?   ?  ? ? ?  ? ?  ? ? O ?  ?   ?  ? ?  ?  ?  ? ?  ?  ?  ?  ? ?  ? ?? ? ? ??  ?  ?  ? ? ?  ? ? ?  ?  ?  ? -? ? - ? - . - . - . -?  ?  ?     ? ? ? !? "? "? "? !? !? ! ?  ?   ?   ?  ?   ?  ?   ? ? ?   ?   ?           ?  ?     ?  ??       ?  ??  ?!  ?    ?    ?              ?                          |     ?      ?   ?      ?      ? ?   ?               ?         À    ?       ?       ? ?     ? ?  ?? ??  ?        ?   ? ?  ?   ?   ?  ?        ? ?   ?   ?   ?  ? ?  ?  ?    ?     ?     ~    ?          ?    ? ?    ?  ?            ? ?   ?  p  ??  ?     ? ??? ? ?> ? ??  ??  ?? ?? ?? ? ??  ?? ? ??  ?  ??  ?  ? ? ?       ?      ? ?  |  x ? ? ?   ? ?2??2  ?2  344 ?7 ? ?@@?@? ?? ?@@?=<??<<;?;;::?: 9 9 ?9 9?9?9?9?9?998? 8? 8? 8? ?8? 7? 7? ?7? 7? 7? 7??77 76??6644 4  3 ? ?3 ? 3 ? ?2  ?3 3 ?3 ?333?33?3?5555551?2?21?11111??2?+<?,?,, ?, , ?, ?, ,? - ?. . ?.?....?.?./0?00000?0?0??1122222MLL?LMLN*?!*"ǀ*!I!I!I"I!'"&?!& ?"&!&?!&+& ,& +& ,& ?+' ,/+/*/?*/?+/?*/?+/?*/?+/?*/?*/ ?*/ +/ ?*/ +/ )/ ?*/ )/).).*.?).*.).*.).?).? (.? ?).? ?(.??).(.)/(/?(/(/)/(/)/ ?-/ ./ -/-/?-0.0?-1.718281llmlmlmlllmlmlmlllmlmlmlllmlmlmlllmlmlmlllmlmlmlllmlmlmlllmlmlmll ^   XX  X Њ Figure 1  Figure 1 #` a2PQ` P#y!XX ddNOT.TIFy$XX%%%%!$PUBLIC NOTICE#q\2PQqP# !FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION !1919 M STREET, N.W. !WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554  T-%%XX%%Px#YD2PQP# PxNews Media Information (202) 4180500.  qF- XX Internet http://www.fcc.gov #r\ PQXP#  Xs-#N\  PQynXP# DA 9822650 |3Released: November 6, 1998 0  0 cCOMMON CARRIER BUREAU SEEKS COMMENT ON NORTH AMERICAN NUMBERING COUNCIL REPORT CONCERNING ( TELEPHONE NUMBER POOLING AND OTHER OPTIMIZATION MEASURES T   NSD File No. L98134 T  X-TxComments Due: December 21, 1998  X_-T   INTRODUCTION ĐTP  X1-x#XN\  PynXP#On October 21, 1998, the North American Numbering Council (NANC)fB1 yO-ԍxIn an order released on July 13, 1995, Commission established the North American Numbering Council (NANC) pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Administration of the North American  {O:-Numbering Plan, Report and Order, FCC 95-283, CC Docket No. 92-237, 11 FCC Rcd 2588, 2590 (1995). The membership of NANC, which includes thirtytwo voting members and four special nonvoting members, was selected to represent all segments of the telecommunications industry as well as regulatory entities and consumer groups with interests in numbering administration. Under the current NANC charter the Council is directed to develop recommendations on numbering policy issues and facilitate number conservation including identification of technical solutions to numbering exhaust.f submitted a report to the Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau) entitled "Number Resource Optimization Working Group Modified Report to the North American Numbering Council on  X-Number Optimization Methods" (hereinafter NANC Report) on telephone number pooling and numerous other strategies for optimizing the use of telephone numbers in the North American  X-Numbering Plan (NANP) in the United States. The NANC provided this report in response to a March 23, 1998, letter from the Chief of the Bureau requesting that NANC provide a report "sufficiently detailed to support both technically and operationally, a uniform, nationwide  Xy-system for pooling by December 1999." The Bureau's request also asked the NANC to give other number conservation solutions, in addition to pooling, a very high priority in its report. The Bureaus March 23 letter to the NANC noted that we had received numerous inquiries from state public utility commissions and others seeking number conservation methods that could decrease the frequency of requests for area code relief.  X  xThe rapid growth in demand for new area codes is a symptom of underlying  X"-inefficiencies in the manner numbering resources are currently allotted, and unless mitigated,X",,,XXe"3X!XXX  X-could undermine the longterm viability of the North American Numbering Plan. \ yOy-ԍxThe North American Numbering Plan (NANP) is the basic numbering scheme permitting interoperable telecommunications service within the United States, Canada, Bermuda, and most of the Caribbean. Under the plan, the United States is divided into multiple zones. These zones are referred to as Numbering Plan Areas (NPAs), and the three digits representing those areas are referred to either as NPA codes or area codes. The second set of three digits in a tendigit telephone number has historically represented central offices and is called a central office (CO) code or NXX code. The CO code, which is combined with all permutations of the last four digits of a telephone number to produce a block of 10,000 unique numbers, is used for routing, rating, and billing calls. Most carriers are allocated all 10,000 numbers contained in a CO code for each rate center in which they provide service in a given NPA. Because all of the numbers contained in a CO code, however, may not be assigned to customers before a new CO code is requested and allocated, many of the 10,000 numbers contained in a CO code could go unused