**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

)

In the Matter of )

)

Ameritech Petitions for ) NSD-L-01-151

Limited Modification of LATA )

Boundaries to Provide Expanded Local )

Calling Service (ELCS) )

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted:** April 29, 2003 **Released:** April 29, 2003

By the Chief, Competition Policy Division:

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1\. On May 29, 2001, Ameritech Michigan (Ameritech), pursuant to section
3(25) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act),[^1] filed 57
petitions[^2] to provide flat or message-rated, non-optional expanded
local calling service (ELCS) between various exchanges in Michigan.[^3]
Ameritech's petitions request limited modifications of numerous local
access and transport areas (LATA) boundaries to provide ECLS between
certain exchanges in Michigan, as required by Michigan law.[^4] Because
all of Ameritech's petitions request similar types of service and were
initiated under the identical Michigan law, we will consolidate
Ameritech's petitions and treat them as a single petition (Ameritech
Petition). For the reasons stated below, we grant Ameritech's petition.

# 

# II. BACKGROUND

2.  Although requests for new ELCS routes are generally initiated by
    local subscribers, they can, as in this case, be initiated by state
    legislation.[^5] Under section 3(25)(B) of the Act, requests for
    interLATA ELCS routes fall within the Federal Communications
    Commission's (Commission) exclusive jurisdiction over the
    modification of LATA boundaries.[^6] Applying a two-part test, the
    Commission will grant a request for an ELCS LATA modification (1)
    where a petitioning BOC shows that the proposed modification would
    provide the significant public benefit of expanded local service (by
    showing that there is a significant community of interest among the
    affected exchanges), and (2) provided that it will not have a
    negative effect on a BOC's incentive to fulfill its section 271
    obligations.[^7]

3.  The Ameritech Petition proposes to establish one-way or two-way,
    non-optional ELCS, and is accompanied by an order issued by the
    Michigan Public Service Commission (Michigan Commission) approving
    the ELCS requests on the basis that legislation passed by the
    Michigan legislature mandates the implementation of ELCS, and that
    sufficient communities of interest exist to warrant such
    service.[^8] The Ameritech Petition also includes a statement of the
    location of the affected exchanges and a statement of the number of
    access lines involved.[^9] Because the ELCS was ordered pursuant to
    a legislative mandate, no polls were conducted and no community of
    interest statement was attached.

**III. DISCUSSION**

4.  We conclude that Ameritech's petition satisfies our two-part test.
    Applying the first part of the two-part test, we find that Ameritech
    has shown that a public benefit would result from the expanded local
    calling options that the ELCS would provide. We base our
    determination on the Michigan legislature's conclusion that a
    sufficient community of interest existed between adjacent exchanges
    to justify a requirement that: "A call made to a local calling area
    adjacent to the caller's local calling area shall be considered a
    local call and shall be billed as a local call."[^10] Accordingly,
    the Michigan Commission required Ameritech to file a plan for ELCS
    among the affected exchanges,[^11] and further directed Ameritech to
    seek LATA boundary modifications where necessary to implement
    ELCS.[^12] We believe that these actions by the Michigan legislature
    and the Michigan Commission are persuasive indicators that a
    sufficient community of interest exists among the affected exchanges
    to justify the ELCS. [^13] Additionally, we note that we received no
    objections to the grant of Ameritech's petition. Accordingly, we
    conclude that Ameritech has satisfied the first part of our two-part
    test.

5.  Applying the second part of the two-part test, we find that granting
    the Ameritech Petition would have a minimal effect upon competition
    because modification of the vast majority of the individual LATA
    boundaries would affect only a small number of access lines.[^14] As
    a result, we believe that granting Ameritech's petition serves the
    public interest by permitting minor LATA modifications where such
    modifications are necessary to meet the needs of local subscribers.
    Accordingly, we approve Ameritech's petition for limited LATA
    modifications.

6.  We grant this relief solely for the limited purpose of allowing
    Ameritech to provide ELCS between the specific exchanges or
    geographic areas identified in these requests. The LATAs are not
    modified to permit the BOC to offer any other type of service,
    including calls that originate or terminate outside the specified
    areas. Thus non-optional ELCS between the specified exchanges will
    be treated as intraLATA service.

