# Before the

# Federal Communications Commission

# Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of )

)

Illinois Commerce Commission )

Petition for Expedited Temporary Waiver of ) NSD File No. L --99-65

47 CFR Section 52.19(c)(3)(ii) ) CC Docket No. 96-98

**ORDER**

**Adopted: March 1, 2000 Released: March 2, 2000**

By the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau:

## I. INTRODUCTION

I.  

1\. On August 10, 1999, the Illinois Commerce Commission (Illinois
Commission) filed a petition for expedited temporary waiver of the
ten‑digit dialing requirement of the Federal Communications
Commission\'s (FCC or Commission) rules governing area code relief
(Waiver Petition).[^1] The Waiver Petition seeks a delay in implementing
ten-digit dialing until the last of four area code overlays is adopted
in the Chicago metropolitan area, instead of implementing ten-digit
dialing, as required, at the time each area code overlay is activated.
The Bureau agrees with the Illinois Commission's concern that ten-digit
dialing be implemented with the benefit of a comprehensive public
education program about ten-digit dialing, but also believes that it
needs to establish a date certain by which time ten-digit dialing is
required to be implemented in those areas where overlays have been
activated. Accordingly, we will allow the Illinois Commission to delay
implementing ten-digit dialing in all areas where overlay area codes
have been activated until such time as the fourth area code overlay of
the four planned overlays is activated, but in no event later than April
1, 2001.

###### II. BACKGROUND

2.  Section 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as
    amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act), gives the
    Commission \"exclusive jurisdiction over those portions of the North
    American Numbering Plan that pertain to the United States,\" and
    allows the Commission to delegate to state commissions or other
    entities \"all or any portion of such jurisdiction.\"[^2] In this
    regard, the *Local Competition Second Report and Order*[^3]
    acknowledged that \"states are uniquely situated to determine what
    type of area code relief is best suited to local
    circumstances.\"[^4] Section 52.19 of the Commission\'s rules
    expressly delegates to the state commissions the authority to
    resolve matters involving the introduction of new area codes.[^5]
    Section 52.19(c)(3)(ii) provides, however, that \"\[n\]o area code
    overlay may be implemented unless there exists, at the time of
    implementation, mandatory ten‑digit dialing for every telephone call
    within and between all area codes in the geographic area covered by
    the overlay area code.\"[^6]

3.  The Bureau previously has considered three requests for waiver of
    the ten-digit dialing requirement. The Bureau denied two requests
    from state public utility commissions for a permanent waiver of the
    ten-digit dialing requirement in the case of the activation of an
    overlay NPA,[^7] and granted one.[^8] In both cases where it denied
    waiver requests, the Bureau did, however, grant temporary delays of
    seven and eight months for implementing ten-digit dialing, citing
    three factors: (1) insufficient time to adjust telecommunications
    networks for the change to ten-digit dialing;[^9] (2) insufficient
    time to educate customers to the change in dialing patterns;[^10]
    and (3) conditions relating to geographic uniformity in the areas
    affected that weighed in favor of a temporary delay.[^11]

4.  Five area codes currently serve the Chicago metropolitan area: 312
    (downtown Chicago), 773 (the rest of Chicago), 708 (south and
    southwest suburban), 630 (west suburban), and 847 (north and
    northwest suburban). In response to the dwindling supply of numbers
    available in these area codes, the Illinois Commission ordered that
    area code overlays be introduced upon exhaust.[^12] According to the
    Waiver Petition, these five area codes are expected to exhaust, at
    different times, within an eighteen-month period, beginning in the
    fourth quarter of 1999.[^13] We note, however, that the projected
    exhaust dates have changed a number of times, with the most recent
    schedule projecting the suburban area codes to exhaust first, in
    2000 and 2001, with the city area codes projected to exhaust in
    2002.[^14] As characterized in the Waiver Petition, the seven-digit
    dialing of telephone numbers in the 847, 312, 630, 708 and 773 area
    codes must be replaced by ten-digit dialing under the Commission's
    ten-digit dialing requirement.[^15] The Illinois Commission now
    requests that the Commission temporarily waive this requirement
    until the last of the four newly assigned area code overlays is
    activated.[^16]