for considerable periods of time. The increased rate of CO code allocations to new carriers, coupled with the continued allocation of new CO codes before all the numbers in preexisting codes are assigned, rapidly depletes the available CO codes in an NPA code. Eventually, all CO codes in an NPA code are allocated, forcing the introduction of a new NPA code, so more 10,000number blocks can be allocated to carriers. This occurs even though a considerable amount of numbers contained in the CO codes of the previously introduced NPA code may not have been assigned to customers. This situation is largely attributable both to the inefficient means by which telephone numbers are currently allocated to service providers and to recent, evolving fundamental changes to the structure of the telecommunications marketplace. Adding new area codes, in turn, creates inconvenience and costs for consumers, requires the telecommunications industry to perform network upgrades, and places a heavy burden on scarce state public utility commission resources. xIn this public notice, we are soliciting comments on the NANC Report in order to facilitate future proceedings to implement measures intended to make more efficient use of the existing telecommunications numbering resource in the United States. Indeed, parties should take the term optimization as we use it here, to mean providing greater and more efficient use of existing numbering resources through cost effective methods. Given this objective, we seek comments on methods that meet these criteria. Our goal is to develop a longterm solution that will minimize customer inconvenience and societal costs, forestall or eliminate the premature exhaust of the NANP, and slow the introduction of new area codes. We seek comment from all sectors of the industry"wireline and wireless"as well as state commissions, consumers and consumer groups, and other participants in the NANP, about the relative costs and benefits of the measures proposed in the NANC Report. Although the  XK-Commission maintains exclusive jurisdiction over the NANP in the United States,qK\ yO !-#X\  P6G;ɒP#эx47 U.S.C.  251(e)(1).q achieving solutions which optimize the use of the telephone numbering resources requires a collaborative effort between all of these entities and this Commission.  X-  OVERVIEW OF THE NANC REPORT X-TP  X-x The NANC Report identifies 14 measures that may be used to optimize the use of  X-telecommunications numbering resources. The Report organizes the measures into three"0*((" categories: Measures that Affect Local Calling ( 13), Measures that are Location Routing  X-Number (LRN)basedD \ yOb-ԍxLocation Routing Number (LRN) is a method used for number porting, which was recommended by the  {O*-industry and state/regional workshops, and adopted by the Commission in Telephone Number Portability, Second  {O-Report and Order, CC Docket No. 95116, FCC 97289, 12 FCC Rcd. 12281, 12283 (1997). The Commission adopted a phased implementation schedule for LNP, with deployment in the largest 100 Metropolitan Statistical  {O-Areas to be completed by December 31, 1998. SeeĠ47 C.F.R.  52.23(b)(1); 47 C.F.R. Part 52, Appendix. Beginning January 1, 1999, carriers must provide number portability in other areas within six months of a request by another carrier in the same area. 47 C.F.R.  52.23(c). Although wireless service providers are also required to implement LNP, the implementation deadline for these providers was extended until March 31, 2000. Telephone Number Portability, Petition for Extension of Implementation Deadlines of the Cellular  {Op -Telecommunications Industry Association, Memorandum Opinion and Order, CC Docket No. 95116, DA 981763 (Wireless Telecom. Bur., rel. Sept. 1, 1998). In addition, the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association has filed a petition for forbearance from LNP requirements for the wireless industry. Public Notice, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on CTIA Petition Requesting Forbearance from CMRS Number Portability Requirements, CC Docket No. 95116, DA 98111 (rel. Jan. 22, 1998).D ( 47), and Measures that do not Require Local Number Portability ( 814). Each measure is treated as a separate section in the following format: (1) description of the measure; (2) additional assumptions; (3)implementation time line; (4) cost estimation; (5) benefits of the measure; (6) technical considerations; (7) impacts on competition; (8) consumer issues; (9) public safety issues; and (10) other considerations. Several minority opinions are included in the report. The final section assesses the needs of the states with respect to numbering resource optimization. NANC Report  15. xThe methods discussed in Measures that Affect Local Calling include rate center consolidation, extended local calling, and inconsistent rate centers (IRCs), which are also  X -known as noncoincident rate centers. Rate center consolidation minimizes demand for NXXs by reducing the number of rating areas within an NPA, thereby reducing the number of NXXs a carrier requires to serve customers within the NPA. NANC Report  1.1. Several state utility commissions already have experience in implementing these ratecenter based measures,  X -and the Commission has encouraged states to undertake these measures.C \ {O-ԍx See also Petition for Declaratory Ruling and Request for Expedited Action on the July 15, 1997 Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Regarding Area Codes 412, 610, 215, and 717, and  {Or-Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Memorandum  {O<-Opinion and Order and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 98224, CC Docket 9698, NSD File No. L9742 (rel.  {O-Sept. 28, 1998) (Pennsylvania Order) at  29. C NANC Report  1.1. Extended local calling areas (ELCAs) are technical arrangements which typically allow wireline callers to call wireless subscribers within a large geographic area. The wireless carrier can assign numbers from a single NXX to cover the ELCA, which may cover several rate centers. In this way, wireless carriers may only require as many NXXs as are necessary to serve their customers, rather than obtaining one NXX per rate center. NANC Report  2.1. Although ELCAs have to date only been deployed between wireless and wireline service providers, the NANC Report notes that nothing precludes wireline to wireline participation in ELCAs. We seek comment on the possibility of wirelinetowireline ELCAs as a means of improving number usage optimization, including implications for current interconnection"@0*((T" agreements and pricing arrangements. Similar to ELCAs, IRCs may be used by competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) to serve a larger geographic area than an incumbent LEC's rate center, enabling the CLEC to use fewer NXXs to serve the area than would the ILEC. With respect to these local calling measures, we seek comment on whether there is any need for federal involvement. xThe second category entitled Measures that are LRNbased includes individual telephone number (ITN) pooling, thousands block number pooling, unassigned number porting, and location portability. These four measures are dependent on the existing Local Number Portability (LNP) architecture that utilizes LRN. The first two methods, ITN and thousandsblock pooling, modify the existing regime in which service providers receive an entire NXX code, and all 10,000 numbers assigned to the code. Pooling technologies permit carriers to obtain access to the embedded resource of telephone numbers which are within an NXX but may not be in use. The NANC Report states that because thousandsblock pooling can be implemented within 19 months from the date of a regulatory order, it is the pooling option with the greatest potential to meet the timeframe requested in the Bureau's March 23  X-letter. See NANC Report "NANC Recommendation Regarding the Report of the Numbering Resource Optimization Working Group (NROWG) September 23, 1998." Unassigned number porting (UNP) and location portability also draw on LNP technologies, but do not require the pooling of numbers. UNP allows carriers to transfer unused telephone numbers among themselves, for assignment to a specific customer. NANC Report  6.1.1. The method differs from the two pooling measures described above in that UNP is a bilateral arrangement between two carriers, at the direction of a UNP coordinator, but does not require a pool administrator. Of the four LNPbased technologies which the NANC identified, we are particularly interested in receiving comments addressing ITN, thousandsblock pooling, and unassigned number porting. As the Commission recently stated that it has no current plans to mandate location portability, at this time we do not seek comment on the use of location  X-portability as a numbering optimization measure, but may do so in the future.\ {O-ԍ xTelephone Number Portability, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 98-275 (rel. Oct. 20, 1998). xThe final category, "Measures that do not Require Local Number Portability," represents a collection of administrative and technological methods related to the management of numbering resources. As identified in the NANC Report, these measures are: NXX code sharing, code sharing using route indexing, mandatory 10digit dialing, industry assignment guidelines, overlays, reducing the demand for telephone numbers, and geographic splits. The Commission has already delegated to states the authority to implement overlays, splits and  X-boundary realignments for new area codes. 