WPC 2?BJ%:Courier3|x%Bold#o\  PCynXP#CourierCourier BoldTimes New Roman@`7X@gX@CourierCourier BoldTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldynXP#2,q ZCourierTimes New RomanHP LaserJet 5Si (Additional) RM 290HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\!9gX@|D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)^B(klN&o) @ U;7G;A7ier<?xxx,x6X@`7X@2^ZnQb3|j$HP LaserJet 4M RM 235 RegularPT2HL4MPCAD.PRSx  @\G!EX@ I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)CourierCourier BoldTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic2XK0 K{ K <?xxx,x6X@`7X@?xxx,x `7X7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP7nC:,%/>/>/>/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""\4  pG;W!@(#,h@\  P6G;hPH5!,i,5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,:0W*f9 xr G;X`7X@?xxx,x 2\Z<?xxx,x6X@`7X@?xxx,x `7X7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP7nC:,%\4  pG;W!@(#,h@\  P6G;hPH5!,),5\  P6G;,PHx6X@`7X@7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XPC~C~C~ X- X /ө X<w  #XP\  P6QynXP#Federal Communications Commission`(# FCC 97 é258 ă  yxdddy /q0p yO-N#X\  P6G;ɒP#q#X\  P6G;ɒP#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#v3 #X\  P6G;ɒP#Before the Federal Communications Commission  yO} Washington, D.C. 20554#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#у  Xy-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:were intended to ensure that BOCs do not prematurely enter into the interexchange market.  xzGiven the small number of access lines in the independent exchanges here, and the fact that  xPetitioners will merely be switching their routing of traffic from one SWBT LATA to another,  xLit is highly unlikely that allowing this modification would reduce the BOC's motivation to open  xits own market to competition. Thus, requiring the BOC to meet the Section 271 requirements  xbefore permitting such rerouting of traffic by the ITCs would not be necessary to further Congress's intent to guard against competitive abuses.   x11. We conclude that LATA modifications to permit a change in LATA association  xwould best achieve the desired goal of allowing ITCs to reconfigure their networks in the  xxsituation described above. We find that we have the authority to grant such changes pursuant to" @#,N(N(ZZ="  X- xLSections 3(25) and 4(i) of the Act.q$XU yOy- xԍ Although the Act does not specifically address LATA associations, Section 4(i) states that the Commission  yOA- xmay "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.  154(i). q In addition, we note that the vast majority of independent  xexchanges are currently classified as "associated" with a LATA. LATA associations and  xprovisions for changing these associations have been in place since the LATAs were first created.  xWe find that, at least while the BOCs are still subject to restrictions on the provision of  xMinterLATA service, allowing the continuation of LATA "associations" and a procedure for  xchanging these associations will help avoid confusion in the industry and simplify the network  xchange process for ITCs. Finally, LATAs were only intended to restrict the activities of the  xBOCs, not the ITCs, and granting relief in this case will avoid any unnecessary limitations on the  XH-Petitioners' ability to upgrade their interconnected networks.S%HU yO -ԍ See supra para. 4 & note 15. S   @x12. LATA modification to permit a change in association is both consistent with the  xstatute and serves the public interest. Nothing in the statute or legislative history indicates that  x>a LATA cannot be modified for this purpose. Furthermore, as explained above, changes in  xkLATA "association" to permit precisely the type of ITC reconfigurations at issue here were  X - xregularly and routinely granted by the Court under the terms of the AT&T Consent Decree.& xU yO-ԍ The Court granted more than a hundred LATA association requests. See supra para 5.  xkAlthough Congress did not explicitly include corresponding authority when it amended the  xCommunications Act, Congress did acknowledge the possible need for changes to the LATA  xboundaries in enacting Section 3(25). In addition, nothing in either the statute or the legislative  xKhistory suggests a decision by Congress intentionally to eliminate the ability of an ITC to change  xthe LATA association of an independent exchange when such a change is necessary to permit the  xlatter to upgrade or reconfigure its network. Thus we conclude that a broad reading of the term  x"modify" in Section 3(25), to include modifications to permit a change in association, is  xconsistent with the statutory scheme and congressional intent. Moreover, we will consider each  xxfuture request for changes in association carefully, weighing the need for the modification against the potential harm from anticompetitive BOC activity.  X- B.xAssociation Change Requests   x13. We find that the public interest will be served by granting Petitioners' requests for  xMa change in LATA association, along with a modification of the Lubbock LATA in order to  xpermit this change. MidPlains and Cap Rock are small ITCs seeking to upgrade their networks  xKin order to improve service to subscribers. Allowing Petitioners to route traffic through their own  x=facilities at Kess and Spur, and then through the SWBT tandem in Lubbock, will allow them to  ximprove service to their subscribers in an efficient manner. Furthermore, the LATA boundaries  xywere only intended to restrict the activities of SWBT, not the ITCs, and granting relief here will"&,N(N(ZZ<"  X- xavoid any unnecessary limitations on Petitioners' ability to upgrade their own networks.C'U yOy-ԍ See id.C In  xaddition, permitting SWBT to carry this traffic will not have any significant adverse effect on  xcompetition. This is true both because of the small number of subscribers in the independent  xexchanges involved, and because Petitioners are merely seeking to switch the LATA association  X-of these exchanges from one SWBT LATA to another.(XU yO- xԍ See ELCS Order (modifying LATA boundaries for the limited purpose of permitting BOCs to provide ELCS in specific areas).   ox14. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 3(25) and 4(i) of the Act, we change the  xassociation of the Silverton, Turkey, and Quitaque exchanges from the Amarillo LATA to the  xLubbock LATA, and modify the Lubbock LATA to permit this change in association. Because  xthe Silverton, Turkey, and Quitaque exchanges are now associated with the Lubbock LATA,  xSWBT may provide the same services to these exchanges through the Lubbock LATA as it was  xpreviously authorized to provide through the Amarillo LATA, and the provisions of the Act  X - xgoverning intraLATA service will apply to such services.) U yOM- xKԍ SWBT can provide this service without meeting the requirements of Section 271 and a separate affiliate is  yO-not required. See 47 U.S.C.  271(a), 272(a)(2)(B). The association between the  xSilverton, Turkey, and Quitaque exchanges and the Amarillo LATA is terminated, service  x.between these exchanges and the Amarillo LATA will now be considered interLATA, and the  X -provisions of the Act governing interLATA service will apply to such services.* U yO`- xԍ See 47 U.S.C.  271. We note that there are no existing ELCS routes between the Silverton, Turkey, or  yO(-Quitaque exchanges that need to be grandfathered. See supra para. 5.   X-  Xy- V. FUTURE LATA ASSOCIATION REQUESTS ĐTP  XK-  ?x 15. The Common Carrier Bureau has authority to act on petitions for changes in LATA  xassociation and connected modification of LATA boundaries, consistent with the principles  xestablished in this order, pursuant to the delegation of authority contained in Sections 0.91 and  X- x=0.291 of the Commission's rules.I+` U yO-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291.I We conclude that the following set of guidelines will assist  X- xthe ITCs and BOCs in filing such petitions, and the Bureau in acting on these petitions., U yO!- xԍ These guidelines have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control  yOX"-number 30600786. See Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 10413.  First,  xwe request that each petition be filed by the ITC pursuant to the application filing requirements  X- x/set forth in Sections 1.742 and 1.743 of the Commission's rules.H-H U yO%-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  1.74243. H Second, we ask that each  xKindividual LATA association request be the subject of a separate petition. Third, we request that"-,N(N(ZZ"  xeach petition be labeled "ITC Request for LATA Relief Between the [ITC exchange name(s)] and  xthe [LATA name]." Finally, we request that each petition include the following information, under separately numbered and labeled categories, as indicated below:  X-(1)XxType of request (e.g., new association, disassociation, change of existing association);(#  Xv-  {(2)XxExchange information (provide name of the independent exchanges, LATAs and carriers   involved; indicate the LATA, if any, with which the independent exchange is currently associated); (#  X -(3)XxNumber of access lines or customers (for each independent exchange);(#  X -  (4)XxPublic interest statement (provide a detailed statement explaining why granting the   association request would serve the public interest. Include a description of any planned   Nnetwork changes that will require routing ITC traffic through BOC facilities in a different LATA); (#  Xy-(5)xMap (showing the exchanges and LATA boundaries involved and including a scale  Xb-xshowing distance);   X4-  (6)XxELCS 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); (#  X-  X-  Ċ(7)XxBOC 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). (#  Xe- x]A carrier will be deemed to have made a prima facie case supporting grant of a proposed  x-association change if the petition: (1) states that the association change is necessary because of  xplanned upgrades to the ITC's network or service that will require routing traffic through a  X - x!different BOC LATA; (2) involves a limited number of access lines;H.  yO-ԍ See supra para. 7.H and (3) includes a  xystatement from the affected BOC(s) requesting a LATA modification, pursuant to Section 3(25) of the Act, to permit this change in association.   Nx16. We request that any LATA association requests filed with the Commission, but not  xaddressed in this order, be refiled so that they comply with these guidelines. Each petition will  x-be assigned a LATA modification (association) (LM(A)) file number and placed on public notice. "h$ X.,N(N(ZZF#"Ԍ X- VI. CONCLUSION ă   x17. For the reasons set forth above, we grant Petitioners' requests for a change in the  xjLATA association of certain independent exchanges and modify the Lubbock LATA to permit  xthis change. We also provide guidelines for future LATA association requests. These actions  xKserve the public interest because they will allow ITCs to provide upgraded services to consumers in an efficient manner.  XH-d VII. ORDERING CLAUSES ă   x18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 3(25) and 4(i) of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  153(25), 154(i), that the requests of  xzMidPlains Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (MidPlains), File No. NSDLM(A)9727, and  xCap Rock Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (Cap Rock), File No. NSDLM(A)9728, for LATA association changes ARE GRANTED.   x19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 3(25) and 4(i) of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  153(25), 154(i), that the requests of  xSouthwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT) for LATA modifications for the purpose of permitting these changes in association ARE APPROVED.   x20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 3(25) and 4(i) of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  153(25), 154(i), that the association of  xthe Silverton, Turkey, and Quitaque exchanges is changed from the Amarillo, Texas LATA to  x0the Lubbock, Texas LATA. The Lubbock LATA is modified to permit these changes in  xassociation. The Silverton, Turkey, and Quitaque exchanges are now associated with the Lubbock  xLATA and SWBT may provide the same services to these exchanges through the Lubbock LATA  xKas it was previously authorized to provide through the Amarillo LATA. The association between  xthe 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.   x21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to section 416(a) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  x[ 416(a), the Secretary SHALL SERVE a copy of this order upon the parties to this proceeding. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhWilliam F. Caton x` `  hhActing Secretary "#' .,N(N(ZZ%"Ԍ