5.  The Illinois Commission contends that implementing ten-digit dialing
    as each of the area codes exhausts will: 1) create "dialing
    inequities" between customers in neighboring Chicago metropolitan
    area codes; 2) create ten- or eleven-digit dialing "islands," thus
    preventing the Illinois Commission from implementing uniform dialing
    in the Chicago metropolitan area; 3) exacerbate disruption and
    customer confusion; and 4) deny the Illinois Commission additional
    time to develop and administer a comprehensive education program on
    the impending overlays and ten- or eleven-digit digit dialing (where
    necessary to dial between area codes). The Illinois Commission's
    Waiver Petition is opposed by the Association for Local
    Telecommunications Services (ALTS); AT&T; MCI WorldCom (MCIW);
    MediaOne; Sprint; and Winstar. Ameritech; the City of Chicago,
    Citizens Utility Board, and Public Utilities Bureau (Illinois
    Intervenors); SBC; and the United States Telephone Association
    (USTA) support the Waiver Petition. We believe that Illinois' need
    to engage in a customer education program within a geographically
    contiguous area with minimal dialing "islands" justifies a temporary
    delay of ten-digit dialing.

###### III. DISCUSSION

6.  Pursuant to section 1.3 of the Commission\'s rules, the Commission
    may grant a waiver of a provision of its rules upon a showing of
    \"good cause.\"[^17] As construed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
    the District of Columbia Circuit, section 1.3 allows the Commission
    to grant a waiver if special circumstances warrant a deviation from
    the general rule and such a deviation will serve the public
    interest. The court noted, however, that the agency must explain why
    deviation better serves the public interest and articulate the
    nature of the special circumstances warranting a deviation from the
    general rule to prevent discriminatory application and to put future
    parties on notice as to its operation.[^18]

### **A. Competition and Equitable Access to Numbering Resources**

7.  The Commission has concluded that the purpose behind requiring
    ten-digit dialing when an area code overlay is activated is to
    ensure that competition is not deterred as a result of local dialing
    disparity.[^19] According to the Commission, absent mandatory
    ten-digit dialing, customers will be deterred from choosing
    competitors to the incumbent because the incumbent's customers, most
    of whom have telephone numbers in the old area code, can dial
    seven-digits to call other users in the old area code, while the
    competitor's customers will be mostly assigned numbers in the new
    overlay area code, and will have to dial ten-digits to reach a
    telephone user in the old code.[^20]

8.  The Illinois Commission does not contest the FCC's conclusions
    regarding the pro-competitive effect of ten-digit dialing.[^21]
    Rather, the Illinois Commission's primary concern appears to be
    avoiding customer confusion as additional overlay area codes are
    implemented, which it plans to alleviate through a comprehensive
    public education program about ten-digit dialing.[^22] Ameritech, in
    support of the Waiver Petition, contends that implementing mandatory
    ten-digit dialing at the beginning of the process, rather than the
    end, would inconvenience the public without serving any public
    purpose.[^23] Ameritech further claims that customers do not like
    dialing ten digits, and acquiesce only because it is a regulatory
    requirement for all-services overlays. Ameritech concludes that to
    impose mandatory ten-digit dialing before it is required contradicts
    the public interest the Illinois Commission is trying to
    protect.[^24] Several commenters, however, contend that delaying the
    implementation of ten-digit dialing may hinder competition and
    thereby hurt consumers. For example, ALTS argues that consumer
    discomforts caused by ten-digit dialing are temporary and are
    outweighed by long-term anti-competitive effects that accompany
    overlays without ten-digit dialing. Overlays without ten-digit
    dialing make it difficult to market new services, even if new
    entrant offers lower prices and better service than the
    incumbent.[^25]

9.  The Illinois Commission disagrees. In its reply, it notes that
    Illinois has been at the forefront of facilitating competitive entry
    into local markets. In this regard, the Illinois Commission contends
    that number portability, number pooling and other conservation
    measures in the Chicago metropolitan area mitigate the competitive
    concerns associated with area code relief identified by the
    Commission. The Illinois Commission also discards the general claims
    of adverse competitive effects raised by commenters in opposition to
    its waiver petition. The Commission recently reaffirmed the
    pro-competitive purpose behind the ten-digit dialing rule,[^26] and
    we wish to ensure that waiver of this requirement will not result in
    competitive disadvantage to new entrants in the Chicago metropolitan
    area, particularly with the large number of existing area codes
    scheduled to exhaust in this situation.

