[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43161-43165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21243]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[CC Docket No. 96-158; FCC 97-258]
Petitions for LATA Association Changes by Independent Telephone
Companies
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this Memorandum Opinion and Order adopted July 23, 1997 and
released August 6, 1997, the Commission grants two requests for changes
in local access and transport area (LATA) association and modifies the
LATA boundaries to permit these changes. In addition, the order sets
forth guidelines for future LATA association change requests. This
order will allow independent telephone companies to change the LATA
association of their exchanges when necessary to upgrade their
networks.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela Gerr, (202) 418-2357, or Robin
Smolen, (202) 418-2353, both of the Network Services Division, Common
Carrier Bureau.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Memorandum Opinion and Order, (FCC 97-258) adopted on July 23, 1997 and
released on August 6, 1997. The full text of this Order is available
for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street N.W., Washington, D.C.
20554. The complete text may also be purchased from the Commission's
copy contractor, International Transcription Service,
[[Page 43162]]
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.
Paperwork Reduction Act
OMB Control No.: 3060-0786.
Expiration Date: 1/31/98.
Title: Petitions for LATA Association Changes by Independent
Telephone Companies.
Form No.: N/A.
Respondents: Business or other for profit.
Estimated Annual Burden: 20 respondents; 6 hours per response; 120
total annual burden hours.
Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.
Frequency of Response: On occasion.
Needs and Uses: The Commission has provided voluntary guidelines
for filing LATA association change requests. These guidelines will
allow the Commission to conduct smooth and continuous processing of
these requests. The collection of information will enable the
Commission to determine if there is a public need for changes in LATA
association in each area subject to the request. Your response is
voluntary.
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is as
noted above. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other
aspect of the collection of information, including suggestions for
reducing the burden to Performance Evaluation and Records Management,
Washington, D.C. 20554. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid control number.
Synopsis of Memorandum Opinion and Order
I. Introduction
1. Two independent telephone companies (ITCs or Petitioners) have
filed petitions with the Commission requesting a change in the local
access and transport area (LATA) \1\ association of certain of their
exchanges.\2\ When the LATAs were created, most independent exchanges
were classified as ``associated'' with a particular LATA and BOCs were
only allowed to provide service within a LATA and the associated
exchanges.\3\ The ITCs state that their exchanges are currently
associated with the Amarillo LATA, but that as part of an effort to
upgrade service, they plan to route traffic for these exchanges through
a BOC switch in the Lubbock LATA. They state that in order for the BOC
to carry this traffic, a change in LATA association is required.\4\
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT) filed a statement supporting
the ITC petitions and requesting a modification of the Lubbock LATA,
pursuant to Section 3(25) of the Act, to permit this change in
association.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ LATAs define the geographic areas within which a Bell
Operating Company (BOC) may provide service. A LATA is defined as
``a contiguous geographic area (A) established before the date of
enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by a Bell operating
company such that no exchange area includes points within more than
1 metropolitan statistical area, consolidated metropolitan
statistical area, or State, except as expressly permitted under the
AT&T Consent Decree; or (B) established or modified by a Bell
operating company after such date of enactment and approved by the
Commission.'' Section 3(25) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (the Act), 47 U.S.C. Sec. 153(25).
\2\ On May 16, 1996, Mid-Plains Rural Telephone Cooperative,
Inc. (Mid-Plains) filed a petition requesting a change in the LATA
association of the Silverton, Texas exchange from the Amarillo,
Texas LATA (Amarillo LATA) to the Lubbock, Texas LATA (Lubbock
LATA). This request has been assigned File No. NSD-LM(A)-97-27. On
May 17, 1996, the Cap Rock Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (Cap Rock)
filed a petition requesting a change in the LATA association of the
Turkey and the Quitaque, Texas exchanges from the Amarillo LATA to
the Lubbock LATA. This request has been assigned File No. NSD-LM(A)-
97-28.
\3\ See United States v. Western Electric Co, Inc., 569 F. Supp.
1057, 1110-13 (D.D.C. 1983) (hereinafter Western Electric I).
\4\ The petitions were placed on public notice. See Public
Notice, ``Commission Seeks Comment on Petitions for Association
Changes by Independent Telephone Companies,'' DA 96-1189 (released
July 26, 1996). Comments supporting the petitions were filed by Cap
Rock, Mid-Plains and the National Telephone Cooperative Association
(NTCA). No oppositions were filed.
