WPC# 2BJZ Courier3|vx6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5Si (ADD) RM 210HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\D![kX@2d6?F Z3|vphoenix#Xv6X@CX@#HP LaserJet 5Si (ADD) RM 210HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\D![kX@ l2vpka8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2kv/ta5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2K   /a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 2    I a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2{K $ $a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2/4a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2ba#3/a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg2e}PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:lD>?$>Technical 6Technical 6<` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 2Technical 2= Technical 3Technical 3> Technical 4Technical 4?` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2zF@lAA$rAB$CCETechnical 1Technical 1@ Technical 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@#2MDFElGFIGKWP Heading 1WP Heading 1D44#6X@C@# #Xv6X@CX@#toc 1toc 1E` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#toc 2toc 2F` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3G` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#2THMIPJ4RKvRTtoc 4toc 4H` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5I` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#toc 6toc 6J` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7K 2r]LTMWN6YOT[toc 8toc 8L` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#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 (#2aP]Qv_Rl8`Sr`toa headingtoa headingP` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaptionQ _Equation Caption_Equation CaptionR endnote referenceendnote referenceS 2eTlHaUcVhdWefootnote textfootnote textT` hp x (#4 <DL!#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#4 <DL!` hp x (#HeadingChapter HeadingUJ d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersV>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheadingW0\ E A.  2.mXeKMfKhKjhead1 #X'd#2p}wC@ #"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""vvv,v6X@`7N@"7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP#7nC:,\4  pG;hFFP;FPC^&9W }PhhE[ u ^&W jNORMALۦ PY"i~'^09]SS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99]]]Sxnxxng?Snxgx]nxxxxn9/9aS9S]I]I9S]/9]/]S]]I?9]SxSSIC%CW9+Wa999+999999S9]/xSxSxSxSxSxxInInInInI>/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN-TWashington, D.C. 20554# Xj\  P6G;ynXP# TP  X-In the Matter of hh@) x` `  hh@)  X-Rules and Policies Regardinghh@)hCC Docket No. 91281  X-Calling Number Identificationhh@)  X| -Service Caller ID hh@)  XN -  MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER T T  X -TP Adopted:` ` February 6, 1997hh@hReleased:February 7, 1997 0 By the Chief, Network Services Division:  X-   X- I. INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND ă  X-  x1. The Commission has received several requests for waiver of the *82 unblocking  xrequirement for calls that originate on Siemens Stromberg Carlson ("SSC") Digital Community  XQ- x.Office ("DCO") switches.xQnC yO- x#X\  P6G; ɒP#э Petitions for waiver were filed by Farmers Telephone Cooperative, Inc. ("FTC") on December 18, 1996,  xGermantown Telephone Company ("Germantown") on December 6, 1996, Lincolnville Telephone Company and  xTidewater Telecom, Inc. (collectively "Lincolnville and Tidewater") on December 19, 1996, Pine Belt Telephone  xX Company ("Pine Belt") on January 16, 1997, Southwest Texas Telephone Company ("STTC") on December 30, 1996,  xand TDS Telecommunications Corporation ("TDS Telecom") on December 31, 1996. Similar petitions were  yO- xaddressed in a Memorandum Opinion and Order adopted December 20, 1996. In the Matter of Rules and Policies  yOz-Regarding Calling Number Identification Service Caller ID, DA 962178 (1996) ("December 20, 1996 Order"). For the reasons discussed below, we grant waivers for FTC in part,  xLSTTC, and TDS Telecom; deny the waiver requests of Germantown and Pine Belt; and dismiss the petitions of Lincolnville and Tidewater and of FTC in part.  