**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 requests of
Ameritech for LATA modifications for the limited purpose of providing
one and two-way, traditional, non-optional ELCS at specific locations,
identified in NSD-L-01-151, ARE APPROVED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Michelle M. Carey

> Chief, Competition Policy Division
>
> Wireline Competition Division
>
> **Appendix**
>
> **Exchanges and Access Lines**

1.  Ameritech's Albion (7,324 access lines) and Ameritech's Marshall
    (10,262 access lines) Exchanges

2.  Ameritech\'s Belding (4,762 access lines) and Verizon's Fenwick (398
    access lines) Exchanges

3.  Ameritech's Byron (1,706 access lines) and Verizon's Bancroft (1,308
    access lines) Exchanges

4.  Ameritech's Byron (1,706 access lines) and Verizon's Durand (4,995
    access lines) Exchanges

5.  Ameritech's Byron (1,706 access lines) and Verizon's Gaines (1,299
    access lines) Exchanges

6.  Ameritech's Cheboygan (9,982 access lines) and Verizon's Onaway
    (3,587 access lines) Exchanges

7.  Ameritech's Cheboygan (9,982 access lines) and Upper Peninsula Tel
    Co.'s Grace Harbor (140 access lines) Exchanges

8.  Ameritech's Chelsea (9,839 access lines) and Verizon's Grass Lake
    (3,615 access lines) Exchanges

9.  Ameritech's Chelsea (9,839 access lines) and Verizon's Munith (1,332
    access lines) Exchanges

10. Ameritech's Chelsea (9,839 access lines) and Verizon's Stockbridge
    (2,952 access lines) Exchanges

11. Ameritech's Clio (18, 078 access lines) and Ameritech's Birch Run
    (4,154 access lines) Exchanges

12. Ameritech's Clio (18,078 access lines) and Wolverine Tel Co.'s
    Millington (4,573 access lines) Exchanges

13. Ameritech's Coral (450 access lines) and Verizon's Lakeview (2,620
    access lines)Exchanges

14. Ameritech's Evart (4,284 access lines) and Verizon's Barryton (1,679
    access lines) Exchanges

15. Ameritech's Evart (4,284 access lines) and Ameritech's Harrison
    (8,292 access lines) Exchanges

16. Ameritech's Farwell (6,391 access lines) and Ameritech's Evart
    (4,284 access lines) Exchanges

17. Ameritech's Greenville (11,895 access lines) and Verizon's Fenwick
    (398 access lines) Exchanges

18. Ameritech's Greenville (11,895 access lines) and Verizon's Sheridan
    (1,168 access lines) Exchanges

19. Ameritech's Greenville (11,895 access lines) and Verizon's Stanton
    (2,862 access lines) Exchanges

20. Ameritech's Harrison (8,292 access lines) and Ameritech's Marion
    (1,963 access lines) Exchanges

21. Ameritech's Harrison (8,292 access lines) and Century of Michigan's
    Merritt (636 access lines) Exchanges

22. Ameritech's Harrison (8,292 access lines) and Ameritech's McBain
    (1,655 access lines) Exchanges

23. Ameritech's Harrison (8,292 access lines) and Century's Falmouth
    (707 access lines) Exchanges

24. Ameritech's Howell (29,207 access lines) and Verizon's Bancroft
    (1,308 access lines) Exchanges

25. Ameritech's Indian River (4,567 access lines) and Verizon's Onaway
    (3,587 access lines) Exchanges

26. Ameritech's Kalkaska (6,367 access lines) and Upper Peninsula Tel
    Co.'s Manistee River (6,738 access lines) Exchanges

