WPC3 2B T Z 3|x )w (TT)Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)XPPS - PSt 5Si/5Si MXM 210XPPSPS.WRSSx  @#+WX@2@(P D3|j Courier New (TT)Times New Roman (TT)AS5SI.PRSx  @\Y"aqX@CourierTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic2E*vupk[Courier New (TT)Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Italic) (TT)X XP\  P6QXP.17UC2X(XU4  pQXy.C8*XpC\  P6QPd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxda8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2kcv~a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# 2 J   @ a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersC @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# 2W '   ~ a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers h` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2Yga1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   2GVa3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 2;t3a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 TechnicalDoc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg2meqVPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:lhBTechnical 5Technical 5;` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 6Technical 6<` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 2Technical 2= Technical 3Technical 3> 2I?$C@l*EA$EB$GTechnical 4Technical 4?` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 1@ Technical 7Technical 7A` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 8Technical 8B` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2OCJDJEKFMWP Heading 2WP Heading 2C44#6X@C@##Xv6X@CX@#WP Heading 1WP Heading 1D44#6X@C@# #Xv6X@CX@#toc 1toc 1E` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#toc 2toc 2F` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#2vXGOHRI:TJXVtoc 3toc 3G` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4H` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5I` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#toc 6toc 6J` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#2x_KvXLYM<[NZ]toc 7toc 7K toc 8toc 8L` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9M` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#index 1index 1N` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#2dO_PaQvcRl\dindex 2index 2O` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toa headingtoa headingP` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaptionQ _Equation Caption_Equation CaptionR 2MlSrddlejgKjendnote referenceendnote referenceS Courier New (TT)Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)Roman XP\  P6QXP.D7UC2X(XU4  pQXy.C8*XpC\  P6QPSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheadingW0\ E A.  head1 #X'd#2p}wC@ #2{@x2x{"5@^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd2?@%|@e@Z"5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCddddddd<d<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd"5@^(1<>400000000009>9+@04242079$4+<744440-909020!!!4002-2--42O4020(($4+90-+!!94)0400000000000G2-2-2-2-2-744040404094949494-004240402-40220044002-2-2-2-442-7-7077-7-94944444$42++)7474444(4)0(N$2+00020000-00000000t0>77+0c7<&&209<!!&>>400000000009>9+@04242079$4+<744440-909020!!!4002-2--42O4020(($4+90-+!!9-002240000000>00-$000000+0000000222224744444049999224000000G-----0400000+04444-221 X4 X C X4x #XP\  P6Q XP# Federal Communications Commission Ã`*(#[DA 971788   yxdddy  yO' #XP\  P6Q XP# #C\  P6QpP# Ŀ  x #XP\  P6Q XP# Federal Communications Commission`*(#[DA 971788   yxdddy  yO' #XP\  P6Q XP# #C\  P6QpP#  yO'fvBefore the  yO' Federal Communications Commission  yO_'9Washington, D.C. 20554#XP\  P6Q XP#   X'\In the Matter of hhCq) ` `  hhCq)  X'Rules and Policies RegardinghhCq)ppCC Docket No. 91281  X'Calling Number IdentificationhhCq)  X'Services Caller IDhhCq)  XX ' ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION Đ\  X4 Adopted: August 20, 1997hhCqpp Released: August 21, 1997 By the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau:  X4  X[4J: I. INTRODUCTION ă  XD4  X-4 e 1.` ` This Order on Reconsideration addresses petitions for reconsideration and waiver  x'filed by Germantown Telephone Company ("Germantown") and Middleburgh Telephone  xICompany ("Middleburgh"). In May 1995, the Commission adopted rules to require that carriers  X4 x/pass the calling party number ("CPN") for interstate calls and provide caller ID education.X]b yOc' x#X\  P6G;pP#э See Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification Service Caller ID, Memorandum Opinion  x'and Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd  yO'11700 (1995) ("May 5th Order"). On  X4 xNovember 30, 1995, the Bureau stayed until January 1, 1997 the application of the *82  x8unblocking requirement for calls originating on lines served by Siemens Stromberg Carlson's  X4 xI("SSC") Digital Community Office ("DCO") switches.%]b yO>#' x#X\  P6G;pP#э See In the Matter of Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification Service Caller ID, 11 FCC  yO$'Rcd 1743, 1749 ("November 30, 1995 Order").