********************************************************    
                                         NOTICE
    ********************************************************
                                
                This document was converted from
           WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.
                                
   Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
             will not show up in this text version.
                                
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
    original document will not show up in this text version.
                                
        Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
           will not be preserved in the text version.
                                
        If you need the complete document, download the
  WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.
                                
*****************************************************************
                                                           Before the
               Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554



In the Matter of

All West Communications, Inc., Carbon/Emery
Telecom, Inc., Central Utah Telephone, Inc.,
Hanksville Telecom, Inc., Manti Telephone
Company, Skyline Telecom, UBET Telecom, Inc. 

And

Qwest Corporation

Joint Petition for Waiver of the 
Definition of "Study Area" Contained
in the Part 36 Appendix-Glossary
of the Commission's Rules;

Petition for Waiver of Sections 61.41(c), 61.41(d)
and 69.3(e)(11)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)









CC Docket No. 96-45



                             ORDER

   Adopted:  February 27, 2001          Released: February 27, 2001

By the Chief, Accounting Policy Division:

     I.   INTRODUCTION
1.     In this Order, we grant a request from All West Communications (All West), Carbon/Emery
Telecom, Inc. (Carbon/Emery), Central Utah Telephone (Central Utah), Hanksville Telecom, Inc.
(Hanksville), Manti Telephone Company (Manti), Skyline Telecom (Skyline), and UBET Telecom, Inc.
(UBET) (collectively, Acquiring Companies), and Qwest Corporation (Qwest) for a waiver of the
definition of "study area" contained in Part 36 Appendix-Glossary of the Commission's rules.US  This
waiver will permit Qwest to remove telephone exchanges comprising approximately 35,600 access lines
from its Utah study area.  This waiver will also permit All West, Central Utah, Manti, and Skyline to add
1,920 access lines, 2,077 access lines, 1,887 access lines, and 1,407 access lines, respectively, to their
existing Utah study areas.  Additionally, this waiver will permit Carbon/Emery, Hanksville, and UBET to
add 12,105 access lines, 170 access lines, and 16,161 access lines, respectively, to their parent
companies' existing study areas. 
2.     We also grant the request of All West, Carbon/Emery, Central Utah, Hanksville, and UBET
for a waiver of section 61.41(c) of the Commission's rules to permit these companies to operate under
rate-of-return regulation after acquiring the exchanges from Qwest that are currently under price cap
regulation.  In addition, we grant Manti's and Skyline's request for a waiver of section 69.605(c) of the
Commission's rules to allow Manti and Skyline to continue operating as average schedule companies
after the exchange acquisitions from Qwest.  Finally, we grant the Acquiring Companies' request for a
waiver of the tariff pooling rules included in section 69.3(e)(11) of the Commission's rules.
     III. STUDY AREA WAIVER