\5\ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 153(25).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. For the reasons discussed below, we grant Petitioners' requests
for a change in LATA association. In addition, we modify the Lubbock
LATA to permit this change. Finally, we provide guidelines for future
LATA association requests.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Commission has also received 24 requests for LATA relief
in order to provide expanded local calling service (ELCS). These
requests are addressed in a separate order. See Petitions for
Limited Modification of LATA Boundaries to Provide Expanded Local
Calling Service (ELCS) at Various Locations, Memorandum Opinion and
Order, CC Docket No. 96-159, FCC 97-244 (released July 15, 1997)
(ELCS Order), 62 FR 40350 (July 28, 1997). ELCS (also known as
extended area service or EAS) allows local telephone service rates
to apply to nearby telephone exchanges, thus providing an expanded
local calling area. See United States versus Western Electric, 569
F. Supp. 990, 1002 n.54 (D.D.C. 1983) (hereinafter Western Electric
II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
A. LATA Associations Under the Consent Decree
3. On August 24, 1982, the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia (Court) entered an order (Consent Decree) that
required AT&T to divest its ownership of the Bell Operating Companies
(BOCs).7 The Court divided all Bell territory in the
continental United States into geographic areas called
LATAs.8 Under the Consent Decree, the BOCs were permitted to
provide telephone service within a LATA (intraLATA service), but were
not permitted to carry traffic across LATA boundaries (interLATA
service).9 InterLATA traffic was to be carried by
interexchange carriers.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ United States versus American Telephone and Telegraph Co.,
552 F. Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1982), aff'd sub nom. Maryland versus
United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983).
\8\ See Western Electric II, 569 F. Supp. at 993, 994.
\9\ Id. at 994.
\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The LATAs did not cover territory served by independent
telephone companies (ITCs).11 The Court, however, noted that
there were often joint operating arrangements between independent
exchanges and neighboring BOC facilities.12 For example,
BOCs often switched traffic between their end offices and the end
offices of the independents, which then carried the traffic to its
final destination. If all of this traffic were considered interLATA,
BOCs could not participate in these arrangements and significant and
costly network rearrangements would have been necessary. To prevent the
need for such rearrangements, the Court classified most independent
exchanges as ``associated'' with a particular BOC LATA.13
Traffic between a BOC LATA and an associated exchange was treated as
intraLATA, and thus could be carried by the BOC, while traffic between
a BOC LATA and an unassociated exchange was treated as interLATA, and
thus could not be carried by the BOC.14 The ITCs,
themselves, were not subject to the restrictions imposed by the Consent
Decree, and could carry traffic regardless of whether that traffic
crossed LATA boundaries.15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See, e.g., id. at 993 & n.8, 1008 n.85, 1010-11. Although,
when the LATAs were created, the BOCs served 80 percent of all
telephone subscribers in the continental United States, the ITCs
served a much larger geographic area. Id. at 993 n.8. Of the
approximately 18,000 local exchanges at that time, approximately
7,000 were served by the BOCs and 11,000 by the ITCs. Id.; Western
Electric I, 569 F. Supp. at 1110 n.232. There were approximately
1425 ITCs providing such service. Id.
\12\ Id. at 1110.
\13\ Id. at 1110-13 & n.234. The vast majority of independent
exchanges were associated with a LATA. Of the 11,000 independent
exchanges, only 940 were classified as ``not associated'' with any
BOC LATA. Id. at 1113 n.240.
\14\ Id. at 1110-13 & n.234; Western Electric II, 569 F. Supp.
at 1008-09.
