[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 9, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64759-64765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32177]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 52 and 64
[DA 97-2528]
Petitions for Waiver of the Four-Digit Carrier Identification
Code (CIC) Implementation Schedule
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 3, 1997, the Network Services Division of the
Commission's Common Carrier Bureau, released an Order granting
extensions to certain local exchange carriers (LECs) of the January 1,
1998 deadline for implementing four-digit carrier code identification
codes (CIC). The Order is intended to respond to waiver requests
received from certain LECs.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 3, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Nightingale, Attorney,
Network Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 418-2352.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Adopted: December 2, 1997
Released: December 3, 1997
I. Introduction
Carrier identification codes (CICs) are numeric codes that enable
local exchange carriers (LECs) providing interstate interexchange
access services to identify the interstate interexchange carrier (IXC)
that the originating caller wishes to use to transmit its interstate
call.1 LECs use the CICs to route traffic to the proper IXC
and to bill for the interstate access service provided. CICs facilitate
competition by enabling callers to use the services of
telecommunications service providers either by presubscription or by
dialing a carrier access code, or CAC, which incorporates that
carrier's unique Feature Group D CIC.2 Originally, CICs were
unique three-digit codes (XXX) and CACs were five-digit codes
incorporating the CIC (10XXX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Most access providers are incumbent local exchange carriers
(incumbent LECs) that provide access customers with circuits that
interconnect to the local carrier's public switched telephone
network. Commission rules require that ``interstate access services
should be made available on a non-discriminatory basis and, as far
as possible, without distinction between end user and IC
[interexchange carrier] customers.'' Petition of First Data
Resources, Inc., Regarding the Availability of Feature Group B
Access Service to End Users, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 1986 WL
291786 (rel. May 28, 1986) at para. 13. Typical access customers
include interexchange carriers, wireless carriers, competitive
access providers, and large corporate users.
\2\ Feature Group D access, or ``equal access,'' is known in the
industry as ``One-plus'' (``1+'') dialing. This type of access
allows calls to be routed directly to the caller's carrier of
choice. Feature Group D/equal access offers features, including
presubscription, not generally available through other forms of
access. In 1988, the Industry Carriers Compatibility Forum (ICCF),
operating under the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry
Solutions (ATIS), Carrier Liaison Committee (CLC), began to develop
a two-part plan to convert and expand three-digit Feature Group D
CICs to four digits. The second part of the plan, originally
scheduled to occur in the third quarter of 1993, contemplated
expansion of three-digit Feature Group D CICs to four digits and
eventual elimination of the 10XXX CAC format. See Letter of October
13, 1989, from G.J. Handler, Vice President, Network Planning, Bell
Communications Research (Bellcore), to Richard M. Firestone, Chief,
Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission at 2
(Handler Letter). The ICCF's plan was published in 1991. See
Expansion of Carrier Identification Code Capacity for Feature Group
D (FGD), Bellcore Technical Reference TR-NWT-001050, Issue 1 (April
1991) (ICCF Expansion Plan, April 1991). In 1994, the expansion of
Feature Group D CICs was scheduled for the first quarter of 1995.
See Administration of the North American Numbering Plan, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 92-237, 9 FCC Rcd 2068, 2076
(1994) (59 FR 24103 (5/10/94) (CICs NPRM). In January 1997, the ICCF
became part of the Network Interconnection Interoperability Forum
(NIIF), which also operates under the auspices of the CLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. On April 11, 1997, in the CICs Second Report and
Order,3 the Commission approved an industry plan to expand
Feature Group D CICs from three to four digits on the ground that it
was a reasonable method of meeting future demand for CICs as the supply
of three-digit codes was exhausted.4 The industry agreed
that as the expansion from three to four-digit CICs occurred, and as
carriers replaced their five-digit CACs with seven-digit CACs, a
transition, or permissive dialing period, was needed. The industry,
however, was unable to agree on the length of the
transition.5 In its 1994 CICs NPRM, the Commission proposed
a six-year period.6 In the CICs Second Report and Order,
however, because of the rapidly depleting pool of available three-digit
[[Page 64760]]
CICs, the Commission decided to end the transition on January 1, 1998.
The Commission also denied requests to ``grandfather'' (i.e., to permit
carriers to continue to use) previously assigned three-digit CICs that
are in use at the end of the transition.7 The Commission's
decisions were intended to advance the pro-competitive objectives of
the Communications Act of 1934 (the Communications Act or the
Act),8 as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996
(1996 Act).9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Administration of the North American Numbering Plan, Carrier
Identification Codes (CICs), Second Report and Order, CC Docket No.
92-237, FCC 97-125 (released April 11, 1997) (62 FR 19056 (April 18,
1997)) (CICs Second Report and Order).
\4\ See CICs Second Report and Order at para. 28.
\5\ See Handler Letter at 2.
\6\ See CICs NPRM, 9 FCC Rcd at 2076-77.
\7\ See CICs Second Report and Order at para. 46.
\8\ 47 U.S.C. Secs. 151 et seq.
