[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