\15\ Western Electric II, 569 F. Supp. at 1008, 1010; Western
Electric I, 569 F. Supp. at 1113. See also United States versus
Western Electric, 578 F. Supp. 662, 667 (Court has always sought to
minimize effects of divestiture on the ITCs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 43163]]
5. The Court subsequently received more than a hundred additional
requests involving LATA associations, including requests for new
associations, disassociations, and changes in association from one LATA
to another.16 The Court developed a streamlined process for
answering such requests both because of the large number of requests
involved and because most of the requests were non-
controversial.17 Under this process, the ITC would submit
its request to the Department of Justice (DOJ). DOJ would review the
request and then submit the request to the Court along with DOJ's
recommendation.18 The requests were typically filed because
an ITC planned to upgrade its network in a manner that would require
routing traffic through a BOC switch in a different LATA. The Court
generally granted these requests if the changes in associations would
avoid the need for expensive network reconfiguration and would not
endanger competition.19 In granting requests for a change in
LATA association, the Court also allowed the continuation of existing
ELCS routes between the independent exchange and the original
LATA.20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See, e.g., United States v. Western Electric, No. 82-0192,
slip op. (D.D.C. February 6, 1984) (hereinafter February 1984
Order).
\17\ Id. at 27; United States v. Western Electric, No. 82-0192,
slip op. (D.D.C. March 15, 1984) (hereinafter March 1984 Order).
\18\ See March 1984 Order at 2.
\19\ See, e.g., February 1984 Order at 2.
\20\ See, e.g., id. at 7 nn.11-12. See also supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. LATA Associations Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996
6. On February 8, 1996, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996
Act) became law, amending the Communications Act of 1934
(Act).21 Pursuant to the 1996 Act, matters previously
subject to the Consent Decree are now governed by the Act.22
Section 271(b)(1) of the Act prohibits a BOC from providing ``interLATA
services originating in any of its `in-region' States'' 23
until the BOC takes certain steps to open its own market to competition
and the Commission approves the BOC's application to provide such
service.24 ``InterLATA service'' is defined as
``telecommunications between a point located in a local access and
transport area and a point located outside such area,'' and thus would
include traffic between an independent exchange and a BOC
LATA.25 The Act does not specifically address LATA
associations. Section 271(f), however, states that BOCs are not
prohibited from engaging in an activity to the extent that such
activity was previously authorized by the Court.26 Thus,
BOCs may continue to provide service to independent exchanges that were
classified as ``associated'' with a LATA by the Court. Finally, Section
3(25)(B) of the Act provides that BOCs may modify LATA boundaries, if
such modifications are approved by the Commission.27
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Public Law. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
\22\ Section 601(a)(1) of the 1996 Act states that ``[a]ny
conduct or activity that was, before the date of enactment of this
Act, subject to any restriction or obligation imposed by the AT&T
Consent Decree shall, on and after such date, be subject to the
restrictions and obligations imposed by the Communications Act of
1934 as amended by this Act and shall not be subject to the
restrictions and obligations imposed by such Consent Decree.'' On
April 11, 1996, the Court issued an order terminating the AT&T
Consent Decree and dismissing all pending motions under the Consent
Decree as moot, effective February 8, 1996. See United States v.
Western Electric Company, Inc., No. 82-0192, 1996 WL 255904 (D.D.C.
Apr. 11, 1996).
\23\ Section 271(i)(1) defines ``in-region State'' as a [s]tate
in which a Bell operating company or any of its affiliates was
authorized to provide wireline telephone exchange service pursuant
to the reorganization plan approved under the Consent Decree, as in
effect on the day before the date of enactment of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 271(i)(1).
\24\ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 271(b)(1). In addition, while the Commission
may forbear from applying certain provisions of the Act under
certain circumstances, the Commission may not forbear from applying
Section 271. See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 160 (a), (d).
\25\ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 153(21).
\26\ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 271(f).
\27\ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 153(25)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Pleadings
7. The petitions request a change in the association of Mid-Plains'
Silverton exchange, and Cap Rock's Turkey and Quitaque exchanges, from
the Amarillo LATA to the Lubbock LATA. Petitioners state that they
recently purchased these exchanges from GTE Southwest, Inc. (GTE) and
that these exchanges are currently served by a GTE access tandem. They
further state that as part of an effort to upgrade service, Petitioners
plan to re-route this traffic through their own switching facilities.