\9\ Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110
Stat. 56 (1996); see Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of
the Conference, H.R. Rep. No. 458, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. On October 22, 1997, in the CICs Order on
Reconsideration,10 the Commission modified the decision in
the CICs Second Report and Order regarding the length of the transition
during which three and four-digit Feature Group D CICs co-exist, and
created a ``two-step'' end to the transition to four-digit CICs. Under
the CICs Order on Reconsideration, all LECs that provide equal access
must have completed switch changes to recognize four-digit CICs by
January 1, 1998, the end of the first phase. The second phase, which
ends on June 30, 1998, is intended to allow interexchange carriers time
to prepare their networks for, and educate their customers about, the
replacement of three-digit CICs by four-digit CICs. After June 30,
1998, only four-digit CICs and seven-digit CACs will be recognized. The
Commission also affirmed its decision in the CICs Second Report and
Order not to grandfather the use of three-digit CICs and five-digit
CACs that are in use during the transition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Administration of the North American Numbering Plan,
Carrier Identification Codes (CICs), Order on Reconsideration, Order
on Application for Review, and Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 92-237, FCC 97-386 (released October 22,
1997) (62 FR 55762 (October 28, 1997)) (CICs Order on
Reconsideration). Prior to the release of the CICs Order on
Reconsideration, on October 9, 1997, the Commission issued a Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this docket. See Administration of
the North American Numbering Plan, Carrier Identification Codes
(CICs), Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, CC Docket
No. 92-237, FCC 97-364 (released October 9, 1997) (62 FR 54817
(October 22, 1997) (CICs FNPRM). The issues raised in the CICs FNPRM
are unrelated to the waiver petitions we address here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Several small LECs have filed petitions for waiver of the CICs
Second Report and Order's January 1, 1998 conversion
deadline.11 Hardy requests an extension until April 30,
1998; Pierce requests an extension until May 1, 1998; Northeast,
Pioneer, Hartington, and Jefferson request extensions until June 30,
1998; Hartman requests an extension until July 1, 1998; and Clarks,
Eustis/Home, and Henderson request extensions until January 1, 2000.
The LECs generally argue that extensions are warranted because the
operating system software they need to upgrade to four-digit CIC
capability is not currently available and is very costly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Petition for Limited Waiver of Clarks
Telecommunications Co., CC Docket No. 92-237, October 2, 1997
(Clarks Petition); Joint Petition for Limited Waiver of Eustis
Telephone Exchange, Inc. and Home Telephone Company of Nebraska, CC
Docket No. 92-237, October 2, 1997 (Eustis/Home Petition); Petition
for Limited Waiver of Hardy Telecommunications, Inc., CC Docket No.
92-237, September 23, 1997 (Hardy Petition); Response to Inquiry by
Hardy Telecommunications, Inc., CC Docket No. 92-237, September 29,
1997 (Hardy Response to Inquiry); Petition for Waiver of Hartington
Telecommunications Co., Inc., CC Docket No. 92-237, October 9, 1997
(Hartington Petition); Errata to Petition for Waiver of Hartington
Telecommunications Co., Inc., CC Docket No. 92-237, October 10, 1997
(Hartington Errata to Petition); Petition for Limited Waiver of
Hartman Telephone Exchanges, Inc., CC Docket No. 92-237, October 6,
1997 (Hartman Petition); Petition for Limited Waiver of Henderson
Telephone Company, CC Docket No. 92-237, October 2, 1997 (Henderson
Petition); Petition for Waiver of Jefferson Telephone Company, CC
Docket No. 92-237, October 23, 1997 (Jefferson Petition); Petition
for Limited Waiver of Pierce Telephone Company, Inc., CC Docket No.
92-237, November 5, 1997 (Pierce Petition); Petition for Waiver of
Northeast Nebraska Telephone Company, CC Docket No. 92-237, November
5, 1997 (Northeast Petition); Petition for Limited Waiver of Pioneer
Telephone Cooperative, Inc., CC Docket No. 92-237, November 14, 1997
(Pioneer Petition).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. In this Order, we conclude that, for the reasons discussed
below: (1) The petitions of Hardy, Pierce, Northeast, and Pioneer
should be granted, by extending for them the switch conversion deadline
for four-digit CIC capability for the time periods requested; (2) the
petitions of Hartman, Clarks, Eustis/Home, and Henderson should be
granted in part, by extending for them the switch conversion deadline
for four-digit CIC capability, but only until June 30, 1998, and should
be denied in part, to the extent they request extensions beyond that
date; and (3) the petitions of Hartington and Jefferson should be
dismissed as moot.
II. Petitions
A. Request for Extension Until April 30, 1998
6. Hardy, an incumbent LEC serving rural areas of West Virginia,
12 that has provided interLATA equal access since 1992,
13 requests an extension of the switch conversion deadline
until April 30, 1998. Hardy claims that it is technically infeasible
for it to comply with the January 1, 1998 deadline. Hardy currently
operates an Alcatel E-10-Five switch. Hardy asserts that the software
required to accept four-digit Feature Group D CICs was not available
when it purchased the interLATA equal access software from Altcatel in
March 1990. 14 Hardy asserts that Alcatel has notified Hardy
that it will not provide the software upgrades for four-digit CICs.
15 Hardy explains that it needs to comply with the Rural
Utilities Service (RUS) requirements (a process it started in early
1997) to deploy a new switch that would include, among other things,
four-digit CIC capability. Hardy asserts that the requested extension
of time until April 30, 1998, will enable it to continue its efforts to
select, purchase, and deploy a switch capable of providing the four-
digit CIC function. 16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Hardy serves approximately 2,600 access lines. See Hardy
Petition at 1.
\13\ See Hardy Response to Inquiry.
\14\ See id.
\15\ See Hardy Petition at 2-3.
\16\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Request for Extension Until May 1, 1998
7. Pierce, a small, rural LEC providing equal access, requests an
extension of the switch conversion deadline until May 1, 1998.
17 Pierce claims that it is technically and economically
infeasible for it to comply with the January 1, 1998 deadline.
