WPC 21BJZ7Courier3|jbx6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5Si 2000M RM 290HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\!RX@ X-#XP\  P6QynXP##X\  P6G;ɒP#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#2icK{XKCourierTimes New Roman"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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd<?xxx,bx6X@`7X@ 7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XPy.X80,ɒX\  P6G;P$hmtxeplocaQ< ,maxp name post>g"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+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNlL?$(M@lLOTechnical 2Technical 2= Technical 3Technical 3> Technical 4Technical 4?` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 1@ 2UA$OB$RC2TDTTechnical 7Technical 7A` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 8Technical 8B` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#WP Heading 2WP Heading 2C44#6X@C@##Xv6X@CX@#WP Heading 1WP Heading 1D44#6X@C@# #Xv6X@CX@#2\^EUFXG ZH>\toc 1toc 1E` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#toc 2toc 2F` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3G` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4H` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#2^eI^J`KvbL@ctoc 5toc 5I` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#toc 6toc 6J` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7K toc 8toc 8L` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#2nMeNgOiPktoc 9toc 9M` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#index 1index 1N` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2O` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toa headingtoa headingP` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#2qQv:nRlnSroTlocaptioncaptionQ _Equation Caption_Equation CaptionR endnote referenceendnote referenceS footnote textfootnote textT` hp x (#4 <DL!#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#4 <DL!` hp x (#2tU,rVrW~sXtHeadingChapter HeadingUJ d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersV>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheadingW0\ E A.  head1 #X'd#2p}wC@ #2|KtKwK[y]{"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxvvv,v6X@`7N@7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP7nC:,-   X'-I. INTRODUCTION  X-  ~1.` ` On December 2, 1996, Western Iowa Telephone Association ("Western Iowa")   ^filed a petition for waiver of the Commission's Caller Identification ("Caller ID") rules.   Specifically, Western Iowa requests a waiver of the automatic call return blocking requirements   Luntil March 31, 1997 for two of its switches, and until January 1, 2000 for its other six switches.   {On May 16, 1997, Western Iowa filed a motion for leave to file a supplement to its waiver   request, and a supplement to its waiver request. For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss in   >part, and deny in other respects Western Iowa's waiver request. Finally, we grant Western Iowa's motion for leave to file a supplement to its waiver request.  X*- II. BACKGROUND  X- A. Caller ID Rules  X-  b2.` ` The Commission's Caller ID rules took effect, with limited exceptions, on   December 1, 1995. Those rules require common carriers using Signaling System 7 ("SS7") to  X -  Ztransmit the calling party number ("CPN") to interconnecting carriers on an interstate call.X01Í ÍX01Í Ík au yO#-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э 47 C.F.R.  64.1601(a).k Those   rules also require common carriers to notify subscribers that their telephone numbers may be"!XH-''oo "  X-identified by the calling party.gau yOy-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э 47 C.F.R.  64.1603g  X-  3.` ` In addition to CPN transmission and subscriber notification requirements, the   LCommission developed rules to protect the privacy of the called and the calling party. Section   64.1601(b) requires carriers to recognize *67 as a request for privacy. Dialing *67 before placing   1a call, referred to as per call blocking, allows subscribers to block their numbers from   transmission to the public switched network. Carriers must also recognize *82 as a request that  X_-  the CPN be transmitted on an otherwise blocked line.k_Xau yOh -#X\  P6G; ɒP#э 47 C.F.R.  64.1601(b).k Per call unblocking allows subscribers   kthat have permanently blocked lines ("per line blocking") to unblock their lines on a per call   ?basis, thus allowing passage of the CPN. Section 64.1601(b) also prohibits carriers from   >revealing the calling party's name or number, and prohibits carriers from allowing the called   party to return automatically the call (via Automatic Call Return, or "ACR"), when the original calling party invokes privacy.  X -  4.