10. In opposition to the Illinois request, commenters argue that the
    Illinois Commission's request is potentially open-ended, which could
    result in delaying ten-digit dialing longer than the predicted
    eighteen-month period for exhaustion of the current area codes.[^27]
    They argue that this could occur, particularly if the expansion of
    the number pooling trial in the 847 area code into other area codes
    is successful.[^28] In addition, ALTS argues that, while "dialing
    disparity" diminishes over time as the number of central office code
    assignments (to both the incumbent carrier and to competitors in the
    new area code) grows, there is no parity until there are an equal
    number of assignments in both area codes. In this case, a waiver
    that lasts three or more years effectively eviscerates the goal of
    the requirement by eliminating it when it is needed most.[^29]
    MediaOne, while opposing the Illinois Commission's request,
    encouraged the FCC to assign a date certain by which ten-digit
    dialing is required to be implemented, if in fact the FCC grants the
    Waiver Petition.[^30]

11\. The Waiver Petition states that the existing area codes in question
are expected to exhaust within an eighteen-month period, beginning in
the fourth quarter of 1999.[^31] We note that the Illinois Commission,
with the involvement of consumer advocates in the Chicago region,[^32]
ordered the implementation of number conservation measures to relieve
pressure on the affected area codes.[^33] We encourage such conservation
efforts, and we recognize also that these efforts and the expansion of
the pooling trial into other area codes are now being used against the
Illinois Commission and its supporters, as evidence of the potential for
long-term harm to competition in the Chicago area.[^34] We also note,
however that we are presented with an uncertain schedule for
implementation of the new area codes.[^35] Moreover, there is
disagreement about factors that could influence this schedule, such as
number pooling, which might slow down the rate of exhaust and prolong
the lives of area codes,[^36] or entry of new competitors or increased
competition, which might hasten the rate of exhaust.[^37] Whether the
existing area codes exhaust more slowly than originally thought, or not,
we are concerned that granting what may turn into an open-ended waiver
could result in harm to competition, thereby circumventing the purpose
behind the ten-digit rule.[^38]

#### B. Temporary Delay in Implementing Ten-Digit Dialing {#b.-temporary-delay-in-implementing-ten-digit-dialing .unnumbered}

12\. In considering previous waiver requests, the Bureau articulated
three factors that favor granting temporary delays of mandatory
ten-digit dialing. The three factors are: (1) insufficient time to
adjust telecommunications networks for the change to ten-digit
dialing;[^39] (2) insufficient time to educate customers to the change
in dialing patterns;[^40] and (3) conditions relating to geographic
uniformity in the areas affected that weighed in favor of a temporary
delay.[^41] The first factor is not present here. In fact, commenters
opposing the Waiver Petition suggest that the Illinois Commission need
not wait until adoption of the last area code overlay to implement
ten-digit dialing. They contend that switches in the region currently
permit ten-digit dialing, obviating the need for network
modifications.[^42] We agree that there is no network-based need to
delay ten-digit dialing in the Chicago area.

13\. The latter two factors, however -- insufficient time to educate
consumers and geographic conditions -- are relevant in this case. The
Waiver Petition contends that the Chicago metropolitan area, like New
York City, constitutes a "single geographically defined unit," that
presents an even greater potential for disruption and customer confusion
than does New York, because of the five area codes projected to exhaust
within an eighteen-month period.[^43] In support, Ameritech also notes
that the Chicago metropolitan area constitutes a common media market,
and that common implementation of mandatory ten-digit dialing would be
less confusing and allow more time for customers to prepare their
premises equipment to the ten-digit dialing format.[^44] AT&T, however,
argues that Ameritech does not provide any evidence that more time is
required to educate consumers or to prepare for ten-digit dialing.[^45]
Other commenters also contend that there is less likelihood of
disruption, consumer confusion, and dialing disparities if ten-digit
dialing were adopted from the implementation of the first area code
overlay, as opposed to the last.[^46] Compared to previous temporary
ten-digit dialing delays, the scope here, involving five existing area
codes, four area code overlays, and an uncertain schedule for exhaust,
makes granting the Waiver Petition, as requested, somewhat problematic.
Indeed, as ALTS points out, the situation in New York was more limited,
involving only two area codes, with overlays scheduled three months
apart, with a date-certain by which ten-digit dialing would be
implemented in both area codes.