18 Pierce operates two Northern Telecom (Nortel) switches,
using operating systems software release version 404.41, which does not
have four-digit CIC capability. 19 Pierce asserts that since
May 1997, it has made good faith efforts to purchase an updated
release, but that Nortel has not responded to confirm either price or
acceptance of the order for the software. 20 Pierce asserts
that it is currently trying to negotiate with Nortel. Once contracts
are signed, a lead time of 180 days is expected, which Pierce claims
would mean a mid-1998 implementation date. 21 Pierce asserts
that the Commission's grant of a waiver in the present case is
consistent with Commission precedent recognizing the technical and
economic burdens imposed on small and rural LECs in implementing
software upgrades and granting waivers when those burdens are
demonstrated. 22
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Pierce Petition at 1 and 3. Pierce serves approximately
1,870 access lines. See id. at n.3.
\18\ See id. at 1-2.
\19\ See id. at 2.
\20\ See id. at 3.
\21\ See id.
\22\ See id. at 3-4, citing Rules and Policies Regarding Calling
Number Identification Service--Caller ID, Order and Fourth Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 91-281, 10 FCC Rcd 13796, 13808
(1995)(60 FR 63491 (December 11, 1995)) (Caller ID Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 64761]]
C. Requests for Extensions until June 30, 1998
8. Northeast, Pioneer, Hartington, and Jefferson, all rural LECs,
request extensions of the switch conversion deadline until June 30,
1998. Northeast and Hartington serve Nebraska, Pioneer serves Oklahoma,
and Jefferson serves South Dakota.23 Hartington and
Jefferson assert that they do not provide Feature Group D equal access,
because they have never received a request for equal
access.24 Northeast asserts that since April 15, 1997, it
has provided equal access in three of its 12 exchanges, notwithstanding
that it has never received a request for equal access.25
Pioneer asserts that all of its 77 end offices were converted to equal
access by May 1, 1996.26 Pioneer asserts that 65 of its
exchanges, serving approximately 86 percent of its access lines, are
four-digit CIC capable.27 Pioneer's extension request,
therefore, applies to the 12 non-conforming exchanges.28
Northeast asserts that the switching equipment providing equal access
in each of the three exchanges is not four-digit CIC capable at this
time.29 Northeast, Hartington, and Jefferson all assert that
no IXCs with four-digit CICs have shown an interest in serving their
exchange areas.30 Each argues that, even it were to receive
a request for equal access, the market it serves is small and the
company would be allowed three years after a bona fide request to begin
providing equal access.31 Northeast, Hartington and
Jefferson all assert that, for these reasons, granting their waiver
requests would not thwart the Commission's policy goal of expansion of
competition in the interexchange market.32 Northeast,
Hartington, and Jefferson indicate that they have demonstrated an
intent to implement four-digit CIC capability as soon as
practicable.33
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Northeast operates 4,120 access lines in twelve exchanges.
See Northeast Petition at 2. Hartington operates 1,600 access lines
serving 3,000 people. See Hartington Petition at 2. Pioneer serves
approximately 50,000 access lines through 77 end offices. See
Pioneer Petition at 2. Jefferson operates 550 access lines serving
1,100 people. See Jefferson Petition at 2.
\24\ Hartington asserts that it does not pass CICs in its
signalling (Hartington Petition at 2 ) and that Hartington customers
make long distance calls through Feature Group C dialing
arrangements. If customers wish to use the services of an IXC other
than AT&T for interLATA calls, they may use either a credit card
service or Feature Group B dialing arrangement (Hartington Errata to
Petition). Jefferson asserts that its customers connect with
competing long distance carriers through Feature Group B and C
dialing. See Jefferson Petition at 2.
\25\ See Northeast Petition at 2. These three exchanges have a
total of 1,149 access lines. See id.
\26\ See Pioneer Petition at 2. Pioneer asserts that it began
the equal access conversion process in 1991. Id.
\27\ Id. at 3.
\28\ Id. These exchanges are Apache, Arnett, Buffalo, Canton,
Chester, Drummond, Fort Supply, Gage, Longdale, Quinlan, Shattuck,
and Waynoka.
\29\ See Northeast Petition at 2.
\30\ See Northeast Petition at 5; Hartington Petition at 3-4;
Jefferson Petition at 4.
\31\ See Jefferson Petition at 5-6; Hartington Petition at 4;
Jefferson Petition at 4. Jefferson also notes that this is
particularly true given that IXCs have until June 30, 1998 to
convert their own services to four-digit CICs. See Jefferson
Petition at 5-6.
\32\ See Northeast Petition at 5-6; Hartington Petition at 3-4;
Jefferson Petition at 4.
\33\ See Northeast Petition at 7; Hartington Petition at 5;
Jefferson Petition at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Northeast asserts that it began negotiations to replace
switching equipment at its three equal access exchanges shortly after
the Commission released the April 1997 CICs Second Report and
Order.34 Northeast asserts that, after months of
negotiations, it ordered new, four-digit CIC capable, switching
equipment for two of the exchanges in October 1997.35
Northeast asserts that the equipment is scheduled to be delivered by
mid-December 1997, and installed by mid-February 1998.36
Northeast asserts that negotiations are ongoing for the third
exchange.37 Northeast asserts that for this exchange, it
expects that the new, four-digit CIC compliant switch will be ordered
shortly after Northeast's next board meeting on November 18, 1997,
delivered in early 1998, and installed during the first quarter of
1998.38 Northeast also asserts that it interprets the recent
CICs Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking as not requiring Northeast to comply with the January 1,
1998 conversion deadline, because it has never received a bona fide
request for equal access.39 Northeast asserts, therefore,
that it may not need to request a waiver of the January 1, 1998
conversion deadline, but states that it is doing so, out of an
abundance of caution.40
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Northeast Petition at 2.