       A. Background

2.     Study Area Boundaries.  A study area is a geographic segment of an incumbent local
exchange carrier's (LEC's) telephone operations.  Generally, a study area corresponds to an incumbent
LEC's entire service territory within a state.  Thus, incumbent LECs operating in more than one state
typically have one study area for each state.  The Commission froze all study area boundaries effective
November 15, 1984 and an incumbent LEC must apply to the Commission for a waiver of the study area
boundary freeze if it wishes to sell or purchase additional exchanges.
3.     Transfer of Universal Service Support.  Section 54.305 of the Commission's rules provides
that a carrier acquiring exchanges from an unaffiliated carrier shall receive the same per-line levels of
high-cost universal service support for which the acquired exchanges were eligible prior to their transfer. 
For example, if a rural carrier purchases an exchange from a non-rural carrier that receives support based
on the Commission's new universal service support mechanism for non-rural carriers, the loops of the
acquired exchange shall receive the same per-line support as calculated under the new non-rural
mechanism, regardless of the support the rural carrier purchasing the exchange may receive for any other
exchanges.  In adopting section 54.305, the Commission sought to ensure that a selling carrier does not
artificially inflate the price of an exchange in anticipation of the buyer's receipt of increased universal
service support as a result of the transfer.  High-cost support mechanisms currently include non-rural
carrier forward-looking high-cost support, interim hold-harmless support for non-rural carriers, rural
carrier high-cost loop support, local switching support, and Long Term Support (LTS).  To the
extent that a carrier acquires exchanges receiving any of these forms of support, the acquiring carrier will
receive the same per-line levels of support for which the acquired exchanges were eligible prior to their
transfer.
4.     As described in the Commission's recent order adopting an integrated interstate access
reform and universal service proposal put forth by the members of the Coalition for Affordable Local and
Long Distance Service (CALLS), beginning July 1, 2000, if a price cap LEC acquires exchanges from
another price cap LEC, the acquiring carrier will become eligible to receive interstate access universal
service support for the acquired exchanges.  Because the interstate access universal service support
mechanism is capped at $650 million, transactions involving the transfer of support will not increase the
mechanism's overall size.  If a non-price cap LEC acquires exchanges from a price-cap LEC, per-line
interstate access universal service support will not transfer.
5.     The Petition for Waiver.  On October 6, 2000, Qwest and the Acquiring Companies filed a
joint petition for waiver of the definition of "study area" as set forth in Part 36 Appendix-Glossary of the
Commission's rules.  The requested waiver would permit Qwest to alter the boundaries of its existing
Utah study area by removing 12 exchanges that it is transferring to the Acquiring Companies.  The
waiver would also permit the purchased exchanges to be added to the study areas of All West (acquiring
1,920 access lines), Central Utah (acquiring 2,077 access lines), Manti (acquiring 1,887 access lines),
Skyline (acquiring 1,407 access lines), Emery Telephone (the parent company of Carbon/Emery and
Hanksville)(acquiring 12,185 access lines), and Uintah Basin Telecommunications Association (the
parent company of UBET)(acquiring 16,161 access lines).  The Acquiring Companies are based in
Utah.  On October 18, 2000, the Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau) released a public notice seeking
comment on the Petition  The United States Telecom Association (USTA) and the National Telephone
Cooperative Association (NTCA) filed comments in support of the Petition.  Beehive Telephone Co., Inc.
(Beehive) filed comments opposing the Petition.  Qwest and the Acquiring Companies filed reply
comments.
6.     Beehive's Objections.  Beehive objects to the instant waiver requests.  First, Beehive
contends that Qwest failed to adequately consider Beehive as a buyer of certain of the Utah exchanges
that were sold to Central Utah, Skyline, and Hanksville.  As a result, Beehive has requested that the
Commission suspend and remand this matter to the Utah Public Service Commission (Utah Commission)
for further investigation and recommendation.  Second, Beehive requests that the Commission delay
action on the waiver requests of Central Utah and Skyline until the conclusion of a proceeding currently
pending before the Utah Commission involving the approval of the transfer of all outstanding shares of
stock from Central Utah and Skyline to Lynch Telephone Corporation X (Lynch).
B.   Discussion