` ` In the November 30, 1995 Order, the Bureau stayed the application of the *82   jrequirement for all carriers, for calls originating on lines served by DCO switches, until January  X-  k1, 1997.:au {O)-  #XP\  P6QynXP##X\  P6G; ɒP#э See Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification Service Caller ID, 11 FCC Rcd 1743, 1749  yO-(1995) ("November 30, 1995 Order"). : This requirement was stayed in response to carriers that requested waivers on the   grounds that the generic switch software with *82 capability ("*82 feature") would not be  Xb-  <available until June 1996.bBau {OU-#XP\  P6QynXP##X\  P6G; ɒP#э Id. at 174549. The Bureau also stayed the requirement that carriers provide customer  XK-  notification regarding the *82 unblocking capability.oKau {O-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э Id. at 1749.o Finally, the Bureau stayed the ban against  X4-using *67 as an alternative unblocking code.l4f au {OK-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э Id.l  X-  5.` ` In the October 30, 1995 Order, we stayed the application of the Caller ID rules  X-  <to call return services until January 1, 1997. au {O!-  =#X\  P6G; ɒP#э See Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification Service Caller ID, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13819 (1995) ("October 30, 1995 Order"). The Commission issued the stay in response to new   information that carriers could incur unnecessary costs if the Commission required carriers to  X-  jimplement ACR blocking prior to having addressed issues raised by BellSouth.q R au yO%-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э October 30, 1995 Order at 13820.q On December" H-''oo"   23, 1996, the Commission issued a further stay until further notice of the ACR blocking  X-  ]requirement. au {Ob-  #X\  P6G; ɒP#э See Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification Service Caller ID, DA 962178 (1996) ("December 23, 1996 Order"). In March 1997, the Commission required carriers to comply with the ACR  X-blocking requirement by September 25, 1997. Z"au {O-  #X\  P6G; ɒP#э See Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification Service Caller ID, Third Report and Order,   Memorandum Opinion and Order on Further Reconsideration, and Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 3867, 388990 (1997) ("March 25, 1997 Order").  X- B. Western Iowa's Petition  Xv-  B6.` ` Western Iowa requests a waiver of the automatic call return ("ACR") blocking   requirement until March 31, 1997 for two of its switches. Western Iowa states that it is in the   iprocess of upgrading these switches and needs additional time to complete the changes. Further,   Western Iowa requests a waiver of the ACR blocking requirement for its other six switches until   January 1, 2000. The carrier argues that its other six switches serve a significantly fewer number   of access lines, and that it would cost approximately $130,000 to support call return blocking.   It adds that only eleven of its subscribers served by these six switches have call return blocking.   {Western Iowa asserts that the software upgrades would provide "very limited additional   jfunctionality" in addition to Caller ID services. The carrier states also that it expects that it will   jneed to upgrade its software or replace its hardware by January 1, 2000. Given that it would be   economically infeasible for it to comply with the call return blocking requirement by the   MCommission's January 1, 1997 deadline, argues Western Iowa, grant of a waiver in this case   -would be consistent with previous Commission orders in which application of Caller ID rules was   stayed or waived where the stay or waiver affected only a few subscribers and the cost of  X4-  ycompliance with Caller ID rules would impose financial hardship on smaller carriers. 4Dau {O)-  =#X\  P6G; ɒP#э See Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification Service Caller ID, DA 961663 (rel.   hOctober 4, 1996) (waiver granted where it would be inefficient to perform software upgrades on switches that carrier  yO-  planned to replace); October 30, 1995 Order; In the Matter of Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number  yO-  ,Identification Service Caller ID, 10 FCC Rcd 13796 (1995) ("December 1, 1995 Order") (effective date of Caller  yOK-ID rules stayed until January 1, 1997 for LEC switches that did not have CLASS software). Similarly,   Western Iowa contends that grant of its waiver request would be consistent with a Commission   decision to grant a waiver request where software upgrades would provide limited additional   functionality, and a carrier needed an extension of time to make other upgrades, "rather than  X-  immediately upgrad[ing] software at costs that outweigh the benefits."  