\35\ See id. at 2-3.
\36\ See id. at 3. Northeast asserts that installation of new
switching equipment is a more complicated and lengthy process than
installation of software upgrades. See id. at n.5.
\37\ See id. at 3.
\38\ See id.
\39\ See id. at 3-4, citing CICs Order on Reconsideration at
n.75 and CICs Second FNPRM at para. 84.
\40\ See Northeast Petition at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Pioneer asserts that grant of its request will allow Pioneer to
complete its network reconfiguration and deploy new switch facilities
in the most rational and efficient manner. This will, in turn, benefit
its customers, who will be spared the costs of an abrupt change in
Pioneer's plan.41 Pioneer states that in January 1995, it
began a series of network-wide equipment upgrades to bring new services
to its customers, including the four-digit CIC function. Pioneer
asserts that upon issuance of the CICs Second Report and Order, it
accelerated its network conversion to four-digit CICs, a process it had
anticipated being completed by the year 2000, under the originally
proposed six-year transition.42 Pioneer contends that its
conversion process was delayed when an area code split was ordered,
beginning on November 1, 1997, affecting 62 of its 77
exchanges.43 For the 12 exchanges for which it seeks an
extension, Pioneer argues that it would be economically infeasible to
meet the January 1, 1998 deadline.44 After exploring all
reasonable alternatives, Pioneer asserts that additional time is
needed, until June 30, 1998, to convert these 12 exchanges. Pioneer
notes that its request would ensure compliance when the permissive
dialing period ends, and would, therefore, mean that the only IXCs
affected by the grant of this waiver request would be those IXCs using
new four-digit CICs.45
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See Pioneer Petition at 9.
\42\ See id. at 2-3.
\43\ Id. at 3.
\44\ Id. at 4.
\45\ Id. at 4 and 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Hartington has entered into a contract with Nortel for the
purchase of four-digit CIC compliant switching equipment, but claims
that installation and testing of the new equipment may not occur until
March 1998, at the earliest.46 Like Clarks and Eustis/Home,
Jefferson uses Nortel operating systems software release version
403.31. Jefferson asserts that it discovered that to achieve four-digit
CIC capability, an upgrade costing approximately $100,000 would be
necessary.47 Jefferson also notes that the company is in the
process of being sold, and expresses concern about spending $100,000 on
switching upgrades.48
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See Hartington Petition at 2.
\47\ See Jefferson Petition at 2 and n.3.
\48\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Request for Extension Until July 1, 1998
12. Hartman, a small LEC 49 serving Nebraska that has
provided equal access since 1995, requests an extension of the switch
conversion deadline until July 1, 1998.50 Hartman uses
Nortel operating systems software release version 405.10, and argues
that, to obtain four-digit CIC
[[Page 64762]]
capability, the company will need to upgrade this software and buy
additional equipment.51 Hartman asserts that, after months
of negotiations, it has signed a contract with Nortel to upgrade to
release 406.10, but argues that, because Nortel has been overwhelmed
with upgrade requests, the delivery date for the upgrade is
uncertain.52 Hartman asserts that it has considered other
manufacturers but has discovered that it would not be economical to
purchase the equipment from them.53 Like Pierce, Hartman
refers to Commission precedent granting waivers when technical and
economic burdens imposed on small and rural LECs in implementing
software upgrades are demonstrated.54
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Hartman operates 450 access lines serving three exchanges
on the Nebraska/Kansas border. See Hartman Petition at 3.
\50\ See id. at 1.
\51\ See id. at 2-3.
\52\ Id.
\53\ See id.
\54\ See id. at 4, citing Caller Id Order, cited at n.22, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Requests for Extension Until January 1, 2000
13. Clarks, Eustis/Home, and Henderson each request a two-year
extension of the switch conversion deadline, until January 1, 2000.
Each is a small LEC 55 that currently is providing equal
access.56 Each asserts that compliance with the January 1,
1998 conversion requirement is technically and economically infeasible
because the operating system software needed to upgrade to four-digit
CIC capability is not currently available and is very costly. None of
the companies routinely performs upgrades to its Nortel switches, and
each asserts that due to the large number of update requests, Nortel
has a long waiting list of LECs seeking to obtain the new software
releases.57 Clarks and Eustis/Home both use Nortel operating
systems software release version 403.31. They state that they have been
considering upgrading to Nortel's operating systems software release
version 410.10, but argue that the process is lengthy due to Nortel's
long waiting list.58 Eustis/Home asserts that it does not
expect to receive the new release until mid-1998.59
Henderson uses Nortel operating systems software release version
402.52. Henderson asserts that it expects a mid-1998 implementation,
based on contract negotiations with Nortel. Henderson notes, however,
that if it decides to purchase new equipment from another manufacturer,
implementation could take several more months.60 Like Pierce
and Hartman, Clarks, Eustis/Home, and Henderson refer to Commission
precedent granting waivers when technical and economic burdens imposed
on small and rural LECs in implementing software upgrades are
demonstrated.61
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Clarks and Henderson each serves 1000 access lines, and
Eustis/Home combined serves 1300 access lines. See Clarks Petition
at n.3; Henderson Petition at n.3; Eustis/Home Petition at n.3.