7.     We find that good cause exists to waive the definition of study area contained in Part 36
Appendix-Glossary of the Commission's rules to permit Qwest to alter the boundaries of its existing
Utah study area to remove twelve exchanges that it is transferring to the Acquiring Companies.  We also
find that good cause exists to permit the Acquiring Companies to add these exchanges to their Utah study
areas. 
8.     Generally, the Commission's rules may be waived for good cause shown.  As noted by the
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, however, agency rules are presumed valid  The Commission may
exercise its discretion to waive a rule where the particular facts make strict compliance inconsistent with
the public interest  In addition, the Commission may take into account considerations of hardship,
equity, or more effective implementation of overall policy on an individual basis  Waiver of the
Commission's rules is therefore appropriate only if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the
general rule, and such a deviation will serve the public interest.  In evaluating petitions seeking a waiver
of the rule freezing study area boundaries, the Commission traditionally has applied a three-prong
standard: (1) the change in study area boundaries must not adversely affect the universal service fund; (2)
no state commission having regulatory authority over the transferred exchanges may oppose the transfer;
and (3) the transfer must be in the public interest.  For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that
petitioners have satisfied these criteria and have demonstrated that good cause exists for waiver of the
Commission's study area freeze rule.
9.     First, we conclude that Qwest and the Acquiring Companies have demonstrated that the
proposed change in the study area boundaries will not adversely affect any of the universal service
mechanisms.  Because, under the Commission's rules, carriers purchasing exchanges from an unaffiliated
carrier can only receive the same level of per-line support that the selling company was receiving for
those exchanges prior to the sale, there can, by definition, be no adverse impact on the universal service
fund resulting from this transaction   As such, the Acquiring Companies will receive the same per-line
levels of support, including high-cost loop support, local switching support, and LTS, for which the
acquired exchanges were eligible prior to their transfer.  The Acquiring Companies' existing Utah access
lines will continue to receive support based on the average schedule cost of those lines or the average
schedule formulas, whichever is applicable.  Therefore, we conclude that this transaction will not
adversely affect the universal service mechanisms. We note that, as a result of this transaction, access
lines in the Acquiring Companies' pre-acquisition study area boundaries will be eligible for different
amounts of high-cost support than the access lines being transferred from Qwest's study area.  We
therefore direct the Acquiring Companies to submit, as part of their annual universal service data
submissions, a schedule showing their methodology for excluding the costs associated with the acquired
access lines from the costs associated with their pre-acquisition study areas.
10.    Second, no state commission with regulatory authority over the transferred exchanges
opposes the transfer.  The Utah Commission indicated that it does not object to the grant of the study area
waiver.
11.    Finally, we conclude that the public interest is served by a waiver of the study area freeze
rule.  First, in its petition, Qwest and the Acquiring Companies indicate considerable public support for
the exchange transfers from customers served by the exchanges of the telecommunications services
provided by the exchanges.  Also, in its order approving the transfer of the exchanges to the Acquiring
Companies, the Utah Commission concluded that the transfer will result in "greater opportunities for
service and operating efficiencies" for all customers in the exchanges.  The public interest benefits
also include facilities improvements and investment in the new exchanges by the Acquiring Companies.
Finally, inclusion of the exchanges in the study areas of the Acquiring Companies will provide customers
with the benefit of voicing their concerns to locally based companies. Based on these representations, we
conclude that Qwest and the Acquiring Companies have demonstrated that grant of this waiver request
serves the public interest.
12.    We reject Beehive's request to deny the instant waiver request in light of its objections. 
Beehive claims that Qwest refused to consider Beehive as a potential buyer for the Utah exchanges that
were sold to Central Utah, Skyline, and Hanksville, and requests that the Commission suspend this matter
and remand it to the Utah Commission for further investigation and recommendation.  The transfer of
these exchanges has already been approved by the Utah Commission and as noted above, the Utah
Commission has indicated that it does not object to the grant of the study area waiver requests.  Absent
an objection from the Utah Commission, we have no basis for denying the waiver requests at issue here.
  It is well settled that the Commission does not involve itself in private contractual matters when other
forums exist for resolving those matters.  The Utah Commission and the Utah courts are the proper
forums for addressing Beehive's claims that it should have been considered by Qwest as a potential
buyer.  For these reasons, we also reject Beehive's request that the Commission withhold action on the
waiver requests of Central Utah and Skyline until the conclusion of a proceeding pending before the Utah
Commission regarding the sale of all outstanding shares of stock from Central Utah and Skyline to
Lynch.USUS The transaction between Central Utah, Skyline, and Lynch is not at issue here and, as noted
above, Beehive's objections to such a transfer should be made to the Utah Commission or the appropriate
state or local court.
     XIII.     PRICE CAP WAIVER
     