X - x  X-  _x2. Section 64.1601(b) prohibits carriers from revealing a caller's name or telephone  X- x[number when the caller requests that information not be provided to the called party.mnC yO"-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э 47 C.F.R.  64.1601(b). m Section  x=64.1601(b) of the Commission's rules provides that carriers employing Signaling System Seven  X- x("SS7") must recognize *67 as a request for privacy on an interstate call.YnC {O%-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э Id.Y Additionally, Section"* H-''oo]"  x64.1601(b) requires that if a carrier offers per line blocking, it also must recognize *82 as a  xOcaller's request that the calling party's number be provided on an interstate call ("*82  X-requirement")._nC {OK-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э Id._  X-  x3. In the November 30, 1995 Order, the Bureau stayed the application of the *82  xjrequirement for all carriers, for calls originating on lines served by DCO switches, until January  Xv- x\1, 1997.#vZnC {O - x#X\  P6G; ɒP#э See In the Matter of Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification Service Caller ID, 11 FCC  yOK -Rcd 1743, 1749 (1995) ("November 30, 1995 Order"). # This requirement was stayed in response to carriers that requested waivers on the  x\grounds that the SSC generic switch software with *82 capability, Release 20, would not be  XH- xKavailable until June 1996.iHnC {O -#X\  P6G; ɒP#э See id. at 174549.i The Bureau also stayed the requirement that carriers provide customer  X1- xnotification regarding the *82 unblocking capability.n1FnC {O(-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э Id. at 1749.n Finally, the Bureau stayed the ban against  X -using *67 as an alternative unblocking code.k nC {O-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э Id.k  X -  X -2II. THE PETITIONS Ã  X -   x4. FTC requests a temporary waiver of the *82 requirement until May 31, 1997. The  xcarrier states that it has experienced repeated delivery delays of the software necessary to provide  xthe *82 network function. FTC states that the switch vendor, SSC, could not make available the  x.switch software in June, 1996, as originally planned. According to the carrier, the vendor now  xestimates that the Release 20 software will be available for installation February 18, 1997. The  x>carrier also states that it plans to convert to the new software release by March 18, 1997. It  xrequests a waiver until May 31, 1997 "[o]ut of an abundance of caution, and to ensure proper  X- x.network testing."b j nC yO8-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э FTC petition at 3.b The carrier also seeks a waiver of the customer notification requirement. It  xstates that the potential customer confusion arising from providing the *82 notification by January  x1, 1997 would outweigh any benefit because *67 will continue to be used for per call blocking  xand per call unblocking. Finally, FTC requests a waiver of Section 64.1601(b) of the  X-Commission's Rulesi  nC yOl#-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э 47 C.F.R.  64.1601(b)i as it applies to automatic call return ("ACR") services.  X-x  X-  @ x5. Germantown requests a waiver of the *82 requirement until December 31, 1998. In  xits petition, Germantown states that it cannot comply with the January 1, 1997 deadline due to"| H-''oon"  X- x."limitations in the current software used in [Germantown's] DCO switch..."i nC yOy-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э Germantown Petition at 2.i The carrier states  xjthat it "is in the process of reevaluating its current network in order to provide the best service  X- xto its customers and also comply with the federal and state rules."Y XnC {O-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э Id.Y The carrier "estimates that  X- x?a decision with regard to a network upgrade will be made by year end, 1997..."Y nC {OV-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э Id.Y Finally,  xGermantown states that it does not believe that it is "economically practical . . . for the company  x\to incur an estimated cost of $40,000 to comply with the Commission's Caller ID rules, when  x[Germantown] is possibly subject to further upgrades for other reasons in a short time  X_-frame."Y_|nC {O -#X\  P6G; ɒP#э Id.Y` `  X1-   x6. Lincolnville and Tidewater jointly request a waiver of the *82 requirement until July  x1, 1997. These carriers note that they have not deployed CLASS software in their respective  xDCO switches. They also state that they have not deployed Release 20 and thus their switches  xcurrently do not have *82 recognition capability. The carriers state that upgrading their current  xswitches for CLASS and *82 capability is only economically sound if they can conduct ISDN  xMupgrades simultaneously. They further state that the switch vendor, SSC, notified them on  xNovember 19, 1996 that it would make available ISDN upgrades for DCO switches. The carriers  xstate that upon that notification they decided to upgrade their current switches and they plan to  xorder the upgrades by the end of January, 1997. They also seek a waiver of the related customer notification requirement until July 1, 1997 to avert customer confusion.  