27. Ameritech's Lake Odessa (2,971 access lines) and Century-Midwest's
    Sunfield (1,222 access lines) Exchanges

28. Ameritech's Mancelona (3,821 lines) and Upper Peninsula Tel Co.'s
    Manistee River (61 access lines) Exchanges

29. Ameritech's Manchester (4,046 access lines) and Ameritech's Napoleon
    (2,757 access lines) Exchanges

30. Ameritech's Manchester (4,046 access lines) and Verizon's Grass Lake
    (3,615) Exchanges

31. Ameritech's Manchester (4,046 access lines) and Frontier's Brooklyn
    (5,541 access lines) Exchanges

32. Ameritech's Mayville (2,241 access lines) and Verizon's North Branch
    (3,047 access lines) Exchanges

33. Ameritech's Morley (1,367 access lines) and Verizon's Lakeview
    (2,620) Exchanges

34. Ameritech's Nashville (2,338 access lines) and Bellevue (2,259)
    Exchanges

35. Ameritech's Nashville (2,338 access lines) and Barry County Tel's
    Lacey (870 access lines) Exchanges

36. Ameritech's Nashville (2,338 access lines) and Verizon's Woodland
    (911 access lines) Exchanges

37. Ameritech's Pinckney (8,159 access lines) and Ameritech's
    Fowlerville (6,067 access lines) Exchanges

38. Ameritech's Portland (4,876 access lines) and Ameritech's Ionia
    (9,096 access lines) Exchanges

39. Ameritech's Portland (4,876 access lines) and Ameritech's Lake
    Odessa (2,971 access lines) Exchanges

40. Ameritech's Portland (4,876 access lines) and Verizon's Muir (1,294
    access lines) Exchanges

41. Ameritech's Portland (4,876 access lines) and Westphalia Tel Co
    (1,006 access lines) Exchanges

42. Ameritech's Saginaw (94,480 access lines) and Century's Montrose
    (4,559 access lines) Exchanges

43. Ameritech's Sandusky (4,096 access lines) and Century of Michigan's
    Marlette (3,364 access lines) Exchanges

44. Ameritech's Snover (875 access lines) and Century of Michigan's
    Marlette (3,364 access lines) Exchanges

45. Ameritech's Snover (875 access lines) and Verizon's Cass City (9,225
    access lines) Exchanges

46. Ameritech's Snover (875 access lines) and Ameritech's Ubly (1,666
    access lines) Exchanges

47. Ameritech's Snover (875 access lines) and Verizon's Minden City
    (1,163 access lines) Exchanges

48. Ameritech's St. Ignace (3,737 access lines) and Mackinaw City (1,855
    access lines) Exchanges

49. Ameritech's Trufant (2,215 access lines) and Verizon's Stanton
    (2,862 access lines) Exchanges

50. Ameritech's Trufant (2,215 access lines) and Verizon's Lakeview
    (2,620 access lines) Exchanges

51. Ameritech's Ubly (1,666 access lines) and Verizon's Deckerville
    (2,177 access lines) Exchanges

52. Ameritech's Vermontville (1,310 access lines) and Belleveu (2,259
    access lines) Exchanges

53. Ameritech's Vermontville (1,310 access lines) and Verizon's Woodland
    (911 access lines) Exchanges

54. Ameritech's Wolverine (1,398 access lines) and Verizon's Vanderbilt
    (958 access lines) Exchanges

55. Ameritech's Wolverine (1,398 access lines) and Verizon's Onaway
    (3,587 access lines) Exchanges

[^1]: ^?^ *See* Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110
    Stat. 56, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 153(25) (B). 47 U.S.C. § 153(25).

[^2]: ^?^ *See* *Comment Sought on Ameritech Requests for Limited
    Modifications of LATA Boundaries to Provide Expanded Local Calling
    Service Between Certain Exchanges in Michigan*, Public Notice,
    NSD-L-01-151 (rel. Sept. 27, 2001).

[^3]: ^?^ *See* Appendix. The requested ELCS service would be either
    one-way or two-way depending upon whether the carrier serving the
    customer in the originating local exchange met the criteria, under
    Michigan law, to be exempted from providing ELCS; or whether an
    exempt carrier voluntarily chose to provide ELCS. We note that on
    October 8, 2001, Ameritech withdrew two petitions: (1) Mackinaw
    Island and Cheybogan; and (2) Mackinaw Island and Mackinaw City.
    *Id*.

[^4]: ^?^ *See* Michigan Telecommunications Act, MCL 484.3304b(1).
    Section 3(25) of the Act defines LATAs as those areas 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 established or modified by a BOC after such date of
    enactment and approved by the Commission. 47 U.S.C. § 153(25).

[^5]: ^?^ *See Verizon Petitions for Limited Modification of LATA
    Boundaries to Provide Expanded Local Calling Service (ELCS)*, WC
    Docket No. 02-237, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 03-790 (rel.
    Mar. 14, 2003) (*Verizon LATA Order*).

[^6]: ^?^ *See Application for Review and Petition for Reconsideration
    or Clarification of Declaratory Ruling Regarding US WEST Petitions
    to Consolidate LATAs in Minnesota and Arizona*, Memorandum Opinion
    and Order, 14 FCC Rcd.14392, 14399 (1999). IntraLATA ELCS routes can
    also be ordered by a state commission. *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."