% Germantown filed a December 6, 1996  X4 xpetition requesting that it be excused from complying with the *82 unblocking requirement until  xDecember 31, 1998. On December 9, 1996 Middleburgh filed a similar petition making a request  xidentical to Germantown's. The Network Services Division ("NSD") denied each waiver request  XI!4 xbecause petitioners failed to demonstrate why they needed waivers until December 31, 1998.XI!@]b yO:)' x+#X\  P6G;pP#э See In the Matter of Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification Service Caller ID, DA 96 yO*' x2178 (1996) ("December 23, 1996 Order"); In the Matter of Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification  yO*'Service Caller ID, DA 97293 (1997) ("February 7, 1997 Order").  xMiddleburgh and Germantown filed petitions for reconsideration and waiver on December 31,X2"` ,,, 3'#HP LaserJet 5Si 20X  x1996, and February 18, 1997, respectively. Specifically, petitioners request reconsideration of  X4 xcthe December 23, 1996 Order and the February 7, 1997 Order; petitioners also amend their  xpetitions by requesting that they not have to comply with the *82 unblocking requirement until  xDecember 31, 1997 instead of December 31, 1998 as originally requested. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petitions for reconsideration and waiver.  Xx4f< II. BACKGROUND ă  XJ4 e 52.` ` Section 64.1601(b) of the Commission rules prohibits carriers from revealing a  xcaller's name or telephone number when the caller requests that such information not be revealed  X 4 xEto the called party.w  yO '#X\  P6G;pP#э 47 C.F.R.  64.1601(b). w Section 64.1601(b) provides that carriers using Signaling System Seven  X 4 x/("SS7") must recognize *67 as a request for privacy on an interstate call.d X yO'#X\  P6G;pP#э Id.d Additionally, section  x64.1601(b) requires that if a carrier offers per line blocking, it also must recognize *82 as a  X 4caller's request that the calling party's number be provided on an interstate call.j  yOp'#X\  P6G;pP#э Id.j  X 4 e e 3.` ` In the November 30, 1995 Order, the Bureau stayed until January 1, 1997  xapplication of the *82 unblocking requirement for calls originating on lines served by DCO  X}4 xpswitches.}x yO' x#X\  P6G;pP#э November 30, 1995 Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 1749. The Bureau also stayed the ban against using *67 as an  yOn'alternative unblocking code. Id. This stay was granted because the generic switch software with *82 capability ("*82  Xf4 x8software") was not available until June 1996.|f yO'#X\  P6G;pP#э Id. at 174549.| The Bureau also stayed the requirement that  XO4carriers provide customer notification regarding the *82 unblocking capability.y O`  yO`'#X\  P6G;pP#э Id. at 1749.y  X!4 e S4.` ` In the December 23, 1996 Order, NSD denied Middleburgh's petition for waiver  xof the *82 unblocking requirement because Middleburgh did not demonstrate why it needed a  X4 xEwaiver until December 31, 1998.   yO!'#X\  P6G;pP#э See December 23, 1996 Order at para.12. Specifically, NSD found that the carrier failed to provide  xEsufficient information to support its allegation that it would be "economically infeasible" for it  X4 xto offer *82 capability by January 1, 1997.d   yO$'#X\  P6G;pP#э Id.d NSD also concluded that Middleburgh's statement  xthat it could possibly be subject to "further upgrades for other reasons in a short time frame," was" ,a(a(GGO"  X4 xspeculative and vague.d  yOy'#X\  P6G;pP#э Id.d For example, the carrier did not indicate what other upgrades, in  X4addition to *82 software installation, were required for its DCO switches.d X yO'#X\  P6G;pP#э Id.d  X4 e \5.` ` Similarly, in the February 7, 1997 Order, NSD denied Germantown's petition  X4 xlwhich also requested a waiver of the *82 unblocking requirement until December 31, 1998. yO? '#X\  P6G;pP#э See February 7, 1997 Order at para. 12.  xhNSD concluded that Germantown did not sufficiently support its allegation that it was not  xeconomically practical for it to offer *82 capability on its DCO switch by the Commission's  Xa4 xJanuary 1, 1997 deadline.dax yO '#X\  P6G;pP#э Id.d NSD also found Germantown's statement that it was "possibly  XJ4 xEsubject to further upgrades for other reasons in a short time frame" speculative and vague.dJ yO'#X\  P6G;pP#э Id.d  xFurther, NSD stated that, although a limited number of subscribers would be affected by a  xVwaiver, the impact on subscribers of any waiver would be significant because the waiver would  X 4be for an extended period of time.e  yON'#X\  P6G;pP#э Id. e  X 44 III. THE PETITIONS ă  X 4 e v6.` ` Middleburgh now requests a waiver of the *82 requirement until December 31,  X4 xE1997.(  yOk'#X\  P6G;pP#эMiddleburgh provided no explanation for why it has shortened the time period of its waiver request by one year. Middleburgh argues that, because of "limitations in the current software" used in its  X{4 xDCO switch, it cannot comply with the January 1, 1997 deadline.u{  yO'#X\  P6G;pP#э Middleburgh petition at 2.u Middleburgh asserts also that  xonly 550 of its 5940 customers, fewer than 10% of its total access lines, would be affected by  x"grant of a waiver. Middleburgh adds that to provide subscribers with *82 functionality it would  X64 xhave to purchase a "generic upgrade for its host switch" at a cost of $40,000.d6 yO!'