97-32177. Petitions for Waiver of the Four-Digit Carrier Identification Code (CIC) Implementation Schedule  

  • [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
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
12/3/1997
Published:
12/09/1997
Department:
Federal Communications Commission
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final rule.
Document Number:
97-32177
Dates:
December 3, 1997.
Pages:
64759-64765 (7 pages)
Docket Numbers:
DA 97-2528
PDF File:
97-32177.pdf