**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

)

In the Matter of )

)

Request by Qwest Corporation for Limited )

Modification of LATA Boundaries to Provide )

ELCS Between Its Siletz Exchange and ) WC Docket No. 04-152

Sprint/United's Lincoln City Exchange )

In Oregon )

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted:** June 22, 2004 **Released:** June 22, 2004

By the Chief, Competition Policy Division:

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1\. On April 7, 2004, Qwest Corporation (Qwest), pursuant to section
3(25) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act),[^1] filed
a petition (Qwest Petition) to provide flat-rate, two-way, non-optional,
expanded local calling service (ELCS) between certain exchanges in
Oregon.[^2] The Qwest Petition requests a limited modification of a
local access and transport area (LATA) boundary to provide ELCS between
Qwest's Siletz exchange located in the Eugene LATA and Sprint/United
Telephone Company of the Northwest's (Sprint's) Lincoln City exchange
located in the Portland LATA, as required by the Oregon Public Utilities
Commission (Oregon Commission).[^3] We grant Qwest's petition for the
reasons stated below.

# II. BACKGROUND

2\. Requests for new ELCS routes are generally initiated by local
subscribers.[^4] Although intraLATA ELCS routes can be ordered by a
state commission,[^5] pursuant to section 3(25)(B) of the Act

requests for interLATA ELCS routes fall within the Federal
Communications Commission's (Commission's) exclusive jurisdiction.[^6]
Applying a two-part test, the Commission will grant a request for a LATA
boundary modification where: (1) the applicant proves that the requested
LATA modification would provide a significant public benefit; and (2)
granting the petition would not remove the BOC's incentive to receive
authority to provide in-region, interLATA service pursuant to section
271.[^7] The Qwest Petition proposes to establish two-way, non-optional
ELCS, and is accompanied by an order issued by the Oregon Commission
approving the ELCS request.[^8] No party filed comments opposing the
Qwest Petition.

**III. DISCUSSION**

4.  We conclude that Qwest's petition satisfies the Commission's
    two-part test. Applying the first prong of the test, we find that
    Qwest has shown that a public benefit would result from the ELCS
    because a sufficient community of interest exists among the affected
    exchanges to justify their being treated as a local calling
    area.[^9] In reaching this finding, we note that Qwest proposes to
    offer traditional, two-way, non-optional local service in the
    ELCS,[^10] which the Commission has determined to be consistent with
    the public interest.[^11] Further, the Oregon Commission conducted
    an extensive community of interest analysis prior to approving the
    ELCS.[^12] We find it a persuasive indicator of a community of
    interest that Qwest's petition satisfies all of the Oregon
    Commission's community of interest criteria, including customer
    polling data demonstrating that over 80 percent of responding
    customers favored ELCS.[^13] We find, therefore, that the petition
    is based on a significant community of interest, and thus satisfies
    the first prong of the Commission's two-part test.

5.  Qwest also satisfies the second prong of the two-part test because
    it has already opened its market to competition in Oregon and,
    accordingly, has been granted authority under section 271 to offer
    interLATA service in that state.[^14] Thus, granting the requested
    modification has no bearing on Qwest's incentive to receive such
    authority. Moreover, we conclude that the LATA boundary modification
    would have a minimal effect upon competition because modification of
    the LATA boundary would affect only a small number of access
    lines.[^15] As a result, granting Qwest's petition serves the public
    interest by permitting a minor LATA modification where such a
    modification is necessary to meet the needs of local subscribers.
    Accordingly, we approve Qwest's petition for limited LATA boundary
    modifications.

6.  We grant this relief solely for the limited purpose of allowing
    Qwest to provide ELCS between the specific exchanges or geographic
    areas identified in this request. The LATA boundary is not modified
    to permit Qwest to offer any other type of service, including calls
    that originate or terminate outside the specified areas. Thus,
    two-way, non-optional ELCS between the specified exchanges will be
    treated as intraLATA service.[^16]

**IV. ORDERING CLAUSE**

7\. 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 authority delegated by sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, that the request of Qwest
Corporation for a LATA boundary modification for the limited purpose of
providing two-way, traditional, non-optional ELCS between specific
locations in Oregon, identified in WC Docket No. 04-152, IS APPROVED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Michelle M. Carey