X4-   x7. Pine Belt requests a waiver of the *82 requirement until December 31, 1997.  xAccording to its petition, Pine Belt was unaware until early January, 1997, that the use of *67  xyto perform per call blocking and unblocking did not comply with Commission rules. The carrier  xZstates that it immediately asked the vendor for a cost estimate for a switch software upgrade. The  xcarrier states, however, that it will either upgrade its current DCO switch or replace it entirely.  xIt submits that "if it determines that replacement of current facilities is warranted, it will be  xwasteful and contrary to the public interest to incur the costs of investment in upgrades to its  X- xycurrent switching facilities."hnC yOR!-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э Pine Belt Petition at 2.h Pine Belt states that a waiver until December 31, 1997 will ensure  xthat it "is not required to make otherwise unnecessary investments in facilities which may be  Xe-replaced."YenC {O$-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э Id.Y "N0 H-''oo"Ԍ X-   x8. STTC requests a waiver of the *82 requirement until July 31, 1997. The carrier states  x[that until September, 1996, it believed that its current per call blocking and unblocking features  xwould comply with Commission rules. It states that it discovered that *82 per call unblocking  x|is required while reviewing switch upgrade information from SSC. STTC states that it  xdetermined in midOctober, 1996 to upgrade the software on its existing switches rather than  xpurchase new switches. It states that it did not request the software until December, 1996  Xv- xbecause it was "[u]naware that Siemens follows a lengthy formal process for placing orders..."cvnC yO-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э STTC Petition at 3.c According to STTC's petition, the vendor replied that it would take  yO1-   #X\  P6G; ɒP#"...two to three weeks to provide a 'formal' proposal and price quote. Following STTC's receipt of  ^the formal proposal, STTC could then officially place its order for the Release 20 software... [I]t  would take approximately nineteen (19) weeks following [the vendor's] receipt of STTC's order to  yO -ship the software."Y Xy {Oq-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э Id.Y# Xj\  P6G;ynXP#     xSTTC states that, under this schedule, it anticipates that it will be able to implement the software  xby June 30, 1997, and it requests a waiver until July 31, 1997, "[o]ut of an abundance of caution,  X -and to ensure proper network testing..."Y nC {O-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э Id.Y   x9. TDS Telecom requests a waiver until April 1, 1997 to comply with the *82  X- xrequirement on its DCO and EWSD|nC yO-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э Electronic Switching System Digital ("EWSD") switches are a newer model of an SSC switch. switches and to notify its customers of per call unblocking  xfunctionality. The corporation lists the companies and their respective exchanges that will need to make a network upgrade. It states that  yOk- n  #X\  P6G; ɒP#"SSC was not able to meet TDS Telecom's request, in October 1996, that it complete software  delivery and installation by the January 1 deadline. In each such case, SSC has promised a February,  yO-1997 shipping date and a March 1997 activation date."l y yO-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э TDS Telecom Petition at 23.l# Xj\  P6G;ynXP#     X- III. DISCUSSION ă   mx 10. The Commission may waive any provision of its rules, in whole or in part, if good  Xg- xcause is shown. 47 C.F.R. 1.3.UgnC {O$- xY#X\  P6G; ɒP#э See also Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (waiver appropriate if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule and such deviation will serve the public interest).U We conclude that FTC, STTC, and TDS Telecom have shown "g H-''oom"  xgood cause for a waiver of the *82 requirement and the concomitant customer notification rules.  