Mid-Plains states that Silverton traffic is currently carried over
copper facilities using a Lenkurt Analog Carrier System and that it
plans to re-route this traffic, via a fiber optic cable, to its SS7-
equipped switch at Kess, Texas.28 This change will allow the
provision of Touch Tone and CLASSTM features, including
Caller ID, to Silverton subscribers.29 Cap Rock states that
the Turkey and Quitaque exchanges are currently served by
``antiquated'' analog switch facilities and that it plans to re-route
this traffic, via fiber optic cable, to its CLASSTM 4/5
digital tandem switch at Spur, Texas.30 This change will
allow the provision of digital remotes, toll ticketing, and equal
access to subscribers in the Turkey and Quitaque
exchanges.31 Petitioners emphasize that both the Kess and
Spur switches will be routing traffic through a SWBT tandem switch that
is located in the Lubbock LATA.32 Petitioners also state
that there are approximately 430 subscribers in the Silverton exchange
and 591 subscribers in Turkey and Quitaque.33
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Mid-Plains Petition at 2.
\29\ Id.
\30\ Cap Rock Petition at 2.
\31\ Id.
\32\ See Letter from Margaret Nyland, Attorney for Mid-Plains,
to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission (May 13, 1997); Letter from Margaret Nyland, Attorney for
Cap Rock, to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission (May 14, 1997). Petitioners also state
that other circumstances support the change in LATA association for
these exchanges. Mid-Plains states that the Silverton exchange is
completely surrounded by its Bean exchange, which is associated with
the Lubbock LATA. Cap Rock states that it already operates 14 other
exchanges that are served by the Spur switch and that are associated
with the Lubbock LATA. Finally, Petitioners state that there is a
community of interest between these exchanges and the Lubbock LATA.
\33\ Mid-Plains Petition at 2; Cap Rock Petition at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. SWBT filed supplements to both the Mid-Plains and Cap Rock
petitions. These supplements support the requests for a change in LATA
association. SWBT also requests a modification of the Lubbock LATA
boundary, pursuant to Section 3(25) of the Act, to permit this change
in association.34
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ SWBT's Supplement to Mid-Plains Petition, filed April 1,
1997; SWBT's Supplement to Cap Rock Petition, filed April 1, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Discussion
A. General Considerations
9. Section 3(25) of the Act defines LATAs as those areas
established prior to enactment of the 1996 Act or established or
modified by a BOC after such date of enactment and approved by the
Commission. Section 271 of the Act prohibits a BOC from providing
interLATA services until such time as certain enumerated conditions are
satisfied. Because the Court allowed BOCs to carry traffic between a
LATA and an ``associated'' independent exchange, BOCs may continue to
carry such traffic pursuant to the grandfathering provisions of Section
271(f). In order for an ITC to route traffic through BOC facilities in
an unassociated LATA, however, the statute appears to require a BOC
either to modify the LATA so that the route no longer crosses a LATA
boundary or to satisfy the requirements of Section 271.
[[Page 43164]]
10. Petitioners have an immediate need to reconfigure their
networks in a manner that will involve routing traffic through a BOC
LATA other than the one with which they are currently
associated.35 None of the BOCs, however, have yet met the
Section 271 requirements and there is no time limit by which they must
do so. Thus, requiring the BOC to meet the Section 271 requirements
would not be the most expeditious way to ensure that the ITCs will be
able to reconfigure their networks in a timely manner. Furthermore, the
Section 271 requirements were intended to ensure that BOCs do not
prematurely enter into the interexchange market. Given the small number
of access lines in the independent exchanges here, and the fact that
Petitioners will merely be switching their routing of traffic from one
SWBT LATA to another, it is highly unlikely that allowing this
modification would reduce the BOC's motivation to open its own market
to competition. Thus, requiring the BOC to meet the Section 271
requirements before permitting such re-routing of traffic by the ITCs
would not be necessary to further Congress's intent to guard against
competitive abuses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See supra para. 7 (describing the Mid-Plains and Cap Rock
requests). In addition, we note that another LATA association change
request is currently pending with the Commission and that additional
LATA association requests may be filed. See supra para. 5 (more than
a hundred LATA association requests filed with the Court).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. We conclude that LATA modifications to permit a change in LATA
association would best achieve the desired goal of allowing ITCs to
reconfigure their networks in the situation described above. We find
that we have the authority to grant such changes pursuant to Sections
3(25) and 4(i) of the Act.36 In addition, we note that the
vast majority of independent exchanges are currently classified as
``associated'' with a LATA. LATA associations and provisions for
changing these associations have been in place since the LATAs were
first created. We find that, at least while the BOCs are still subject
to restrictions on the provision of interLATA service, allowing the
continuation of LATA ``associations'' and a procedure for changing
these associations will help avoid confusion in the industry and
simplify the network change process for ITCs. Finally, LATAs were only
intended to restrict the activities of the BOCs, not the ITCs, and
granting relief in this case will avoid any unnecessary limitations on
the Petitioners' ability to upgrade their interconnected
networks.37
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Although the Act does not specifically address LATA
associations, Section 4(i) states that the Commission may ``perform
any and all acts . . . and issue such orders, not inconsistent with
this Act, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions.''