14\. We agree with commenters that delaying ten-digit dialing until all
four planned Chicago area code overlays are deployed could result in an
open-ended waiver that could frustrate the pro-competitive policy behind
the ten-digit dialing rule. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the need of the
Illinois Commission to conduct an efficient, one-time customer education
campaign for as many of the customers in the five affected area codes as
possible. Therefore, we will require ten-digit dialing to begin in all
areas where overlay area codes have been activated at the time the
fourth planned area code overlay is activated, but in no event later
than April 1, 2001. In so doing, we are essentially adhering to the
single geographic unit rationale expressed in the *New York Ord*er,
where we denied a request for permanent waiver, but granted a temporary
delay in implementing ten-digit dialing.[^47] Finally, by requiring that
ten-digit dialing be implemented no later than April 1, 2001 in all
areas where overlay codes have been activated, we essentially are
granting the Illinois Commission more than an eighteen-month delay, from
the time of filing, approaching the original period for exhaust
projected in the Waiver Petition.[^48]

15\. This temporary, limited waiver should also allow sufficient time
for a metropolitan area-wide public education program, similar to those
periods for consumer education allowed in the *Texas Order*,[^49] the
*New York Order*,[^50] and the *Pennsylvania Order*.[^51] We encourage
the Illinois Commission, however, to implement mandatory ten-digit
dialing sooner rather than later, as suggested by a number of
commenters, particularly as the metropolitan area-wide education program
gathers steam. Given the efforts at conservation undertaken by the
Illinois Commission, the uncertain projected schedule for area code
exhaust, and the fact that the Chicago metropolitan area comprises a
single geographically-defined unit, we find that it would be beneficial
to permit a temporary delay in implementing mandatory ten-digit dialing.
Accordingly, we will allow the Illinois Commission to delay,
temporarily, implementing ten-digit dialing until such time as the
fourth planned area code overlay is activated, but in no event later
than April 1, 2001.

###### IV. CONCLUSION

16\. We find that the Illinois Commission has shown sufficient cause
that would justify a limited grant of the requested waiver of the
Commission\'s ten-digit dialing requirement. Accordingly, we grant the
Illinois Commission a temporary delay in implementing ten-digit dialing
in all areas where overlay area codes have been activated until such
time as the fourth planned area code overlay is activated, but in no
event later than April 1, 2001. In all other respects, the Waiver
Petition is denied.

###### V. ORDERING CLAUSES

17. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1.3 and 52.19 of the
    Commission\'s rules, 47 CFR §§ 1.3 and 52.19, and by authority
    delegated in sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission\'s rules, 47
    CFR §§ 0.91 and 0.291, that the Illinois Commerce Commission may
    delay, temporarily, implementing ten-digit dialing in all areas
    where overlay area codes have been activated until such time as the
    fourth area code overlay is activated, but in no event later than
    April 1, 2001.

18\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1.3 and 52.19 of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 CFR §§ 1.3 and 52.19, and by authority delegated
in sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission\'s rules, 47 CFR §§ 0.91
and 0.291, that the petition for expedited temporary waiver filed by the
Illinois Commerce Commission is DENIED, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT GRANTED
HEREIN.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Lawrence E. Strickling