> Chief, Competition Policy Division
>
> Wireline Competition Bureau

[^1]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 153(25). Section 3(25) of the Act defines a LATA
    as a contiguous geographic area (1) established prior to enactment
    of the 1996 Act by a Bell Operating Company (BOC) such that no
    exchange area includes points within more than one metropolitan
    statistical area, consolidated metropolitan statistical area, or
    state, except as expressly permitted under the AT&T Consent Decree;
    or (2) established or modified by a BOC after such date of enactment
    and approved by the Commission. *Id.*

[^2]: ^?^ *See* Request by Qwest Corporation for Limited Modification of
    LATA Boundaries to Provide ELCS Between Its Siletz Exchange and
    Sprint/United's Lincoln City Exchange in Oregon, WC Docket No.
    04-152 (filed Apr. 7, 2004) (Qwest Petition). *See* *Comments Sought
    on Qwest Corporation Request for Limited Modification of LATA
    Boundaries to Provide Expanded Local Calling Service Between Its
    Siletz Exchange and Sprint/United's Lincoln City Exchange in
    Oregon*, WC Docket No. 04-152, Public Notice, DA No. 04-1032 (rel.
    Apr. 20, 2004). We note that all of the exchanges are in Oregon.

[^3]: ^?^ *See* Qwest Petition at 1-2; Oregon Public Utilities
    Commission, *Petition for Extended Area Service by the Siletz
    Telephone Exchange*, Docket No. UM 1076, Order, No. 04-158 (rel.
    Mar. 17, 2004) (Oregon Order).

[^4]: ^?^ The Qwest Petition was initiated by subscribers of Qwest's
    Siletz exchange. *See* Qwest Petition at 1*.* The Siletz exchange
    has approximately 1,265 access lines. *See id.* at 3. Adjacent to
    the Siletz exchange, Sprint's Lincoln City exchange has
    approximately 11,271 access lines. *See id.*

[^5]: *United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc.*, 569 F. Supp.
    990, 995 (D.D.C. 1983). "The distance at which a local call becomes
    a long distance toll call has been, and will continue to be,
    determined exclusively by the various state regulatory bodies."
    *Id*.

[^6]: ^?^ *Application for Review and Petition for Reconsideration or
    Clarification of Declaratory Ruling Regarding U S WEST Petitions to
    Consolidate LATAs in Minnesota and Arizona*, File No. NSD-L-97-6,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 14392-99 (1999).

[^7]: *See SBC Telecom, Inc. Petition for Modification of Certain LATA
    Boundaries in Ohio*, File No. NSD-L-00-25, Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 18 FCC Rcd 26398 (2003), paras. 2, 6-8.

[^8]: ^?^ Qwest Petition at 2-3; Oregon Order at 1, 6.

[^9]: ^?^ *See Petitions for Limited Modification of LATA Boundaries to
    Provide Expanded Local Calling Service (ELCS) at Various Locations,
    CC Docket 96-159*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10646,
    10653 (*1997*) (*July 1997 LATA Order*).

[^10]: Qwest Petition at 2-3.

[^11]: *See* *July 1997 LATA Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 10646.

[^12]: *See* Qwest Petition at Exhibit B.

[^13]: *See* Qwest Petition at 4, Exhibit B at 5-6.

[^14]: *Application by Qwest Communications International, Inc. for
    Authorization to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in New
    Mexico, Oregon, and South Dakota*, WC Docket No. 3-11, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 7325 (2003).

[^15]: As noted previously, the Siletz exchange has 1,265 access lines,
    and the Lincoln City exchange has 11,271 access lines. *See* Qwest
    Petition at 3. For the purposes of ELCS petitions, we generally
    consider the number of access lines from customers in the smaller
    exchange who seek to reach businesses and services in the other
    exchange because the smaller exchange usually generates the majority
    of calls between the two exchanges. *See* *Southwestern Bell
    Petitions for Limited Modifications of LATA Boundaries to Provide
    Expanded Local Calling Service (ELCS)*, WC Docket No. 02-134,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 25540 (2002). Therefore,
    for the purposes of reviewing these modifications and based on the
    Qwest Petition's community of interest statement, we consider
    Qwest's 1,265 access lines in the Siletz exchange, a number well
    within Commission precedent. *See* Qwest Petition at 3; *April 1998
    LATA Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 11046, para. 8 (granting an ELCS petition
    affecting over 30,000 access lines).

[^16]: ^?^ Other types of service between the specified exchanges will
    remain interLATA, and the provisions of the Act governing interLATA
    service will apply. *See*, *e.g*., 47 U.S.C. § 272(f)(1) (stating
    that a BOC is required to provide interLATA services through a
    separate affiliate for three years after the date on which it is
    authorized to provide in-region, interLATA telecommunications
    services).