47 C.F.R.  52.19(a); see NANC Report  12 and 14. These measures provide additional numbering resources to alleviate problems with number shortages. For example, an area code split eliminates a number shortage in a given geographic area by opening a new NPA, rather than improving the utilization of telephone numbers within the existing NPA. f%p"********Although the work the NANC devoted to these measures will be helpful to states implementing these area code relief plans, given the definition of"l$"0*((F#" "optimization" set forth above, we will not seek comment on these measures at the present time, but may do so in the future. #XN\  P ynXP#xFour of the nonLNP based measures, however, may improve number optimization. These include mandatory tendigit dialing, industry assignment guidelines, code sharing, and code sharing using route indexing. Mandatory tendigit dialing could increase the number of  Xv-NXX codes available in a given NPA by eliminating socalled "protected" codeszv\ yO-ԍxProtected codes are NXXs not available for use, typically because they are being used in close geographic proximity in an adjacent NPA in an area where there exists interNPA sevendigit dialing. Tendigit dialing would allow the combined total of protected NXXs in two adjacent NPAs to be made available for assignment. The CO Code Assignment guidelines recommend, as a central office code conservation measure, that the use of protected codes should be eliminated by requiring tendigit interNPA dialing, while retaining  {O -sevendigit dialing for intraNPA calls. See Central Office Code (NXX) Assignment Guidelines, INC 950407008 (reissued July 13, 1998), at  9.2(D). within the  X_-NPA and by allowing an NXX code to begin with either a "0" or a "1." See NANC Report  10. Modification of the Central Office Code Assignment Guidelines also has the potential to increase the efficient and judicious use of NXX codes. For example, by establishing "fill  X -rates," i.e., reasonable degrees of utilization, carriers could be required to use more of the numbers assigned to them within an NXX before they could be assigned a new NXX code. NANC Report  11.a. We seek comment on both the tendigit dialing measure, and on modifying the CO Code Assignment Guidelines to achieve optimization of numbering resources. Finally, while the NANC identified NXX code sharing, code sharing using route indexing, and reducing demand for telephone numbers as possible number usage optimization measures, due to time constraints, it was unable to provide detailed elaboration on these  X}-measures. See NANC Report  8, 9, and 13. We do not seek comment on these measures at this time, although we may consider requesting that the NANC provide further analysis of these measures in the future.  X#- xWe therefore encourage parties to focus on those measures that appear to be the most effective. A focused approach will permit commenters to submit more substantive information and data to enrich the record. In summary, the measures identified in the NANC Report on which we particularly invite comment are extended local calling areas, ITN pooling, thousandsblock pooling, unassigned number porting, mandatory tendigit dialing, and modification to industry assignment guidelines. xBelow, we set forth in greater detail a number of issues concerning those measures on which we particularly wish to focus commenters' attention.  X=- IMPROVED DATA COLLECTION ON NUMBERING RESOURCES T  X-TP xOne area that the NANC Report recognizes as important is compiling accurate data reflecting present numbering allocation and usage. The manner in which numbers are currently allocated is based on forecasts. There is general industry agreement that the current" 0*(("  X-industry model, the Central Office Code Utilization Survey (COCUS)"\ yOy-ԍxCOCUS studies are mandatory and conducted annually by the NANPA from direct input from CO Code Administrators (entities responsible for the administration of NXXs within an NPA). The purpose of the  {O -COCUS is to provide an overall view of both present and projected CO Code (NXX) utilization. See id. at  13  yO-(Glossary).ë has not served to accurately examine the actual usage of allocated numbers. We believe that accurate utilization data and accurate forecasts are necessary to understand the scope of the current problem; to aid in choosing appropriate solutions; and to assure that, in practice, selected number usage optimization measures actually provide the desired effect. xThe NANC Report supports establishing reporting and auditing requirements as an integral step to numbering optimization. For example, the State Issues Task Force section proposes state data collection activity that addresses the informational requirements that are necessary to measure utilization and facilitate usage forecasting. NANC Report 15.10. The ITN Pooling section recommends data reporting for the pooling administrative system. NANC Report  4.6.7.2, 4.6.7.3, 4.6.7.4, 4.6.7.5, 4.6.7.6. Similarly, the Thousands Block Pooling Section notes that reliable data are needed to establish the availability of spare numbers to determine whether pooling will optimize number usage in a particular area. NANC Report  5.3.1.2. xHaving recognized the necessity of a sufficiently detailed summary of number usage,  Xy-we seek comment on the role that state utility commissions, the Commission, and the NANPA  Xb-should play in requesting data, analyzing data, and sanctioning parties for noncompliance or submissions of misleading telephone number usage data. Commenters are invited to address the reporting proposals contained in the NANC Report as well those proposed in other fora. What additional information, if