Common Carrier Bureau

[^1]: Petition of the Illinois Commerce Commission for Expedited
    Temporary Waiver of 47 CFR Section 52.19(c)(3)(ii), filed August 10,
    1999 (Waiver Petition). The Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau) issued a
    public notice concerning the Waiver Petition on August 16, 1999.
    *See* Common Carrier Bureau Seeks Comment on the Illinois Commerce
    Commission's Petition for Expedited Temporary Waiver of 47 CFR §
    52.19(3)(c)(ii), *Public Notice*, DA 99-1631, NSD File No. L-99-65
    (Com. Car. Bur., rel. Aug. 16, 1999). Comments on the Waiver
    Petition were filed on September 16, 1999 by Ameritech, AT&T Corp.
    (AT&T), MCI WorldCom (MCIW) MediaOne Group (MediaOne), SBC
    Communications, Inc. (SBC), Sprint, the United States Telephone
    Association (USTA), and WinStar Communications, Inc. (WinStar). A
    late-filed comment was received from the Association for Local
    Telecommunications Services (ALTS) on September 17, 1999, and will
    be treated as an informal comment. Replies were filed on September
    30, 1999, by AT&T, MCIW, and WinStar. On October 1, 1999, the
    Illinois Commission filed a late reply, which will be treated as an
    informal comment. Similarly, on October 1, 1999, the Illinois
    Governmental and Consumer Intervenors (consisting of the City of
    Chicago, the Citizens Utility Board, and the Public Utilities
    Bureau, or Illinois Intervenors) filed a late reply; this also will
    be treated as an informal comment. On October 29, 1999, WinStar
    filed an *ex parte* notice regarding an October 28, 1999 meeting
    with Bureau personnel on the waiver request. On February 16, 2000,
    the Illinois Commission filed an *ex parte* containing the most
    recent area code projections for exhaust.

[^2]: 47 USC § 251(e)(1).

[^3]: Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96‑98, *Second Report
    and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 19392 (1996)
    (*Local Competition Second Report and Order*), *vacated in part sub
    nom.* *People of the State of California v. FCC*, 124 F.3d 934 (8th
    Cir. 1997), *rev'd, AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Util. Bd.*, 119 S.Ct. 721
    (1999), *reconsideration granted in part and denied in part*, 14 FCC
    Rcd 17964 (1999) (*Third Reconsideration, Local Competition Second
    Report and Order*).

[^4]: *Local Competition Second Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 19517.

[^5]: 47 CFR § 52.19. Section 52.19(a) gives state commissions the
    authority to decide whether area code relief will take the form of a
    geographic split, an overlay, or a boundary realignment. *Id.* It
    also delegates to state commissions the authority to order central
    office code rationing in conjunction with area code relief decisions
    in certain circumstances. *Id.*

[^6]: 47 CFR § 52.19(c)(3)(ii).

[^7]: Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Petition for Expedited
    Waiver of 47 CFR Section 52.19 for Area Code 412 Relief, DA 97-675,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 3783 (CCB 1997)
    (*Pennsylvania Order*); New York Department of Public Service
    Petition for Expedited Waiver of 47 CFR Section 52.19(c)(3)(ii),
    *Order*, DA 98-1434, 13 FCC Rcd 13491 (CCB 1998) (*New York Order*).

[^8]: Public Utility Commission of Texas Petition for Expedited Waiver
    of 47 CFR Section 59.12(c)(3)(ii) for Area Code Relief, DA 98-2141,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 21798 (CCB 1998) (*Texas
    Order*). In the *Texas Order*, the Bureau observed that the Texas
    commission did not finalize area code relief plans until shortly
    before exhaust, and consequently, only five months remained in which
    to prepare customers for the change in local dialing patterns and to
    program alarm equipment. *Id.* at para. 8.

[^9]: *Pennsylvania Order* at para. 25 (granting an approximately
    seven-month delay to implement ten-digit dialing after area code
    overlay). *See also* *New York Order* at para. 16 (granting an
    approximately eight-month delay to implement ten-digit dialing after
    area code overlay).

[^10]: *Pennsylvania Order* at para. 25, *New York Order* at para. 16.

[^11]: *New York Order* at para 15.

[^12]: The Illinois Commission ordered an all-services overlay in the
    847 area code (or Numbering Plan Area, NPA). *Petition for Approval
    of an NPA Relief Plan for the 847 NPA,* ICC Docket Nos.
    97-0192/97-0211 (cons.)(May 11, 1998 at 21 (*"May 847 NPA Order"*).
    The Illinois Commission subsequently ordered all-services overlays
    implemented in the 630 and 708 NPAs and a single all-services
    overlay implemented in the combined geographic area served by the
    312 and 773 NPAs. *Petition for Approval of NPA Relief Plans for the
    312, 630, 708 & 773 NPAs,* Interim Order, ICC Docket No. 98-0847
    (June 30, 1999)(*"June NPAs Order"*).

[^13]: Waiver Petition at 5, Illinois Commission reply at 2-3.