#X\  P6G;pP#э Id.d Consequently,  x8Middleburgh contends that it is not economically feasible to invest in such an upgrade until it  X4 xphas had an opportunity to "reevaluate its current network."d yOY%'#X\  P6G;pP#э Id.d Middleburgh states that it will soon  X4 xmake a decision regarding a network upgrade, but provides no date by which such decision"0,a(a(GG"  X4 xwould be made.l yOy'#X\  P6G;pP#э Id. at 23.l Middleburgh also contends that, though it made an October 1996 request to  xits switch vendor, SSC, regarding the switch upgrade, as of December 31, 1996 it had not  xreceived SSC's proposal. Middleburgh notes that it takes approximately 6 to 18 months from the date a proposal is received to complete an upgrade.  X4 e 7.` ` Germantown also requests a waiver of the *82 requirement until December 31,  x81997. Germantown states that it cannot comply with the *82 unblocking requirement by the  X_4 xJanuary 1, 1997 "due to limitations in the current software" used in its switch.t_X yOh '#X\  P6G;pP#э Germantown petition at 2.t The carrier  xestimates that only 224 of its 2483 customers, fewer that 9% of its access lines, would be  xaffected by grant of a waiver, and that "it would be required to purchase a generic upgrade for  X 4 xits host switch."d  yO'#X\  P6G;pP#э Id.d Germantown adds that it is currently reevaluating its network to offer "the best  X 4 xand most economical service to its customers,"d x yO,'#X\  P6G;pP#э Id.d and that it would not be economically feasible  x8for it to spend approximately $40,000 to upgrade its switch until it has had an opportunity "to  X 4 xreevaluate its current network."d  yO'#X\  P6G;pP#э Id.d Finally, Germantown estimates that a switch upgrade would take 6 to 18 months from the time it receives a proposal from SSC.  X 4  X4D IV. DISCUSSION ă  Xb4 e 8.` ` We deny Middleburgh's and Germantown's waiver requests. The Commission may  XK4 xwaive any provision of its rules, in whole or in part, if good cause is shown.|XK yO' xE#X\  P6G;pP#э 47 C.F.R.  1.3; See also Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (waiver  xhappropriate if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule and such deviation will serve the public interest).| For example, in  X44 xWait Radio the court stated that, "when an applicant seeks a waiver of a rule, it must plead with  X4 xtparticularity the facts and circumstances which warrant such action."  yO '#X\  P6G;pP#э Wait Radio v. Federal Communications Commission, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (1969). In Northeast Cellular, the  X 4 xcourt noted that a waiver is appropriate if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the  X4 xVgeneral rule and such deviation will serve the public interest.H  yO#'#X\  P6G;pP#эNortheast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Consistent with Wait Radio and  X4 xNortheast Cellular, the Bureau has granted waivers of the *82 unblocking requirement when  X4 xcarriers have made a good faith effort to secure the needed software upgrades and show why the",a(a(GGr"  X4requested waiver period is necessary.X yOy'#X\  P6G;pP#эSee e.g., December 23, 1996 Order. *82 unblocking waivers were granted to Pond Branch Telephone Company, Twin Lakes Telephone Cooperative Corporation, Sioux Valley Telephone Company, Hills Telephone Company, CrawKan Telephone Cooperative, Inc., and Northland Telephone Company of Vermont.  X4 e (9.` ` Middleburgh and Germantown make two arguments in support of their waiver  xrequests. First, petitioners assert that given the estimated number of customers that would be  xaffected by a waiver, it would not be economically practical to upgrade their respective switches  xuntil each had an opportunity to "reevaluate" its current network and determine the most cost  xleffective way to comply with the Commission's rules. Second, the petitioners contend that it  xcould take between 6 and 18 months to complete an upgrade. Middleburgh adds that at the time of filing this reconsideration, Middleburgh still had not received a response from SSC.  X 4 e 10.` ` Middleburgh and Germantown, however, have failed to satisfy Wait Radio or  X 4 xZNortheast Cellular. Consequently, they fall short of the standards under which other *82 waivers  xhave been granted. In response to the petitioners' first argument, we acknowledge that  xMiddleburgh and Germantown will incur some costs in upgrading their switches to provide  xsubscribers with *82 unblocking capability; but this alone does not demonstrate that such costs  x"rise to the level of economic infeasibility. The petitioners' offer scant evidence supporting their  X4 xVposition that it is economically infeasible for them to offer *82 capability on their DCO switches  xby the Commission's January 1, 1997 deadline. For example, neither carrier indicates whether  xit has plans for upgrades other than *82 software installation, whether it plans to replace  xVswitches, when decisions regarding such plans would be made. It is possible that an upgrade to  xthe *82 software would provide petitioners other capabilities beyond the *82 unblocking  X!4 xcapability, and that such additional capabilities are part of petitioners' network upgrade plans;! yO'#X\  P6G;pP#эNovember 30, 1995 Order at 1750, para. 30.  