any, as proposed by the various NANC task forces, is necessary to provide a foundation for improving the national numbering database? We encourage commenting parties to address such questions as what entity or entities should be assigned the responsibility of requesting number usage data from carriers and other code holders and whether the NANPA or some other entity should perform forecast analyses on such data. xAccurate data collection also requires a process by which carrier reporting can be  Xe-verified, and it is generally agreed that audits serve this function. See, e.g., NANC Report  11c. The NANC Report also supports audits as the method by which reporting and forecasts should be monitored. The State Issues Task Force section notes that some states commented that audits of compliance with numbering guidelines will be an important issue to them. NANC Report  15.17. The ITN Pooling section states that audits will become increasingly important with ITN pooling. NANC Report  4.6.7.5. We note that these issues are being"0*(("  X-addressed in a variety of fora.y \ yOy-ԍxNANC has tasked the Number Resource Optimization (NRO) Working Group, NANPA and Industry Numbering Committee (INC) with review and recommendation of utilization audits, enforcement mechanisms  {O -and possible sanctions for non-compliance. See NANC Meeting Minutes, May 27, 1998, page 5 (directional approval to NANPA to work with NRO Working Group on improved COCUS/LINUS data collection model).  {O-The task of determining audit responsibility has been transferred to the NANPA Oversight Working Group. See  {Me-id.y The NANC Report does not address specific sanctions that  X-could be imposed against noncompliant carriers, e.g. those who do not provide data, or those who provide inaccurate or misleading data, although the NANC is actively working on these issues. We therefore seek comments on auditing procedures, enforcement procedures, and  X-sanctions for ensuring accurate submission of telephone number usage information. See NANC Report  11c. We also seek comment on the role that states, the NANPA, and the Commission should play in the enforcement and auditing process, and what entities should enforce compliance with the submission of data. xWe realize that creating a number usage reporting mechanism and the related  X -enforcement activities requires clear definitions of the status of telephone numbers (e.g., "assigned," "reserved," "aging," "working"). The State Issues Task Force section recognizes the importance of standardized definitions. NANC Report at  15.1.8. Various fora are  X -analyzing these definitional issues. $ D\ yO-ԍxAt present an ad hoc group of NANC members is reviewing the definition of "reserved" telephone  {O-numbers. See October NANC Meeting Minutes. The Industry Number Committee will incorporate the recently  {Ob-agreed upon definition for "aging" into the assignment guidelines. See NANC Meeting Minutes, February 24, 1998. We seek comment on appropriate telephone number status definitions. To the extent certain of these terms are already defined in the tollfree context, we request that parties comment on whether we should also consider using these  X-definitions generally. See 47 C.F.R.  52.103.  Xj-  COSTS AND BENEFITS OF PROPOSED NUMBER  XS-' USAGE OPTIMIZATION MEASURES TP  X%- xA considerable portion of the NANC Report provides preliminary estimates of the social costs and benefits associated with the alternative number usage optimization measures. The costs and benefits of each measure are identified in subsections 4 and 5 of each chapter of the Report. xThe NANC Report's discussion of each measure's benefit focuses primarily on the ability of each measure to improve numbering efficiency. Where appropriate, the report distinguishes between measures that will increase the efficient utilization of embedded  Xm-numbering resources (e.g., ITN and thousandsblock pooling) and those that will lead to a  XX-better utilization of new numbering resources as they are made available (e.g., rate center consolidation). Customers may experience other types of benefits from implementation of certain measures, such as larger local calling areas when adjacent rate centers are",0 0*((\" consolidated. NANC Report  1.8.1. Similarly, the NANC Report points out that some measures would benefit service providers by providing access to a broader range of desirable  X-numbers (e.g., numbers in an already allocated NXX), while other measures may not provide such choices. Finally, the NANC Report finds that there are benefits associated with increasing the use of LNP technology and the ability to rapidly implement a measure. NANC Report  5.5.1.  Xx-  Xa-xCosts are broken down by who would initially incur them, i.e., service providers or  XL-end users. E.g., NANC Report  5.4.1 and 5.4.3. Service provider costs include payments  X7-to vendors for hardware and software necessary to implement a particular number usage optimization measure. For those pooling methodologies that rely on LRN, carriers will have  X -to pay third parties for managing a centralized database and administering pooling activities.   