WPC* 2BJ Z Courier3|x& BoldTimes Roman@KX@HP LaserJet 5Si PostScript RM 210HPLA5SPO.PRSx  @D! qX@26F2:3|j%CourierCourier Bold RM 210HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\Y"aqX@ I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)CourierCourier BoldTimes RomanTimes Roman Boldan BoldTimes New Roman Italic2 XKKSK T?xxxx6X@KX@?xxxx `KX7oC2co\  PCXP7tC2!wt4  p(ACXd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""d<d<$YYdCCddooCY bۿ yO# ԍqFeb. 6, 1984.>  Xy0 ` ` q5.` ` Passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act), which amended the  Communications Act of 1934 (Act), changed the procedure by which a LATA boundary is"b,N(N(ZZ"  X0 modified.Zۿ yOy ԍqPub. L. No. 104104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).Z Pursuant to the 1996 Act, matters previously subject to the Consent Decree are now  X0  governed by the Act.|Xۿ yO   ԍqSection 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."  yO  On April 11, 1996, the Court issued an order terminating the AT&T Consent Decree and dismissing all pending  {O  motions under the Consent Decree as moot, effective February 8, 1996. See United States v. Western Electric  {O Company, Inc., No. 820192, 1996 WL 255904 (D.D.C. Apr. 11, 1996).  Consequently, BOCs may modify LATA boundaries, if such  X0 modifications are approved by the Commission;[ۿ yO Ѝq47 U.S.C.  153(25)(B).[ for example, in a recent Order the Commission  X0 granted numerous ELCS petitions.^, ۿ {O   ԍqPetitions for Limited Modification of LATA Boundaries to Provide Expanded Local Calling Service (ELCS)  {Od  0at Various Locations, Memorandum Opinion and Order, CC Docket No. 96159, File Nos. NSDLM972 through  {O. NSDLM9725, FCC 97244 (rel. July 15, 1997) (ELCS Order). Though the Act does not specifically address modification  X0 of LATA associations, the Commission recently issued an Order in which the term "modify" in  X0Section 3(25) was read to include modifications to permit a change in association.Q^R ۿ {O   `ԍqPetitions for LATA Association Changes by Independent Telephone Companies, Memorandum Opinion and  {O^  Order, CC Docket No. 96158, File Nos. NSDLM(A)9727 and 28, FCC 97258 (rel. Aug. 6, 1997) (Association  {O( Order).Q  Xz0  Xc0q` `  hhIII.,PLEADING   X50 `  q6.` ` Ameritech's petition requests that the Commission approve an unlimited  modification of the Chicago LATA boundary so that the Exchanges will be included in the  X 0  Chicago LATA for "all relevant purposes."I xۿ yO0 ԍqAmeritech Petition at 1.I The unlimited modification request is made because  X 0 Ameritech plans to purchase facilities from Central Telephone Company of Illinois (Central).UX ۿ yO   PԍqAmeritech's petition states that Central is wholly owned by Central Telephone Company, which is 97%  owned by Centel Corporation, which is wholly owned by Sprint Corporation. Ameritech Petition at 12. The Exchanges include approximately 132,000 access lines.U  According to Ameritech, the Exchanges are presently used to provide "telephone exchange and  exchange access services," as well as calling card, payphone, operator and directory assistance  X 0 pservices;@ (ۿ {O$ ԍqId. at 2.@ and, except through the provision of exchange access, Ameritech states that the  0Exchanges are not used to provide interLATA or toll services as defined by 47 U.S.C.  3(21)  and 3(48), or 3(22). According to Ameritech, the Exchanges are presently associated with the",N(N(ZZ"  Chicago LATA, and traffic between the Exchanges and the Chicago LATA is intraLATA  X0traffic.isۿ {Oy   ԍqId. at 2. Ameritech also attached a map to its petition that shows that the Exchanges are surrounded on all  {OC  sides by the Chicago LATA. See Exhibit 1, "Illinois Commerce Commission Exchange Area Boundaries of All Telephone Companies in State of Illinois."i  X0 ` q7.` ` Ameritech states that its request for an unlimited modification of the Chicago  LATA is appropriate for three reasons. First, it contends that an unlimited modification will not  allow an evasion of Section 271 requirements for interLATA traffic given that local traffic  Xv0 between the Exchanges and the Chicago LATA is already entirely intraLATA.Fvۿ {O* ԍqId. at 3.F Second,  P Ameritech states that an unlimited modification is consistent with the rationale for LATAs, which  XH0 is that "all Bell territory in the continental United States is divided into LATAs.":Hۿ {O ԍqId.: Third,  X10 Ameritech states that the Commission's rationale used in its ELCS Order is not applicable  X 0 `because that Order applied to LATA boundary modifications for the limited purposes of  X 0 Pimplementing ELCS across existing LATA boundaries.X  'ۿ yO ԍqAmeritech Petition at 1.X Ameritech notes that the ELCS  petitions recently adjudicated by the Commission requested that exchanges already assigned to  one LATA be included in a different LATA; conversely, the present petition requests that  Exchanges never included in a LATA now be included in one, "thereby triggering the allor X 0 @nothing distinction between Bell and nonBell territory."I! ۿ yO ԍqAmeritech Petition at 3.I Ameritech further states that its  petition will not affect existing calling routes because the Exchanges will not move out of a  LATA; rather, they will join a LATA that they are already associated with. The Commission  solicited comments to Ameritech's petition and no comments were filed in response to the  XO0petition."OG ۿ yOG   `ԍq"Petition to Modify the Boundary of the Chicago LATA to include Des Plaines and Park Ridge Exchanges," (rel. Aug. 18, 1997).  X!0 q` `  hhIV.,DISCUSSION   X0 ` 0 q8.` ` We grant Ameritech's petition to modify the Chicago LATA to include the Des  @Plaines and Park Ridge exchanges. An unlimited modification of the Chicago LATA for the   purposes of including the Exchanges is consistent with the Act and serves the public interest. As  X0  P in the case of the ELCS Order and the Association Order, we weigh the need for the modification   `against the potential harm from BOC anticompetitive activity. In granting LATA modifications   and association modifications, the Commission was careful not to authorize changes that would circumvent the requirements of Section 271 or be disruptive of local dialing patterns. "T ",N(N(ZZ"Ԍ X0  x9.` ` In the present case, however, such concerns do not exist for two reasons. First,   `the Chicago LATA is already associated with the Exchanges; thus, local traffic between the   respective areas may be presently handled by Ameritech without concern for violating the   prohibition against BOCs providing interLATA traffic. Second, the modification would result   ` in the Exchanges becoming a part of the Chicago LATA. Consequently, concerns that Ameritech   could evade Section 271 requirements or that local dialing patterns would be disrupted are  Xv0  0obviated. Similarly, the relevant factors in ELCS and Association Orders e.g., whether there   will be a loss of existing calling routes or whether customers might be charged on the basis of   measured rate rather than flat rate service are not applicable here because, as stated above,   @Ameritech is already able to handle the traffic between the Exchanges and the Chicago LATA.   @Finally, we take note of the fact that no parties filed comments in response to the public notice that solicited comments regarding Ameritech's petition.  X 0 x` `  hhVII.@ORDERING CLAUSES  X 0 x10.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 3(25) and 4(i) of the   Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  153(25), 154(i), and 47 C.F.R.   0.91   0.291 of the Commission's rules, that the request of Illinois Bell Telephone Company, File No.   NSDLM9729 to modify the Chicago LATA to include the Des Plaines and Park Ridge exchanges IS GRANTED. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhGeraldine A. Matise x` `  hhChief, Network Services Division x` `  hhCommon Carrier Bureau