          A.   Background

2.     Section 61.41(c)(2) of the Commission's rules provides that a non-price cap carrier that
acquires access lines from a price cap carrier shall become subject to price cap regulation and must file
price cap tariffs within a year.  In addition, Section 61.41(c)(3) of the Commission's rules provides that
an average schedule company that acquires exchanges from a price cap company is permitted to retain its
average schedule status.  Section 61.41(d) of the Commission's rules further provides that local
exchange carriers (LECs) that become subject to price cap regulation are not permitted to withdraw from
such regulation.
3.     In the LEC Price Cap Reconsideration Order, the Commission explained that section
61.41(c), the "all-or-nothing" rule, is intended to address two concerns regarding mergers and
acquisitions involving price cap companies.  The first concern was that, in the absence of the rule, a
LEC might attempt to shift costs from its price cap affiliate to its non-price cap affiliate, allowing the
non-price cap affiliate to charge higher rates to recover its increased revenue requirement, while
increasing the earnings of the price cap affiliate.  The second concern was that, absent the rule, a LEC
might attempt to game the system by switching back and forth between rate-of-return regulation and price
cap regulation.  For example, a price cap company may attempt to "game" the system by opting out of
price cap regulation, building a large rate base under rate-of-return regulation so as to raise rates and
then, after returning to price caps, cutting costs back to an efficient level, thereby enabling it to realize
greater profits.  It would not serve the public interest, the Commission stated, to allow a carrier
alternately to "fatten up" under rate-of-return regulation and "slim down" under price cap regulation,
because the rates would not decrease in the manner intended under price cap regulation.
4.     The Commission nonetheless recognized in the LEC Price Cap Reconsideration Order that
narrow waivers of the price cap "all-or-nothing" rule might be justified if efficiencies created by the
purchase and sale of exchanges outweigh the threat that the system might be subject to gaming. The
Commission stated that waivers of section 61.41(c) will be granted conditioned on the selling price cap
company's downward adjustment to its price cap indices to reflect the sale of exchanges.  The
Commission explained that such an adjustment is needed to remove the effects of transferred exchanges
from rates that have been based, in whole or in part, upon the inclusion of those exchanges in a carrier's
price cap indices.   In addition, waivers of the all-or-nothing rule have been granted subject to the
condition that the acquiring carrier obtain prior Commission approval of any attempt to return to price
cap regulation.
5.     The Acquiring Companies operate under rate-of return regulation, while Qwest is subject to
price cap regulation.  All West, Carbon/Emery, Central Utah, Hanksville, and UBET seek a waiver of
section 61.41(c)(2) to permit them to continue to operate under rate-of-return regulation, stating that
the application of these rules will not serve the purpose of the price cap rules, which is to prevent LECs
from shifting costs between price cap and non-price cap affiliates and from increasing rates by switching
back and forth between rate-of-return regulation and price cap regulation.  NTCA and USTA support
this waiver request.
          F.   Discussion
7.     For the reasons discussed below, we find that good cause exists for us to waive section
61.41(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, and that it would be in the public interest to grant the waiver
request of All West, Carbon/Emery, Central Utah, Hanksville, and UBET.  As discussed previously, the
courts have interpreted section 1.3 of the Commission's rules to require a petitioner seeking a waiver of a
Commission rule to demonstrate that special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and
that such a deviation will serve the public interest.
8.     We find that special circumstances warrant a waiver of section 61.41(c)(2).  In evaluating
requests for waiver of section 61.41(c)(2), the Bureau has taken into account the company's preferences
and, in particular, the preferences of small carriers.  In fact, the Commission traditionally has been
sensitive to the unique administrative burdens imposed on small telephone companies by the application
of its rules.  In the LEC Price Cap Order, the Commission decided that small telephone companies
would not be required to operate under a regulatory regime that was designed largely on the basis of the
historical performance of the largest LECs.  The Commission explained that small and mid-size LECs
may have fewer opportunities than large companies to achieve cost savings and efficiencies and may be
less productive than the seven Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) and GTE.  The
Commission, therefore, limited the mandatory application of price cap regulation to the eight largest
LECs   the seven RBOCs and GTE.
9.     All West, Carbon/Emery, Central Utah, Hanksville, and UBET are all small telephone
companies and have expressed a preference for operating under rate-of-return regulation.  After the
proposed transaction, All West will serve approximately 5,900 access lines; Carbon/Emery will serve
approximately 17,200 access lines; Central Utah will serve approximately 3,600 access lines; Hanksville
will serve approximately 200 access lines; and UBET will serve approximately 18,700 access lines. 
These operations will be smaller than other carriers that have been granted waivers of the Commission's
price cap rules.  Further, these companies are the types of small carriers which the Commission has
previously found to be inappropriate candidates for price cap regulation.  For these reasons, we find that
of All West, Carbon/Emery, Central Utah, Hanksville, and UBET present special circumstances to
support their waiver request.
10.    We also find that a waiver of section 61.41(c)(2) serves the public interest.  First, we find
that the first concern identified by the Commission in adopting section 61.41(c)   cost shifting between
affiliates   is not at issue here.  Upon completion of the transaction, All West, Carbon/Emery, Central
Utah, Hanksville, and UBET will operate separate and apart from Qwest.  Since there will be no
affiliation between these entities and Qwest, there will be no opportunity or incentive to shift costs
between price cap and rate-of-return companies.  Second, to safeguard against possible gaming that could
result from attempts to elect price-cap regulation at a later time, we will require All West, Carbon/Emery,
Central Utah, Hanksville, and UBET to seek prior Commission approval if they seek to elect price cap
regulation.  At that time, we can make a determination if the transaction raises concerns that we seek to
address in section 61.41(c). 
11.    In accordance with section 61.45 of the Commission's rules, we also require Qwest to adjust
its price cap indices to reflect the removal of the transferred access lines from its Utah study areas.
Section 61.45 grants us discretion to require price cap carriers to make adjustments to their price cap
indices to reflect cost changes resulting from rule waivers.
     XII. AVERAGE SCHEDULE WAIVER