[^14]: According to the most recent forecast data, submitted by the
    Illinois Commission on February 16, 2000, the 847 area code is
    expected to exhaust after the first quarter of 2000, followed by
    area code 630 in third quarter of 2000, and 708 in first quarter of
    2001. The city codes, 312 and 773, are both projected to exhaust in
    the first quarter of 2002.

[^15]: Waiver Petition at 4.

[^16]: Waiver Petition at 2, 5.

[^17]: 47 CFR § 1.3.

[^18]: *Northeast Cellular Telephone Co., L.P. v. FCC*, 897 F.2d 1164,
    1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (*citing WAIT Radio v. FCC*, 418 F.2d 1153,
    1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969), *cert. denied*, 409 U.S. 1027 (1972));
    *Industrial Broadcasting, Co. v. FCC*, 437 F.2d 680, 683 (D.C. Cir.
    1970).

[^19]: *Local Competition Second Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    19518-19. The Commission recently reaffirmed this rationale in the
    *Third Reconsideration, Local Competition Second Report and Order*,
    14 FCC Rcd at 17990-96.

[^20]: *Local Competition Second Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    19518-19

[^21]: *See* Illinois Commission reply at 6.

[^22]: Waiver Petition at 5.

[^23]: Ameritech comments at 2.

[^24]: Ameritech comments at 3.

[^25]: ALTS comments at 3.

[^26]: *Third Reconsideration, Local Competition Second Report and
    Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 17990-96.

[^27]: ALTS comments at 6, Sprint comments at 1, 4.

[^28]: ALTS comments at 6, Sprint comments at 4. On the other hand, the
    Illinois Commission observes that just as pooling may forestall
    exhaust, increased competition or entry of new competitors could
    increase the exhaust. Illinois Commission reply at 8.

[^29]: ALTS comments at 6.

[^30]: MediaOne comments at 1. *See also* Sprint comments at 1 (not
    opposed to a waiver of ten-digit dialing until April 1, 2000).

[^31]: Waiver Petition at 4.

[^32]: The Consumer Utility Board (CUB), which comprises, in this
    proceeding, the Illinois Intervenors, in addition to the Public
    Utilities Bureau, and the City of Chicago.

[^33]: The Illinois Commission ordered a number pooling trial in the 847
    NPA as a conservation measure at the same time it ordered an
    all-services overlay in that area code. *NPA 847 Order* at 20-23,
    26. The Illinois Commission later ordered number conservation
    measures, including staggered implementation of number pooling in
    the 630, 312, 773, and 708 area codes, by February 2000. *June NPAs
    Order* at 14.

[^34]: *See* ALTS comments at 6.

[^35]: We note that the projected area code exhaust dates and the order
    in which they exhaust have changed three times from the date of
    filing the petition for approval of area code relief before the
    Illinois Commission, on November 13, 1998, to the present. *See
    also* Waiver Petition at 2-4 and note 14, above.

[^36]: ALTS comments at 6.

[^37]: Illinois Commission reply at 8.

[^38]: *Local Competition Second Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at
    19518-19, *Third Reconsideration, Local Competition Second Report
    and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 17990-96.

[^39]: *Pennsylvania Order* at para. 25 (granting an approximately
    seven-month delay to implement ten-digit dialing after area code
    overlay). *See also* *New York Order* at para. 16 (granting an
    approximately eight-month delay to implement ten-digit dialing after
    area code overlay).

[^40]: *Pennsylvania Order* at para. 25, *New York Order* at para. 16.
    *See also* *Texas Order* at paras. 8-9.

[^41]: *New York Order* at para 15.

[^42]: ALTS comments at 3, MCIW comments at 3, WinStar comments at 4;
    *see also* AT&T reply at 4.

[^43]: Waiver petition at 7, Illinois Intervenors at 10.

[^44]: Ameritech comments at 4.

[^45]: AT&T reply at 4 and n. 13.

[^46]: ATLS comments at 7, AT&T comments at 5, MediaOne comments at 2,
    Sprint comments at 9.

[^47]: *New York Order* at para. 16.

[^48]: *See* Waiver Petiton at 4.

[^49]: *See Texas Order* at paras. 8-9.

[^50]: *See New York Order* at para. 16.

[^51]: *See Pennsylvania Order* at para. 25.