47 U.S.C. Sec. 154(i).
\37\ See supra para. 4 & note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. LATA modification to permit a change in association is both
consistent with the statute and serves the public interest. Nothing in
the statute or legislative history indicates that a LATA cannot be
modified for this purpose. Furthermore, as explained above, changes in
LATA ``association'' to permit precisely the type of ITC
reconfigurations at issue here were regularly and routinely granted by
the Court under the terms of the AT&T Consent Decree.38
Although Congress did not explicitly include corresponding authority
when it amended the Communications Act, Congress did acknowledge the
possible need for changes to the LATA boundaries in enacting Section
3(25). In addition, nothing in either the statute or the legislative
history suggests a decision by Congress intentionally to eliminate the
ability of an ITC to change the LATA association of an independent
exchange when such a change is necessary to permit the latter to
upgrade or reconfigure its network. Thus we conclude that a broad
reading of the term ``modify'' in Section 3(25), to include
modifications to permit a change in association, is consistent with the
statutory scheme and congressional intent. Moreover, we will consider
each future request for changes in association carefully, weighing the
need for the modification against the potential harm from
anticompetitive BOC activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ The Court granted more than a hundred LATA association
requests. See supra para. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Association Change Requests
13. We find that the public interest will be served by granting
Petitioners' requests for a change in LATA association, along with a
modification of the Lubbock LATA in order to permit this change. Mid-
Plains and Cap Rock are small ITCs seeking to upgrade their networks in
order to improve service to subscribers. Allowing Petitioners to route
traffic through their own facilities at Kess and Spur, and then through
the SWBT tandem in Lubbock, will allow them to improve service to their
subscribers in an efficient manner. Furthermore, the LATA boundaries
were only intended to restrict the activities of SWBT, not the ITCs,
and granting relief here will avoid any unnecessary limitations on
Petitioners' ability to upgrade their own networks.39 In
addition, permitting SWBT to carry this traffic will not have any
significant adverse effect on competition. This is true both because of
the small number of subscribers in the independent exchanges involved,
and because Petitioners are merely seeking to switch the LATA
association of these exchanges from one SWBT LATA to
another.40
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See id.
\40\ See ELCS Order (modifying LATA boundaries for the limited
purpose of permitting BOCs to provide ELCS in specific areas).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 3(25) and 4(i) of the Act, we
change the association of the Silverton, Turkey, and Quitaque exchanges
from the Amarillo LATA to the Lubbock LATA, and modify the Lubbock LATA
to permit this change in association. Because the Silverton, Turkey,
and Quitaque exchanges are now associated with the Lubbock LATA, SWBT
may provide the same services to these exchanges through the Lubbock
LATA as it was previously authorized to provide through the Amarillo
LATA, and the provisions of the Act governing intraLATA service will
apply to such services.41 The association between the
Silverton, Turkey, and Quitaque exchanges and the Amarillo LATA is
terminated, service between these exchanges and the Amarillo LATA will
now be considered interLATA, and the provisions of the Act governing
interLATA service will apply to such services.42
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ SWBT can provide this service without meeting the
requirements of Section 271 and a separate affiliate is not
required. See 47 U.S.C. Secs. 271(a), 272(a)(2)(B).