Eustis and Home are commonly owned. See Eustis/Home Petition at 1.
\56\ Clarks states that it has been providing equal access since
1989. Eustis/Home and Henderson do not indicate when they began
providing equal access.
\57\ See Clarks Petition at 3; Eustis/Home Petition at 3.
\58\ See Clarks Petition at 3; Eustis/Home Petition at 3.
\59\ See Eustis/Home Petition at 3.
\60\ See Henderson Petition at 3.
\61\ See e.g., Clarks Petition at 4, citing Caller Id Order,
cited at n.22, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Clarks, Eustis/Home, and Henderson argue that to obtain four-
digit CIC capability, they must upgrade software or hardware and
purchase additional equipment. Clarks notes that it is considering
purchasing a new switch, which requires completion of RUS requirements,
followed by installation of the equipment. The total process assertedly
would take 18-20 months.62 Eustis/Home also argues that
switch replacement would take 18-20 months.63 Henderson
asserts that it is making good faith efforts to purchase an updated
release, but argues that Nortel has refused to deal with Henderson
using the RUS contract, and negotiations are taking
months.64 Eustis/Home and Henderson assert that they have
also consulted with Stromburg-Carlson and Mitel about updated
releases.65
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See Clarks Petition at 3.
\63\ See Eustis/Home Petition at 3.
\64\ See Henderson Petition at 3.
\65\ See Eustis/Home Petition at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion
15. The Commission may waive any provision of its rules, in whole
or in part, if good cause is shown.66 An applicant for
waiver must demonstrate that special circumstances warrant a deviation
from the general rule and that such deviation will serve the public
interest.67 In evaluating each petition for waiver before us
here, we have weighed the following factors: the LEC's diligence in
upgrading its switches; the availability from manufacturers of products
required to accomplish the upgrade; and the impact of an extension of
the conversion deadline on the IXCs served by the LEC's switches and on
customers' ability to reach IXCs through CAC dialing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\See 47 C.F.R. Sec. 1.3.
\67\ Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164,
1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990); WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir.
1969).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Requests for Extension of Hardy, Pierce, Northeast, Pioneer and
Hartman. We find that the petitions for waiver filed by Hardy, Pierce,
Northeast, Pioneer, and Hartman demonstrate the special circumstances
meriting a waiver of the January 1, 1998 conversion deadline. First,
each has demonstrated that it is diligently working to upgrade or
replace its switches. For example, Hardy initiated the RUS process to
deploy a new switch with the four-digit CIC capability in early 1997,
when it learned that its switch vendor does not provide software
upgrades to implement four-digit CICs capability. Pierce has been
working to purchase four-digit CIC capable upgrades since May 1997,
shortly following the release of the CICs Second Report and Order
establishing the January 1, 1998 deadline for LEC conversion to four-
digit CICs. Similarly, Northeast states that it began negotiations to
replace its switching equipment shortly after the release of the CICs
Second Report and Order in April 1997. After months of negotiations,
Northeast has now ordered new, four-digit CIC capable, switching
equipment for two of its exchanges, expects to place an order for its
third switch in November 1997, and anticipates installation of all of
the required new equipment during the first quarter of 1998. Pioneer
states that it began a series of network-wide equipment upgrades, that
would include four-digit CIC capability, in January 1995 and
accelerated that conversion following the release of the CICs Second
Report and Order. Although its conversion process was delayed by an
area code split, Pioneer requests an extension for only 12 of its 77
exchanges and only until the end of the permissive dialing period on
June 30, 1998. Hartman indicates that it is making good faith efforts
to purchase updated software; indeed, Hartman states that it has signed
a contract with Nortel for an upgraded operating systems software
release.
17. Second, based on their petitions, we conclude that Hardy,
Pierce, Northeast, and Hartman have demonstrated that the product
needed to accomplish the upgrade to their individual networks is not
readily available from switch manufacturers, which has delayed their
ability to meet the January 1, 1998 conversion deadline. In Hardy's
case, Alcatel has notified it that it will not provide the software
upgrades necessary to implement four-digit CIC capability. Thus, Hardy
must select, purchase and deploy a new switch capable of providing the
four-digit CIC function.
[[Page 64763]]
Pierce has been unable to obtain from Nortel the product necessary to
upgrade its Nortel switches. Pierce estimates that upgrades can be
operational, however, 180 days after a contract with Nortel is signed.
Northeast maintains that replacement switching equipment was purchased
only after months of negotiations. Hartman asserts that, because Nortel
has been overwhelmed with upgrade requests, the delivery date for its
upgrade is uncertain. In Pioneer's case, although it does not claim
that replacement switching equipment is unavailable, we note that
Pioneer also is replacing its switching equipment, rather than
implementing an upgrade to its existing equipment. Thus, we conclude
that the absence of this claim is not dispositive of its petition.
18. Third, we conclude that the impact of an extension of the
conversion deadline on the IXCs served by Hardy, Pierce, Northeast,
Pioneer, and Hartman, and on the ability of those LECs' customers to
reach IXCs through CAC dialing, does not outweigh the burden on the
LECs that would be imposed by a denial of their petitions for waiver.
Hardy, Pierce, Northeast, Pioneer, and Hartman are small, rural LECs
serving a limited number of access lines. Hardy operates in West
Virginia, serving 2,600 access lines. Pierce, a local exchange carrier
in Nebraska, serves about 1,870 access lines. Northeast also operates
in Nebraska, serving about 1,150 access lines. Hartman operates 450
access lines serving three exchanges on the Nebraska/Kansas border.