X -See NANC Report  4.4.1. The NANC Report also identifies several categories of carrier specific costs that carriers will incur when they implement and operate a particular measure. These costs generally relate to modifications in the network associated with such activities as switching and provisioning E911 services as well as costs associated with upgrading or replacing customer premises equipment (CPE). With respect to enduser costs, the report explores both tangible costs to end users, such as reprogramming CPE, as well as less tangible costs, such as the inconvenience associated with certain measures such as longer dialing  XS-patterns. See NANC Report  7.4.2, 15.3. xWe note that cost information provided to the NROWG task forces was limited and  X-lacked specificity. See NANC Report "Executive Summary of the NROWG October 20, 1998." While the NANC Report identifies costs and benefits, because there was insufficient data, the NANC was unable to quantify these costs and benefits. Therefore, we specifically request commenters to provide additional data that quantifies the societal costs and benefits of implementing the measures. We are particularly interested in comments that might assist us in assessing the value of certain measures which may impose undue costs on end users or on certain segments of the telecommunications industry. To the extent specific benefits or costs were not identified in the report, we encourage parties to identify such costs and to the extent possible provide quantitative or qualitative estimates of their magnitude. For example, comments on the costs and benefits of administering each measure would be useful, as would estimates of the costs of moving from a shortterm numbering optimization strategy to a longerterm strategy.  X-  IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNSTP  X!-x We seek comment on the relevant geographic scope of the various number usage optimization measures proposed in the NANC Report. Certain measures may lend themselves to application on a statedetermined basis, while certain other measures may be more"# 0*((G""  X-efficiently implemented and administered on a nationwide basis.  \ {Oy-ԍxSee Letter from Alan Hasselwander, Chairman, North American Numbering Council, to Kathryn C.  {OC-Brown, Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, dated October 21, 1998 (NANC Report Transmittal Letter).  Specifically, those measures identified in the NANC report as being LRNbased may require, if not a nationwide implementation plan akin to Local Number Portability, at least a common, nationwide architecture. Other measures, however, such as the creation of inconsistent rate centers (NANC Report  3), may not require any federal involvement, but may benefit from uniform guidelines, especially where implementation of such a strategy may have implications that cross state borders. We recognize that certain areas of the country are experiencing varying degrees of number exhaust, and seek comment on how best to accommodate these variances. We seek comment on the advisability of adopting nationwide standards for certain numbering resource optimization measures, as well as whether certain measures should be implemented on a regional or statebystate basis rather than nationwide. xOn a related note, we are concerned with potential negative and positive synergies of certain numbering resource optimization measures, both geographically and temporally. In other words, we are interested in which measures may be implemented simultaneously or in conjunction with one another with attendant benefits greater than could be achieved by implementing individual measures in isolation from others. Conversely, we also seek comment on which numbering optimization method, or "package" of methods, may be cost effective or competitively neutral if implemented in one state or region, but may prove problematic if implemented in conjunction with another method or methods in other areas. We also seek comment on which measures may inherently be incompatible with other measures. xWe further seek comment on whether implementation of certain numbering resource optimization measures in the near term may preclude, or make unduly costly or burdensome, transition to different measures in the longer term. In particular, we seek comment on the interrelationship of thousandsblock pooling, ITN pooling and unassigned number porting, and whether it would be feasible and cost effective to transition between these measures once the industry had taken action to implement one of these measures. Along these lines, we invite parties to suggest changes to the architecture of a given measure that might facilitate future transitions, if any, between measures. Similarly, we request comment on what effect implementing number pooling measures would have on the current CO Code Assignment Guidelines, given that these guidelines currently address assignment of whole NXX codes. xIn addition, with respect to the LNPbased measures, we seek comment on how the  X-staggered LNP rollout, see supra note 4, might affect implementing these measures. Given that certain classes of carriers may be currently unable to participate in LNP, we seek comment on whether alternative number resource optimization measures should apply to these carriers. "# $ 0*((e""Ԍ X-1 ZCOMPETITIVE IMPACTSTPx  X-x The Commission is very concerned with the competitive implications of telephone  X-number administration. &\ {O4-ԍxSee, e.g., Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,  {O-CC Docket No. 9698, Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 19392,  {O-1951819 (1996) (Local Competition Second Report and Order) (requiring tendigit dialing to minimize anticompetitive effects when implementing an area code overlay).  