xkWe recognize that these carriers have experienced various degrees of delay from the switch  x<vendor, and that they are continuing with plans to upgrade their software in order to comply with  xthe Commission's rules as soon as possible. We further find that FTC, STTC, and TDS Telecom  xMmade a good faith effort to obtain the *82 software in a timely fashion and that they plan to  xbegin installing the software in early 1997. Additionally, a limited number of subscriber lines  xwould be affected by each waiver. Under these circumstances, we conclude that granting the  X_-waivers will serve the public interest.Z_nC yO- xi#X\  P6G; ɒP#э This conclusion is consistent with our December 20, 1996 Order, in which the Division provided additional  xtime to carriers such as Twin Lakes Telephone Cooperative, who had experienced delay from SSC in the ordering  {Oh -process. See December 20, 1996 Order at 4.   x 11. We find that TDS Telecom has expedited fully the ordering process and we note that  xKits schedule includes software delivery in February, 1997 and activation of the software in March,  x1997. Thus we grant TDS Telecom's waiver for the full amount of time requested, until April  x1, 1997. This waiver is granted explicitly and exclusively for the exchanges delineated in TDS  X - xTelecom's petition. nC yOp-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э TDS Telecom Petition at Attachment A and Attachment B. As stated in its petition, FTC expects to install the Release 20 software  xbeginning March 18, 1997. We therefore give FTC until April 18, 1997 to comply with our *82  xrequirement. We dismiss as moot the portion of FTC's petition that requests an extension to  xKcomply with Section 1601(b) as it relates to the suppression of ACR service because the Common  xCarrier Bureau's December 23, 1996 Order stays until further notice the application of Caller ID  Xb- xLrules to ACR service.!bznC {O- x#X\  P6G; ɒP#э See In the Matter of Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification Service Caller ID, DA 96 yOW-2181 (1996) ("December 23, 1996 Order") at 3.! We give STTC until June 30, 1997 to comply with the *82 requirement,  xwhich is STTC's own estimate of when it can complete the upgrade, given the vendor's estimated  X4- xdelivery schedule.m4nC {O-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э See STTC Petition at 3.m Consistent with our previous waivers, the rule provision that would bar the  xcarriers from using *67 as an unblocking device also is waived, for lines served by DCO or  xNEWSD switches. We further waive our customer notification requirement regarding *82 unblocking capability, as it applies to the waivers granted in this order.   x 12. We deny Germantown's petition for a waiver because it has not demonstrated why  X- x?it needs a waiver until December 31, 1998. In Wait Radio the court stated that "when an  xapplicant seeks a waiver of a rule, it must plead with particularity the facts and circumstances  X|- xiwhich warrant such action."|f nC yO$-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э Wait Radio v. Federal Communications Commission, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (1969). į Germantown has failed to satisfy this burden. Although the carrier  xstates that it "does not believe it is economically practical" for it to offer *82 capability on its"e H-''oo"  xMDCO switch by the Commission's January 1, 1997 deadline, it fails to provide information to  xsupport this allegation. It does not delineate the specific circumstances that necessitate two years  xto complete a network upgrade. Further, Germantown's statement that it "is possibly subject to  X- xKfurther upgrades for other reasons in a short time frame,"snC {O4-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э See Germantown petition at 2.s is speculative and not supported. For  xexample, Germantown fails to indicate what upgrades besides *82 software installation it must  xyconduct on its DCO switches. Although a limited number of customers would be affected by a  x.waiver in this case, the waiver would be for an extended period of time. Germantown does not  xKjustify why its customers should be denied the benefit of separate codes for per call blocking and  xper call unblocking, a benefit the Commission determined "maximizes consumer choice, is the  xfederal policy least disruptive to state policies and goes the farthest to eliminate customer  X - xconfusion."Z ZnC {O% - x#X\  P6G; ɒP#э See Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification Service Caller ID, Memorandum Opinion  xKand Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd  yO-11700, 11728 (1995)("May 5, 1995 Order").  