Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 64759

1Most 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 nondiscriminatory 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.

2Feature 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.

3Administration 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).

4See CICs Second Report and Order at para. 28.

5See Handler Letter at 2.

6See CICs NPRM, 9 FCC Rcd at 2076–77.

to which the alternative settlement

arrangement applies.

(5) A summary of the terms and

conditions of the alternative settlement

arrangement if it does not come within

the scope of paragraph (b)(4) of this

section. However, upon request by the

International Bureau, a full copy of such

alternative settlement arrangement must

be forwarded promptly to the

International Bureau.

(c) If the petition for declaratory

ruling contains a certification under

paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section that

the proposed alternative settlement

arrangement is for service on a route

between the United States and a World

Trade Organization Member, a party

may oppose the petition under

paragraph (f) of this section with a

showing that the participating carrier on

the foreign end of the route does not

have multiple (more than one)

international facilities-based

competitors. In such a case, the

petitioning party may make a showing

under paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this

section, pursuant to paragraph (g) of this

section.

(d) An alternative settlement

arrangement filed for approval under

this section cannot become effective

until the petition for declaratory ruling

required by paragraph (a) of this section

has been granted under paragraph (f) of

this section.

(e) On the same day the petition for

declaratory ruling has been filed, the

filing carrier must serve a copy of the

petition on all carriers providing the

same or similar service with the foreign

carrier identified in the petition.

(f) All petitions for declaratory ruling

shall be subject to a 21-day pleading

period for objections or comments,

commencing the day after the date of

public notice listing the petition as

accepted for filing. A petition for

declaratory ruling shall be deemed

granted as of the 28th day without any

formal staff action provided that:

(1) The petition is not formally

opposed by a pleading meeting the

following criteria:

(i) The caption and text of the

pleading make it unmistakably clear

that the pleading is intended to be a

formal opposition;

(ii) The pleading is served upon the

other parties to the proceeding; and

(iii) the pleading is filed within the

time period prescribed; or

(2) The International Bureau has not

notified the filing carrier that grant of

the petition may not serve the public

interest and that implementation of the

proposed alternative settlement

arrangement must await formal staff

action on the petition.

(g) If objections or comments are filed,

the petitioning carrier may file a

response pursuant to § 1.45 of this

chapter. Petitions that are formally

opposed must await formal action by

the International Bureau before the

proposed alternative settlement

arrangement may be implemented.

[FR Doc. 97–32013 Filed 12–5–97; 10:03 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

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).

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
64760 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

7See CICs Second Report and Order at para. 46.

8 47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.

9Telecommunications 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.

10Administration 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.

11See 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).

12Hardy serves approximately 2,600 access lines.

See Hardy Petition at 1.

13See Hardy Response to Inquiry.

14See id.

15See Hardy Petition at 2–3.

16See id.

17See Pierce Petition at 1 and 3. Pierce serves

approximately 1,870 access lines. See id. at n.3.

18See id. at 1–2.

19See id. at 2.

20See id. at 3.

21See id.

22See 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).

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. 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 fourdigit 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.

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 fourdigit CIC capability is not currently

available and is very costly.

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

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 64761

23Northeast 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.

24Hartington 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.

25See Northeast Petition at 2. These three

exchanges have a total of 1,149 access lines. See id.

26See 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.

29See Northeast Petition at 2.

30See Northeast Petition at 5; Hartington Petition

at 3–4; Jefferson Petition at 4.

31See 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.

32See Northeast Petition at 5–6; Hartington

Petition at 3–4; Jefferson Petition at 4.

33See Northeast Petition at 7; Hartington Petition

at 5; Jefferson Petition at 6.

34See Northeast Petition at 2.

35See id. at 2–3.

36See 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.

37See id. at 3.

38See id.

39See id. at 3–4, citing CICs Order on

Reconsideration at n.75 and CICs Second FNPRM

at para. 84.

40See Northeast Petition at 4.

41See Pioneer Petition at 9.

42See id. at 2–3.