\42\ See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 271. We note that there are no existing
ELCS routes between the Silverton, Turkey, or Quitaque exchanges
that need to be grandfathered. See supra para. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Future LATA Association Requests
15. The Common Carrier Bureau has authority to act on petitions for
changes in LATA association and connected modification of LATA
boundaries, consistent with the principles established in this order,
pursuant to the delegation of authority contained in Secs. 0.91 and
0.291 of the Commission's rules.43 We conclude that the
following set of guidelines will assist the ITCs and BOCs in filing
such petitions, and the Bureau in acting on these
petitions.44 First, we request that each petition be filed
by the ITC pursuant to the application filing requirements set forth in
Secs. 1.742 and 1.743 of the Commission's rules.45 Second,
we ask
[[Page 43165]]
that each individual LATA association request be the subject of a
separate petition. Third, we request that each petition be labeled
``ITC Request for LATA Relief Between the [ITC exchange name(s)] and
the [LATA name].'' Finally, we request that each petition include the
following information, under separately numbered and labeled
categories, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ 47 CFR Secs. 0.91, 0.291.
\44\ These guidelines have been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 3060-0786. See
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.
\45\ 47 CFR Secs. 1.742-43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Type of request (e.g., new association, disassociation, change
of existing association);
(2) Exchange information (provide name of the independent
exchanges, LATAs and carriers involved; indicate the LATA, if any, with
which the independent exchange is currently associated);
(3) Number of access lines or customers (for each independent
exchange);
(4) Public interest statement (provide a detailed statement
explaining why granting the association request would serve the public
interest. Include a description of any planned network changes that
will require routing ITC traffic through BOC facilities in a different
LATA);
(5) Map (showing the exchanges and LATA boundaries involved and
including a scale showing distance);
(6) ELCS Routes (if the request is for a disassociation or change
in LATA association, indicate whether there are any local calling
routes between the independent exchange and the LATA with which it is
currently associated; if there are such routes, list each of them and
indicate whether they should be grandfathered);
(7) BOC supplement (attach a supplement to the petition from the
BOC(s) serving the affected LATA(s) requesting a modification of the
LATA boundary, pursuant to Section 3(25) of the Act, to permit the
association change).
A carrier will be deemed to have made a prima facie case supporting
grant of a proposed association change if the petition: (1) States that
the association change is necessary because of planned upgrades to the
ITC's network or service that will require routing traffic through a
different BOC LATA; (2) involves a limited number of access lines;
46 and (3) includes a statement from the affected BOC(s)
requesting a LATA modification, pursuant to Section 3(25) of the Act,
to permit this change in association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See supra para. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. We request that any LATA association requests filed with the
Commission, but not addressed in this order, be re-filed so that they
comply with these guidelines. Each petition will be assigned a LATA
modification (association) (LM(A)) file number and placed on public
notice.
VI. Conclusion
17. For the reasons set forth above, we grant Petitioners' requests
for a change in the LATA association of certain independent exchanges
and modify the Lubbock LATA to permit this change. We also provide
guidelines for future LATA association requests. These actions serve
the public interest because they will allow ITCs to provide upgraded
services to consumers in an efficient manner.
VII. Ordering Clauses
18. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Sections 3(25) and 4(i)
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 153(25),
154(i), that the requests of Mid-Plains Rural Telephone Cooperative,
Inc. (Mid-Plains), File No. NSD-LM(A)-97-27, and Cap Rock Telephone
Cooperative, Inc. (Cap Rock), File No. NSD-LM(A)-97-28, for LATA
association changes are granted.
19. It is further ordered, pursuant to Sections 3(25) and 4(i) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 153(25),
154(i), that the requests of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT)
for LATA modifications for the purpose of permitting these changes in
association are approved.
20. It is further ordered, pursuant to Sections 3(25) and 4(i) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 153(25),
154(i), that the association of the Silverton, Turkey, and Quitaque
exchanges is changed from the Amarillo, Texas LATA to the Lubbock,
Texas LATA. The Lubbock LATA is modified to permit these changes in
association. The Silverton, Turkey, and Quitaque exchanges are now
associated with the Lubbock LATA and SWBT may provide the same services
to these exchanges through the Lubbock LATA as it was previously
authorized to provide through the Amarillo LATA. The association
between the Silverton, Turkey, and Quitaque exchanges and the Amarillo
LATA is terminated and service between these exchanges and the Amarillo
LATA will now be considered interLATA.
21. It is further ordered that pursuant to section 416(a) of the
Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 416(a), the Secretary shall serve a copy of this
order upon the parties to this proceeding.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-21243 Filed 8-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