The Commission further supported this regime in stating that "[u]niversal and  xexclusive use of *82 to unblock avoids the risks of inadvertently defeating a block by dialing  X -*67."c |nC {O-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э Id. at 11729.c   mx 13. We also deny Pine Belt's petition. Pine Belt filed January 16, 1997, more than two  xweeks after the deadline to provide the *82 functionality. We conclude that it did not make a  xgood faith effort to comply with Commission rules since it did not examine until early January,  Xy- x1997 the *82 requirement, which was imposed in the May 5, 1995 OrderiynC {O8-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э Id. at 1172811734.i and stayed in the  Xb- xNovember 30, 1995 Order for DCO switches.v bnC yO-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э November 30, 1995 Order at 1749.v Further, Pine Belt fails to specify what actions  xit will be taking to comply with the *82 requirement. Instead, it requests one year to plan  xiupgrades so that it is not "required to make otherwise unnecessary investments in facilities which  X- xmay be replaced."h!0 nC yO-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э Pine Belt petition at 2.h It does not specify whether it plans to upgrade or replace its switches, nor  xdoes it indicate exactly when such a decision will be made. As with Germantown, Pine Belt does  x-not justify why its customers should be denied the benefit of separate codes for per call blocking and per call unblocking for an extended period of time.   _x 14. We dismiss the joint petition for waiver of Lincolnville and Tidewater as moot  xbecause the December 23, 1996 Order stays the application of Caller ID rules to LECs without" !H-''ooo"  X- xLCLASS software."nC {Oy-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э See December 23, 1996 Order at 3.ĉ We note that Lincolnville and Tidewater plan to implement Release 20 and  x=CLASS software. To the extent that these carriers implement CLASS capability, they will have to recognize *82 per call unblocking concurrently in order to comply with Section 64.1601(b).   x15. To assist the Bureau in monitoring the carriers' compliance with the Commission's  x[rules, the waivers granted to FTC and STTC are conditioned on the carriers' filing a report with  xthe Network Services Division. FTC shall file on April 1, 1997. STTC shall file on June 2,  xL1997. The reports shall contain the following information: (1) the status of operating (generic)  xMsoftware upgrades to the DCO switches; and (2) an updated implementation schedule, with  xexplanation of any circumstances that may threaten timely implementation and corrective action  xbeing taken. No condition is imposed upon TDS Telecom because its waiver only extends to April 1, 1997.  X -  X -IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ă   x16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority delegated in Sections 0.91  xand 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, that the effectiveness of the  xCommission rules contained in Section 64.1601(b), which require a carrier to recognize *82 as  xa caller s request that privacy not be provided and bar a carrier from recognizing *67 as a  xcaller's request that privacy not be provided, as these rules apply to lines served by DCO and  x{EWSD switches, IS WAIVED until April 1, 1997 for TDS Telecom, until April 18, 1997 for FTC, and until June 30, 1997 for STTC.   x17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the effectiveness of the Commission s rule  xcontained in Section 64.1603, which requires a carrier to provide customer notification regarding  xthe *82 unblocking capability IS WAIVED until April 1, 1997 for TDS Telecom, until April 18, 1997 for FTC, and until June 30, 1997 for STTC.   x18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a request for a temporary waiver of the *82  xrequirement for Siemens Stromberg Carlson DCO and EWSD switches IS GRANTED until April 1, 1997 for TDS Telecom, until April 18, 1997 for FTC, and until June 30, 1997 for STTC.   "x19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the waivers granted for TDS Telecom, FTC, and STTC are conditioned on the carriers' compliance with the requirements imposed by this Order.   x20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Germantown's and Pine Belt's requests for waiver of Section 64.1601(b) of the Commission's rules ARE DENIED.   "x21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for temporary waiver of Lincolnville  x-and Tidewater is dismissed as moot, and the portion of the petition of FTC that requests a waiver"#Z"H-''ooe"" of the Caller ID rules as applied to the suppression of ACR is also dismissed as moot. x22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order is effective upon release. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhGeraldine A. Matise x` `  hhChief, Network Services Division x` `  hhCommon Carrier Bureau