xneither petitioner addresses this point, however. Although petitioners contend that a small  x}percentage of their customers would be affected by their waiver requests, this percentage is not  xso small that it alone determines the question of economic infeasibility. Thus, in light of our  xycareful balancing of privacy interests of calling and called parties and our objective of having  x'uniform blocking and unblocking capabilities, we find petitioners' arguments of economic infeasibility speculative and insufficient to justify their waiver requests.  Xi4 e S11.` ` With regard to the second of petitioners' arguments, we find that Middleburgh and  xGermantown have not made good faith efforts to comply with the Commission's rules in a timely  xmanner. When the Bureau has previously granted waivers to carriers that have experienced  X$4 xldelays from the switch vendor, the carriers either had plans to upgrade their software or had  X 4 xalready initiated software installation. x yO6%'#X\  P6G;pP#э See, e.g., December 23, 1996 Order at para. 12; February 7, 1997 Order at para. 12. By contrast, Middleburgh and Germantown provide only  x/vague assertions that they are in the process of reevaluating their networks, and that a decision  xconcerning upgrades to the network will soon be made. Further, although Middleburgh seems" ,a(a(GG"  xIto suggest that SSC has been slow to provide Middleburgh with an upgrade proposal, we do not  xfind that this justifies grant of reconsideration in this case. The carrier has had ample time to  xcomply with the *82 requirement because the Commission had previously stayed the rules for  X4 x_one year in its November 30, 1995 Order.! yO4'#X\  P6G;pP#э November 30, 1995 Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 1749. Thus, the carriers' vague assertions regarding a  xpnetwork upgrade and Middleburgh's statement concerning delays from the switch vendor do not  x"justify grant of reconsideration. We therefore deny Middleburgh's and Germantown's requests for waiver.  XH4 e 12.` ` Our experience from previous proceedings indicates that carriers have been able  x"to come into full compliance with our Caller ID requirements within five months of the grant of  X 4 xa waiver."X X yO# ' x#X\  P6G;pP#э Pacific Bell indicated full compliance with our Caller ID rules within approximately three months after we  yO ' xRgranted its waiver request and required it to file periodic reports. See Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number  yO'Identification Services Caller ID, 11 FCC Rcd 12756 (1996). Accordingly, we hereby order Middleburgh and Germantown to comply with the  xCommission's *82 unblocking requirement by January 28, 1998. In addition, we caution  xMiddleburgh and Germantown that failure to comply with the *82 unblocking requirement may  X 4 xresult in enforcement proceedings.# x yO'#X\  P6G;pP#э 47 U.S.C.  501, 502, 503(b). To assist the Bureau in monitoring the carriers' compliance  xwith the Commission's rules, we require Middleburgh and Germantown to file progress reports  xcwith the Network Services Division on November 11, 1997, December 11, 1997, and January 6,  x1998. These reports may be in the form of a letter, and shall contain the following information:  x3(1) the status of any DCO switch replacements; (2) the status of any operating (generic) software  xupgrades to the DCO switches; and (3) an updated implementation schedule, with explanation of any failures to meet the previous schedule and corrective action being taken.  X45% V. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  X4 e 13.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority delegated in Section 0.91  xof the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, and Section 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47  xC.F.R.  0.291, that Middleburgh's petition for reconsideration and waiver of Section 64.1601(b) of the Commission's rules IS DENIED.  X|4 e 914.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority delegated in Section 0.91  x_of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91 and Section 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47  xC.F.R.  0.291, that Germantown's petition for reconsideration and waiver of Section 64.1601(b) of the Commission's rules IS DENIED.  X 4 e 15.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Middleburgh and Germantown file progress reports with the Network Services Division as described by this Order. "#,a(a(GG"Ԍ X416.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that this order is effective upon release. ` `  hhCFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hhCRegina M. Keeney ` `  hhCChief, Common Carrier Bureau