       A. Background

2.     Incumbent LECs that participate in National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) pools
collect access charges from interexchange carriers at the rates contained in the tariffs filed by NECA. 
Each pool participant receives revenues from the pools to recover the cost of providing service plus a pro
rata share of the pool's earnings.  NECA pool participants' interstate access charge settlements are
determined either on the basis of cost studies or average schedule formulas.  Average schedule
companies are those incumbent LECs that receive compensation for use of their interstate common
carrier services on the basis of formulas that are designed to simulate the disbursements that would be
received by a cost study company that is representative of average schedule companies.  In electing
average schedule status, average schedule companies are able to avoid the administrative and financial
burdens of performing interstate cost studies.
3.     Section 69.605(c) of the Commission's rules provides, in pertinent part, that "a telephone
company that was participating in average schedule settlements on December 1, 1982, shall be deemed to
be an average schedule company."  The definition of average schedule company includes existing
average schedule incumbent LECs, but does not allow the creation of new average schedule companies
or the conversion of cost-based carriers to average schedule status without a waiver of the Commission's
rules.  The limitation on the creation of new average schedule companies reflects the Commission's
finding that cost studies produce the most accurate financial information, and consequently, the most
accurate interstate telephone rates.
4.     The special circumstances that the Bureau has found to justify waivers of section 69.605(c)
fall into broad categories.  First, the Bureau has granted limited opportunities for carriers serving 5,000
or fewer access lines to convert from cost-based to average schedule settlements when faced with
"industry-wide changed circumstances."  Second, the Bureau has granted waivers to certain small
carriers that lacked the resources to operate on a cost-study basis.  Third, to ensure a smooth settlement
process, the Bureau has granted section 69.605(c) waivers to average schedule companies that have
acquired another company, and allowed the combined companies to merge into one average schedule
study area.
5.     Skyline and Manti have requested a waiver of section 69.605(c) of the Commission's rules in
order to continue operating as average schedule companies following the proposed transaction. Skyline
and Manti argue that a waiver permitting them to retain their average schedule status is justified due to
"their small size and the savings that will be realized by their not having to perform cost studies." 
Skyline and Manti also argue that a continuation of their average schedule status will not affect their
tariffed access rates or cause any concern that the two companies may "game the system."  NTCA and
USTA support this waiver request. 
       F. Discussion
7.     We are persuaded that good cause exists for us to grant Skyline's and Manti's request for a
waiver of section 69.605(c).  The Commission has explained that the definition of "average schedule
company" in section 69.605 was premised upon a policy determination that carriers with the financial
resources and expertise to conduct cost studies without undue hardship should be required to measure the
actual costs they incur in providing interstate service.  Here, Skyline and Manti have demonstrated that
because of their size, they would suffer undue hardship if required to operate on a cost study basis.  The
high cost of completing cost studies relative to the small size of Skyline and Manti establishes the special
circumstances that warrant granting their request for a waiver of section 69.605(c) of the Commission's
rules.  We note that we have previously granted waivers of section 69.605(c) to similarly-sized carriers.
We therefore find that Skyline and Manti's requested waiver of section 69.605(c) of the Commission
rules should be granted.
     VIII.     WAIVER OF SECTION 69.3(e)(11)