ZIn each section describing a particular number optimization method, the NANC Report analyzes the competitive impacts of a measure based on the equal availability of numbers, and the "implementation impacts" of a particular method on a class of  Xv-service providers. E.g., NANC Report  5.7.1 and 5.7.2. We seek comment on the possible competitive effects, whether they enhance competition among service providers or discourage competition, of the various number usage optimization measures proposed in the NANC Report. To the extent commenters perceive potential anticompetitive effects from use of a particular optimization measure, they should suggest precautions, safeguards, or alternative implementation strategies that may correct or minimize such problems. We seek comment on whether the impact of optimizing numbering resources may fall disproportionately on one segment of the industry, while having little impact on others. xIn addition, we are also concerned with the competitive impact of certain numbering resource optimization methods on the mass market. For example, certain number resource optimization measures may afford carriers easier access to potentially desirable ("vanity") telephone numbers. We seek comment on whether such measures would serve to increase carriers' incentive and ability to cater to large business customers, while limiting the benefits of local competition to the mass market.  X- PUBLIC SAFETYTP  X-x The NANC Report identifies potential impacts on public safety systems when  X-implementing certain number usage optimization measures. See, e.g., NANC Report  4.9. We seek comment not only on the potential impacts to public safety agencies systems as they are served by the public switched telephone network, but also on whatever direct impact a  X-particular measure may have on a consumer (e.g., nationwide 10digit dialing on elderly customers).  X=-9 OTHER MEASURESTP  X-x The NANC report has identified a number of measures that have the potential to increase number utilization and otherwise optimize the allocation of telephone numbers to service providers. We are primarily interested in measures that increase the efficiency of the use of numbers which have already been assigned to carriers, not simply measures that increase the supply of numbers. Parties are encouraged to identify other measures not addressed in the NANC Report that might be useful in achieving this objective, such as""  0*((!" alternative administrative approaches or a marketbased approach with economic incentives to encourage optimal use of numbering resources. We also encourage commenters to identify any other issues that might improve telephone number utilization in the United States.  X-xWe seek comment on the NANC Report by December 21, 1998 . Parties should  X-reference NSD File No. L98134 in their comments. Parties may obtain the report at the NANC website, www.fcc.gov/ccb/Nanc/nanccorr.html. The NANC Report is available for public inspection and copying in the Network Services Division Public Reference Room, Room 220, 2000 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20554. Copies of the NANC Report are also available from ITS, at 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, or by calling (202) 857-3800.  X -xThis proceeding is considered exempt for ex parte purposes. 47 C.F.R.  1.1200(a), 1.1204(b). Interested parties should file an original and four copies of their comments with the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. In addition, parties should send two copies to Jeannie Grimes, Common Carrier Bureau, FCC, Suite 235, 2000 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, and one copy to ITS, at 1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Comments will be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the Commission's Public Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Copies of comments and reply comments will also be available from ITS, at 1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, or by calling (202) 8573800.  X-  X- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jared Carlson or Les Selzer at (202) 4182320. The address is: Network Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 2000 M Street, NW, Suite 235, Washington, D.C. 20054. The  X-fax number is: (202) 4182345. The TTY number is: (202) 4180484.#qx6X@Q X@#