Pioneer operates in Oklahoma, and although it serves approximately
50,000 access lines, only 14 percent of those access lines are affected
by its request for an extension of the January 1, 1998 conversion
deadline.68 Hardy, Pierce, Northeast and Pioneer have not
requested an extension of the conversion deadline beyond June 30, 1998.
Accordingly, the grant of their requested waivers will not affect or
interfere with the end of the permissive dialing period on June 30,
1998. Hartman requests an extension of the conversion deadline until
July 1, 1998, only one day after the end of the permissive dialing
period. As explained below, we grant Hartman an extension until June
30, 1998, which will not affect or interfere with the end of the
permissive dialing period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Pioneer states that currently 65 of its existing exchanges,
serving approximately 86 percent of its access lines, are capable of
providing the four-digit CIC function by the January 1, 1998
deadline. See Pioneer Petition at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. We recognize that the grant of these extensions will shorten or
eliminate the time we provided for IXCs to prepare their networks and
to educate their customers, in creating a two-step transition in our
Order on Reconsideration. We find, however, that the technical and
economic burden on these LECs that would be imposed by a denial of the
extensions outweighs the burden to the IXCs and their customers. Each
petitioner asserts that, even if it were technically feasible, it would
suffer undue economic burden in attempting to meet the January 1, 1998
conversion deadline. Further, the economic burdens imposed by a denial
of the extensions would be borne by the LECs' customers. We note,
moreover, that only IXCs that have been issued a four-digit CIC (who
cannot currently receive CAC calls originating with the LECs'
customers) will be affected by the grant of the waivers. The
petitioners' networks can, and will continue to, accept CAC calling for
IXCs with three-digit CICs until the transition ends on June 30, 1998.
Although we recognize the potential anticompetitive effects of the
dialing disparity and seek to minimize them, we believe that those
effects are outweighed by the economic and technical burdens likely to
be imposed on the LECs by a failure to extend the conversion deadline
for them. Thus, on balance, we find that the impact of an extension of
the conversion deadline on the IXCs served by Hardy, Pierce, Northeast,
Pioneer, and Hartman, and on the ability of those LECs' customers to
reach IXCs through CAC dialing, does not outweigh the burden on the
LECs that would be imposed by a denial of the extension requests.
20. We find that the conversion extension dates requested by Hardy
and Pierce are reasonable. Hardy's and Pierce's requests for extensions
until April 30, 1998, and May 1, 1998, respectively, allow for at least
a brief period of time during which the IXCs served by these LEC
switches can coordinate the conversion with them and can educate their
customers about the necessary dialing changes.
21. We also find the amount of additional time requested by
Northeast and Pioneer, until June 30, 1998, to be reasonable. On June
30, the permissive dialing period will end. We recognize that granting
the extension until June 30, 1998, will effectively eliminate the
benefits of the two-step transition created by the Commission in the
CICs Order on Reconsideration for the IXCs served by these LECs'
limited number of access lines. As noted above, we conclude, however,
that the burden on the LECs that would be imposed by a denial of the
extension outweighs the burden to IXCs and their customers. We reject
Northeast's interpretation of the Commission's actions as requiring
conversion by a LEC only if it is providing equal access in response to
a request. The CICs Order on Reconsideration, in requiring that LECs
providing equal access convert to four-digit CIC capability by January
1, 1998, does not distinguish between those LECs providing equal access
voluntarily and those providing it in response to a request. This is
consistent with the Commission's requirement in the Independent
Telephone Company Equal Access Report and Order,69 issued
over twelve years ago, that companies not receiving a request for equal
access implement equal access as soon as practicable.70
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ See In the Matter of MTS and WATS Market Structure Phase
III, Report and Order, CC Docket No. 78-72, 100 F.C.C.2d 860
(1985)(Independent Telephone Company Equal Access Order).
\70\ See id. at para. 48, cited in CICs Second FNPRM at para.
83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. We also find that Hartman's request for an extension until July
1, 1998, is generally reasonable. Because the permissive dialing period
ends on June 30, 1998, we grant Hartman's request until that date,
rather than until July 1, 1998, to avoid disruption to IXCs and to the
public when the permissive dialing period ends on June 30, 1998.
23. Requests for Extension of Clarks, Eustis/Home, and Henderson.
We find that Clarks', Eustis/Home's, and Henderson's requested
extensions, until January 1, 2000, are unreasonable. While we find that
these LECs warrant an extension of the conversion deadline, we find
that these LECs have failed to demonstrate the reasonableness of the
amount of time they request, and to explain why, after seven months, a
decision as to whether to replace their switches as a means of becoming
four-digit CIC compliant has not been reached. As explained below, we
grant extensions of the conversion deadline to Clarks, Eustis/Home, and
Henderson, but only until June 30, 1998, which should be sufficient
time for them to upgrade their switches.
24. Clarks, Eustis/Home, and Henderson all argue that switch
replacement may be necessary before their networks are four-digit CIC
compliant. Both Clarks and Eustis/Home assert that if switch
replacement is necessary, they would not be ready to convert for 18-20
months. Henderson, while asserting that it could expect mid-1998
implementation of a switch upgrade, asserts that implementation could
take several more months if it decides to purchase new equipment from a
different manufacturer. We
[[Page 64764]]
recognize, based on Hardy's experience, that if Clarks, Eustis/Home,
and Henderson decide to replace their switches, which would involve the
RUS funding approval process, the entire process could take as long as
16 months.71 Clarks, Eustis/Home, and Henderson have not yet
decided, however, whether to pursue that course of action, instead of
upgrading existing ones, as a means of becoming four-digit CIC
compliant. None of these carriers, who assertedly began considering
conversion options as early as April 1997, has explained why, after
seven months, a decision as to whether to replace their switches, a
process which they all assert is a lengthy one, has not been reached.