au {O"-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э See Illinois Consolidated Telephone Company, 6 FCC Rcd 6648 (1991). Finally, Western Iowa   argues that grant of a waiver in this case would be consistent with previous Commission decisions" H-''ooq"  X-to grant waivers "where provision of a service would not be economically feasible."au {Oy-  h#X\  P6G; ɒP#э See Policies and Rules Implementing the Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act, Report and Order,  yOC-  (CC Docket 9322), 8 FCC Rcd 6885 (1993); Palmerton Telephone Company Telephone Utilities of the Northland,  yO -  Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8089 (1992); C, C & S Telco, Inc. State Long Distance  yO-  Telephone State Long Distance Telephone Company et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 349 (1991);  yO-Midyear 1986 Access Tariff Filings, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 6167 (1989).   X-  }7.` ` In its supplement, Western Iowa argues that, if the Commission granted its waiver   request, the impact on a caller's privacy would be minimal. Specifically, Western Iowa states   that, although "some of the eleven customers who subscribe to call return service may return   Msome calls to callers who had requested privacy," the number of times calling party number   L(CPN) may be passed is small. Western adds also that waiver is warranted here because it has   only one central office technician, the cost of compliance is substantial, and the waiver would be of limited duration.  X - III. DISCUSSION  X -  8.` ` We dismiss as moot the portion of Western Iowa's petition that requests an   extension to comply with Section 64.1601(b) as it relates to suppression of ACR service because   [the Commission's March 25, 1997 Order stays until September 25, 1997 the application of Caller  X -  ID rules to ACR service.r zau yO-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э March 25, 1997 Order at 388990. r We deny Western's Iowa's petition for a waiver of the ACR blocking   requirement because it has not demonstrated why it needs a waiver until January 1, 2000. In  Xy-  yWait Radio the court stated that "when an applicant seeks a waiver of a rule, it must plead with  Xb-  particularity the facts and circumstances which warrant such action."b au yO-#X\  P6G; ɒP#э Wait Radio v. Federal Communications Commission, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (1969). Western Iowa has failed   to satisfy this burden. Although the carrier argues that it would not be economically feasible for   lit to offer ACR blocking by the Commission's January 1, 1997 deadline, it fails to provide   information to support this allegation, nor has it supplemented its filing to demonstrate why it   kcannot comply by September 25, 1997, the current effective date of the ACR requirement. It   does not delineate the specific circumstances that necessitate three years to complete a network   =upgrade. Further, Western Iowa's assertion that it may perform other upgrades to its software   Mor replace its hardware is speculative and unsupported. For example, Western Iowa fails to   indicate what upgrades besides ACR blocking installation it must conduct on its switches.   LAlthough a limited number of customers would be affected by a waiver in this case, the waiver   would be for an extended period of time. We therefore deny Western Iowa's request for a waiver.  X7-  9.` ` In response to the carrier's argument that a waiver in this case would be consistent   lwith previous decisions to grant stays or waivers, the carrier does not provide sufficient" H-''ooz"   =justification for an extension of the ACR deadline. The fact that Western Iowa will incur some   costs in upgrading its software, standing alone, does not warrant grant of a waiver in this case.   LWestern Iowa correctly states that the Bureau has granted waivers of implementation of Caller   ZID and various other requirements. In these cases, however, the carriers had started to implement   the requirements, and had demonstrated that, due to technical limitations, vendor delays, or lack   of manufacturer support, an extension of time was necessary. We also point out that in some   instances where we have granted waivers, the carriers had started to upgrade their software, and   Nhad made good faith efforts to comply with our rules as soon as possible. We therefore   concluded that it would be inefficient for the carriers to conduct upgrades on switches that it   would soon replace. In this case, however, Western Iowa provides only vague assertions   jconcerning whether it will upgrade its software. Finally, we note that the waivers were granted   in those cases for only a limited amount of time, whereas Western Iowa seeks a three year extension.  X -  X -IV. ORDERING CLAUSES  X-  `10.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority delegated in Sections   !0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, that the portion of the   petition of Western Iowa that requests a waiver until March 31, 1997 of the Caller ID rules as   applied to the suppression of ACR is DISMISSED as moot, and is otherwise DENIED in all respects.  X-11.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order is effective upon release. ` `  hh,VFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh,VGeraldine A. Matise ` `  hh,VChief, Network Services Division x` `  hh@Common Carrier Bureau