          A.   Background
9.     Under section 69.3(e)(11) of Commission's rules, any change in NECA carrier common line
tariff participation and LTS resulting from a merger or acquisition of telephone properties is effective on
the next annual access tariff filing effective date following the merger or acquisition. Section
69.3(e)(11) of the Commission's rules was implemented to minimize the complexity of administering the
LTS program.  Because the next annual access tariff filing effective date is not until July 1, 2001, the
Acquiring Companies would be required to file their own interstate tariffs for the acquired access lines
until July 1, 2001.  In order to avoid the burdens associated with filing their own tariffs, the Acquiring
Companies have requested a waiver of section 69.3(e)(11) of the Commission's rules to enable the
acquired access lines to participate in the NECA carrier common line tariff upon the date of the closing
of the transaction.  NTCA and USTA support this waiver request.  
          A.   Discussion
10.    We find that the Acquiring Companies have demonstrated that special circumstances warrant
a deviation from section 69.3(e)(11) of our rules and that it would be in the public interest to grant the
Acquiring Companies' waiver request.  First, the inclusion of the acquired access lines in the NECA
carrier common line tariff represent a minimal increase in NECA common line pool participation. 
Second, we believe that it would be administratively burdensome for the Acquiring Companies to file
interstate tariffs for a relatively small number of access lines until July 1, 2001.   Consequently, we find
that the Acquiring Companies present the special circumstances to justify a waiver of section 69.3(e)(11). 
Moreover, we believe that a waiver of section 69.3(e)(11) will be in the public interest because the
Acquiring Companies will be able to devote additional resources to providing improved
telecommunications services to the affected rural areas that otherwise would normally be spent on tariff
filings.  We also note that, according to NECA, "inclusion of the acquired access lines in NECA's tariff,
effective on March 1, 2001 . . . , will create no undue administrative burden for NECA, nor will it result
in any disadvantage to other tariff participants."  We, therefore, conclude that good cause exists to grant
a waiver of section 69.3(e)(11) to the Acquiring Companies.
VI.  ORDERING CLAUSES

11.    Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 201, and 202 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 155(c), 201, and 202, and sections
0.91, 0.291, and 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, and 1.3, that the petition for
waiver of Part 36, Appendix-Glossary, of the Commission's rules, filed by All West Communications,
Inc., Carbon/Emery Telecom, Inc., Central Utah Telephone, Inc., Hanksville Telecom, Inc., Manti
Telephone Company, Skyline Telecom, UBET Telecom, Inc., and the Qwest Corporation on October 18,
2000, IS GRANTED, as described herein.
12.    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 201, and 202 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 155(c), 201, and 202, and sections
0.91, 0.291, and 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, and 1.3, that the petition for
waiver of section 61.41(c) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  61.41(c) filed by All West
Communications, Inc., Carbon/Emery Telecom, Inc., Central Utah Telephone, Inc., Hanksville Telecom,
Inc., and UBET Telecom, Inc., IS GRANTED, as described herein.
13.    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 201, and 202 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 155(c), 201, and 202, and sections
0.91, 0.291, and 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, and 1.3, that the petition for
waiver of section 69.605(c) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  69.605(c), filed by Manti Telephone
Company and Skyline Telecom, IS GRANTED, as described herein.
14.    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 201, and 202 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 155(c), 201, and 202, and sections
0.91, 0.291, and 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, and 1.3, that the petition for
waiver of section 69.3(e)(11) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  69.3(e)(11), filed by All West
Communications, Inc., Carbon/Emery Telecom, Inc., Central Utah Telephone, Inc., Hanksville Telecom,
Inc., Manti Telephone Company, Skyline Telecom, and UBET Telecom, Inc., IS GRANTED, as
described herein.
15.    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 201, and 202 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 155(c), 201, and 202, and sections
0.91, 0.291, and 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, and 1.3, that All West
Communications, Inc., Emery Telephone and its subsidiaries; Carbon/Emery Telecom, Inc. and
Hanksville, Central Utah Telephone, Inc., Manti Telephone Company, Skyline Telecom, Uintah Basin
Telecommunications Association, and its subsidiary; UBET Telecom, Inc., SHALL SUBMIT, as part of
their annual USF data submission to the fund administrator, a schedule showing the methodology for
excluding costs associated with the acquired access lines from costs associated with their pre-acquisition
study areas.
16.    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 201, and 202 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 155(c), 201, and 202, and sections
0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 61.43 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, 1.3, and 61.43, that the
Qwest Corporation SHALL ADJUST its price cap indices in its annual price cap filing to reflect cost
changes resulting from this transaction, consistent with this Order.

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
   


                              Katherine L. Schroder
                         Chief, Accounting Policy Division