43 Id. at 3.

44 Id. at 4.

45 Id. at 4 and 9.

46See Hartington Petition at 2.

47See Jefferson Petition at 2 and n.3.

48 Id. at 6.

49Hartman operates 450 access lines serving three

exchanges on the Nebraska/Kansas border. See

Hartman Petition at 3.

50See id. at 1.

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

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

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 sixyear 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

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

D. Request for Extension Until July 1,

1998

12. Hartman, a small LEC49 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
64762 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

51See id. at 2–3.

52 Id.

53See id.

54See id. at 4, citing Caller Id Order, cited at n.22,

supra.

55Clarks 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.

56Clarks states that it has been providing equal

access since 1989. Eustis/Home and Henderson do

not indicate when they began providing equal

access.

57See Clarks Petition at 3; Eustis/Home Petition

at 3.

58See Clarks Petition at 3; Eustis/Home Petition

at 3.

59See Eustis/Home Petition at 3.

60See Henderson Petition at 3.

61See e.g., Clarks Petition at 4, citing Caller Id

Order, cited at n.22, supra.

62See Clarks Petition at 3.

63See Eustis/Home Petition at 3.

64See Henderson Petition at 3.

65See Eustis/Home Petition at 3.

66See 47 C.F.R. § 1.3.

67Northeast 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).

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

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 LEC55 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 mid1998 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

14. Clarks, Eustis/Home, and

Henderson argue that to obtain fourdigit 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 StromburgCarlson and Mitel about updated

releases.65

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.

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 64763

68Pioneer 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.

69See 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).

70See id. at para. 48, cited in CICs Second FNPRM

at para. 83.

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.

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 threedigit 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 fourdigit 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

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 fourdigit 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 mid1998 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
64764 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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.

72See CICs Order on Reconsideration at para. 26.

73See id.

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.

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 StromburgCarlson 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.

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 64765

74See CICs Second FNPRM at para. 84.

75Specifically, 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.

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.

IV. Ordering Clauses

34. It is ordered, pursuant to § 1.3 of

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.3, and

authority delegated in § 0.91 of the

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 0.91, and

§ 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 fourdigit CIC capability until April 30, 1998.

35. It is further ordered, pursuant to

§ 1.3 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR

1.3, and authority delegated in § 0.91 of

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 0.91,

and § 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

§ 1.3 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR

1.3, and authority delegated in § 0.91 of

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 0.91,

and § 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

§ 1.3 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR

1.3, and authority delegated in § 0.91 of

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 0.91,

and § 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

§ 1.3 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR

1.3, and authority delegated in § 0.91 of

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 0.91,

and § 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

§ 1.3 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR

1.3, and authority delegated in § 0.91 of

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 0.91,

and § 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

§ 1.3 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR

1.3, and authority delegated in § 0.91 of

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 0.91,

and § 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

§ 1.3 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR

1.3, and authority delegated in § 0.91 of

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 0.91,

and § 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 § 0.91 of the

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 0.91, and

§ 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 § 0.91 of the

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 0.91, and

§ 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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 900124–0127; I.D. 112897E]

Fisheries of the Northeastern United

States; Atlantic Surf Clam and Ocean

Quahog Fishery; Minimum Clam Size

for 1998

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration,

Commerce.

ACTION: Suspension of surf clam

minimum size limit.

SUMMARY: NMFS informs the public that

the minimum size limit of 4.75 inches

(12.07 cm) for Atlantic surf clams is

suspended for the 1998 fishing year.

The intended effect is to relieve the

industry from a regulatory burden that

is not necessary as the vast majority of

surf clams harvested are larger than the

minimum size limit.

DATES: January 1, 1998, through

December 31, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Myles Raizin, Fishery Policy Analyst,

508-281-9104.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

648.72(c) of the Fishery Management

Plan for the Atlantic Surf Clam and

Ocean Quahog Fisheries (FMP) allows

the Regional Administrator, Northeast

Region, NMFS, to suspend annually by

publication of an announcement in the

Federal Register, the minimum size

limit for Atlantic surf clams. This action