Hardy states that it began the RUS process for deploying a new switch
in early 1997, and asks for an extension until only April 30, 1998;
Clarks, Eustis/Home, and Henderson, on the other hand, began
considering options at most only three months later than Hardy, yet
request extensions of two years, rather than four months, as requested
by Hardy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ If Hardy began this process on January 1, 1997, and is
ready for implementation by April 30, 1998, the total amount of time
required would be 16 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. Based on their petitions, we find that a more limited extension
is warranted. Clarks, Eustis/Home, and Henderson warrant extensions of
the conversion deadline to upgrade their switches because each has
demonstrated diligence in pursuing switch upgrades, and the
unavailability from manufacturers of products required to accomplish
the upgrade. The impact of an extension on the IXCs served by them, and
on the ability of those LECs' customers to reach IXCs through CAC
dialing, does not outweigh the burden on the LECs that would be imposed
in the absence of an extension.
26. First, Clarks, Eustis/Home, and Henderson have demonstrated
that they are diligently working to upgrade their switches. Each
asserts that, upon issuance of the CICs Second Report and Order in
April 1997, it began assessing the steps necessary to meet the January
1, 1998 conversion deadline. Clarks currently is negotiating with
Nortel regarding upgrade costs, for the updated operating system
software necessary to accept four-digit CICs, and the equipment
necessary to operate the software. Eustis/Home has been taking bids
from several sources to obtain the fairest price for upgrades, and, in
the past few months, has been communicating with vendors in addition to
Nortel (such as Stromburg-Carlson and Mitel), regarding the purchase of
software. Henderson is in the process of negotiations with Nortel
regarding contract specifics for switch upgrades.
27. Second, based on their petitions, we conclude that Clarks,
Eustis/Home, and Henderson have demonstrated that the product needed to
accomplish the upgrade to their individual networks is not readily
available from switch manufacturers, delaying their ability to meet the
January 1, 1998, conversion deadline. Each petitioner asserts that
Nortel has informed it that Nortel has a long waiting list for
upgrades. Eustis/Home is currently on the waiting list for an updated
version of the operating system software, but cannot expect to receive
it before mid-1998. Henderson also estimates a mid-1998 implementation,
based on the assumption that, once a contract is signed, approximately
180 days are needed for implementation.
28. Third, we conclude that the impact of an extension of the
conversion deadline on the IXCs served by Clarks, Eustis/Home, and
Henderson, and on the ability of those LECs' customers to reach IXCs
through CAC dialing, does not outweigh the burden on the LECs that
would be imposed absent an extension. Clarks, Eustis/Home, and
Henderson are small, rural LECs serving a limited number of access
lines. Clarks and Henderson each serves 1000 access lines, and Eustis/
Home (which are commonly owned) combined serves 1300 access lines.
Because, as discussed below, we are granting these LECs extensions only
until June 30, 1998, the extensions will not affect or interfere with
the end of the permissive dialing period on June 30, 1998.
29. We find that, based on the record, an extension until June 30,
1998, should provide sufficient time for Clarks, Eustis/Home, and
Henderson to upgrade their existing switches. The burdens on IXCs and
their customers of an extension beyond June 30, 1998, however, are much
greater. An extension beyond that date will make it difficult for the
IXCs served by them to educate their customers about the changes in
dialing patterns and will affect the IXCs' customers' ability to reach
them. The burdens imposed on IXCs and their customers of a longer
extension outweigh any burdens that might be imposed on these LECs by
our failure to extend the conversion deadline beyond June 30, 1998.
30. Consistent with our desire to avoid requiring parties to incur
inefficient cost expenditures, if Clarks, Eustis/Home, and Henderson,
decide to replace their switches, we will consider further extension
requests from them, provided they demonstrate that they have continued
to work diligently towards conversion. Any party seeking a further
extension should be prepared to provide detailed documentation of the
steps taken, since issuance of this Order, to achieve switch conversion
by June 30, 1998. Because a grant of a further extension, even for the
slightest amount of time, will cause disruption to callers if all equal
access LEC end offices are not converted to recognize four-digit CICs
once the permissive dialing period has ended, we will scrutinize
closely any request for a further extension. For this reason, we expect
any further extension requests to be for the shortest amount of time
practicable.
31. Finally, we note that the CICs Order on Reconsideration, in
addition to requiring four-digit CIC conversion by equal access LECs as
of January 1, 1998, also requires that LECs must offer a standard
intercept message beginning on or before June 30, 1998, explaining that
a dialing pattern change has occurred and instructing the caller to
contact its IXC for further information.72 The Commission
requires that, in developing an intercept message, LECs must consult
with IXCs and reach agreement on the content of the message and on the
period of time during which the message will be provided.73
We emphasize that the LECs to whom we grant conversion extensions here
must comply with the Commission's intercept message requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ See CICs Order on Reconsideration at para. 26.
\73\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. Requests for Extension of Hartington and Jefferson. Hartington
and Jefferson both state that they do not provide equal access. As
noted above, in the CICs Order on Reconsideration, the Commission
modified the decision in the CICs Second Report and Order regarding the
length of the transition during which three and four-digit Feature
Group D CICs co-exist, and created a ``two-step'' end to the transition
to four-digit CICs, with January 1, 1998, the end of the first phase,
being the deadline for LECs providing equal access to complete switch
changes to recognize four-digit CICs.
33. In the CICs Second FNPRM, issued concurrently with the CICs
Order on Reconsideration, the Commission, noting that some independent
incumbent LECs in rural and isolated areas do not provide equal access,
stated that a requirement that all LEC end office switches be upgraded
to accept four-digit CICs by January 1, 1998, may have the unintended
effect of requiring
[[Page 64765]]
those LECs that have never received a bona fide request for equal
access or that are not subject to a specific timetable for providing
equal access nonetheless to upgrade their end offices to offer equal
access by January 1, 1998.74 The Commission noted that such
a requirement would modify the Commission's equal access implementation
schedule for non-GTE independent telephone companies, set by the 1985
Independent Telephone Company Equal Access Report and Order. As more
than twelve years have passed since adoption of the Independent
Telephone Company Equal Access Report and Order, the Commission, in the
CICs Second FNPRM, tentatively concluded that eventually all LEC end
offices should be required to provide equal access.75
Because the CICs Order on Reconsideration requires January 1, 1998
switch conversion to accommodate four-digit CICs only by those LECs
providing equal access, however, and because Hartington and Jefferson
are not providing equal access, we dismiss their petitions as moot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ See CICs Second FNPRM at para. 84.
\75\ Specifically, the CICs Second FNPRM tentatively concluded
that (1) LECs with stored program-controlled (SPC) switches that
have not received a bona fide request for equal access should be
required to upgrade their facilities to provide equal access and to
accept four-digit CICs within three years of the effective date of
an Order adopted in this proceeding; and (2) LECs whose end offices
are equipped with non-SPC switches should be required to provide
equal access and to convert their switches to accept four-digit CICs
when they next replace their switching facilities. See CICs Second
FNPRM at para. 84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Ordering Clauses
34. It is ordered, pursuant to Sec. 1.3 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.3, and authority delegated in Sec. 0.91 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 0.91, and Sec. 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR
0.291, that the Petition for Limited Waiver of Hardy Telecommunications
Inc., is granted, by extending for it the switch conversion deadline
for four-digit CIC capability until April 30, 1998.
35. It is further ordered, pursuant to Sec. 1.3 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.3, and authority delegated in Sec. 0.91 of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.91, and Sec. 0.291 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 0.291, that the Petition for Limited Waiver of Pierce
Telephone Company, Inc., is granted, by extending for it the switch
conversion deadline for four-digit CIC capability until May 1, 1998.
36. It is further ordered, pursuant to Sec. 1.3 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.3, and authority delegated in Sec. 0.91 of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.91, and Sec. 0.291 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 0.291, that the Petition for Waiver of Northeast Nebraska
Telephone Company is granted, by extending for it the switch conversion
deadline for four-digit CIC capability until June 30, 1998.
37. It is further ordered, pursuant to Sec. 1.3 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.3, and authority delegated in Sec. 0.91 of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.91, and Sec. 0.291 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 0.291, that the Petition for Limited Waiver of Pioneer
Telephone Cooperative, Inc., is granted, by extending for it the switch
conversion deadline for four-digit CIC capability until June 30, 1998.
38. It is further ordered, pursuant to Sec. 1.3 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.3, and authority delegated in Sec. 0.91 of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.91, and Sec. 0.291 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 0.291, that the Petition for Limited Waiver of Hartman
Telephone Exchanges, Inc., is granted in part, by extending for it the
switch conversion deadline for four-digit CIC capability until June 30,
1998, and denied in part, to the extent Hartman requests extension
beyond that date.
39. It is further ordered, pursuant to Sec. 1.3 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.3, and authority delegated in Sec. 0.91 of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.91, and Sec. 0.291 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 0.291, that the Petition for Limited Waiver of Clarks
Telecommunications Co. is granted in part, by extending for it the
switch conversion deadline for four-digit CIC capability until June 30,
1998, and denied in part, to the extent Clarks requests extensions
beyond that date.
40. It is further ordered, pursuant to Sec. 1.3 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.3, and authority delegated in Sec. 0.91 of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.91, and Sec. 0.291 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 0.291, that the Joint Petition for Limited Waiver of
Eustis Telephone Exchange, Inc. and Home Telephone Company of Nebraska,
is granted in part, by extending for them the switch conversion
deadline for four-digit CIC capability until June 30, 1998, and denied
in part, to the extent Eustis and Home request extension beyond that
date.
41. It is further ordered, pursuant to Sec. 1.3 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.3, and authority delegated in Sec. 0.91 of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.91, and Sec. 0.291 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 0.291, that the Petition for Limited Waiver of Henderson
Telephone Company is granted in part, by extending for it the switch
conversion deadline for four-digit CIC capability until June 30, 1998,
and denied in part, to the extent Henderson requests extension beyond
that date.
42. It is further ordered, pursuant to authority delegated in
Sec. 0.91 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.91, and Sec. 0.291 of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.291, that the Petition for Waiver of
Hartington Telecommunications Co., Inc., is dismissed as moot.
43. It is further ordered, pursuant to authority delegated in
Sec. 0.91 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.91, and Sec. 0.291 of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.291, that the Petition for Waiver of
Jefferson Telephone Company is dismissed as moot.
Federal Communications Commission.
Geraldine A. Matise,
Chief, Network Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-32177 Filed 12-4-97; 4:03 pm]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P