[^7]: ^?^ *See Application for Review of Petition for Modification of
    LATA Boundary*, FCC 02-233, Order on Review, 17 FCC Rcd 16952, 16958
    (2002); *see also* *Petitions for Limited Modification of LATA
    Boundaries to Provide Expanded Local Calling Service (ELCS) at
    Various Locations*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10646,
    10649-50 (1997). In this order, the Commission also delegated
    authority to the Common Carrier Bureau (now the Wireline Competition
    Bureau) to act on petitions to modify LATA boundaries. *Id.* at
    10657-58. A BOC is deemed to have made a *prima facie* case
    supporting grant of the ELCS petition if it: (1) has been approved
    by the state commission; (2) proposes only traditional local
    service; (3) indicates that the state commission found a sufficient
    community of interest to warrant such service; (4) documents this
    community of interest through such evidence as poll results, usage
    data, and descriptions of the communities involved; and (5) involves
    a limited number of customers or access lines. *See Application for
    Review of Petition for Modification of LATA Boundary*, FCC 02-233,
    Order on Review, 17 FCC Rcd 16952, 16958 (2002); *see also*
    *Petitions for Limited Modification of LATA Boundaries to Provide
    Expanded Local Calling Service (ELCS) at Various Locations*,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10646, 10649-50 (1997).

[^8]: § 304(11) MCL 484.2304(11), added by 2000 PA 295 (requiring that
    "A call made to a local calling area adjacent to the caller's local
    calling area shall be considered a local call and billed as a local
    call.")

[^9]: *See* Ameritech Petition; *see also* Appendix.

[^10]: *See* Michigan Telecommunications Act, MCL 484.3304b(1).

[^11]: *See* Ameritech Petition.

[^12]: *See* Ameritech Petition.

[^13]: We reach our conclusion that Ameritech satisfies the first prong
    of the Commission's two-part test notwithstanding that Ameritech's
    application did not include some of the data we look for in our
    *prima* *facie* analysis. Although the Michigan Commission did not
    conduct polls or provide a community of interest statement to
    document its community of interest finding, the Michigan
    Commission's order was premised on a community of interest finding
    by the Michigan legislature. It is consistent with Commission LATA
    boundary modification precedent for us to base our public interest
    determination on a decision by a state legislature. *See Verizon
    LATA Order* *supra* n.5. Further, although the Commission has
    previously stated a preference for flat-rated service as an
    indicator of a community of interest, the Commission has granted
    LATA boundary modifications that include measured or message rated
    ELCS where, as in the instant case, the types of services offered in
    the proposed ELCS were identical to those offered prior to the
    application. *See Bell-Atlantic-Virginia, Inc. Petitions for Limited
    Modification of LATA Boundaries to Provide Expanded Local Calling
    service (ELCS) at Various Locations*, Memorandum and Order, 13 FCC
    Rcd 11042 (1998) (*April 1998 LATA Order*) (granting ELCS petition
    where proposed service was the same as that existing prior to the
    application). Ameritech's petition proposes to provide customers
    with the same service that existed prior to ELCS. *See* Ameritech
    Petition at 2; *see also* Letter from Toni Acton, Associate
    Director, Federal Regulatory, Ameritech Telecommunications, Inc. to
    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
    NSD-L-01-151 at 2 (Nov. 19, 2002). Given the close proximity
    inherent to adjacent local exchanges, and the efficiencies afforded
    to customers by expanding the availability of flat-rated calling
    service plans, we anticipate that the ELCS will encourage customers
    to migrate from message rated service to flat-rated service, and is
    a further indication that a sufficient community of interest exists
    to justify the ELCS.

[^14]: ^?^ For the purposes of ELCS petitions, we generally consider the
    access lines from customers in the exchange with the smaller number
    of access lines who seek to reach businesses, services, etc. in the
    other exchange (this 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)*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC
    Rcd 25540 (2002). For example, callers from the Fenwick exchange
    (398 access lines) seek to reach the businesses and services, etc.
    located in the Greenville exchange (11,895 access lines). Similarly,
    callers from the Byron exchange (1,706 access lines) seek to reach
    the businesses and services, etc. located in Durand (4,995 access
    lines). Therefore, for the purposes of reviewing these
    modifications, we will consider the 398 access lines in Fenwick and
    the 1,706 access lines in Byron. The largest number of access lines
    affected by any single LATA modification in this application is
    9,982 from the Cheboygan exchange, a number within Commission
    precedent. *See* *April 1998 LATA Order*, *supra* n. 10 (granting an
    ELCS petition affecting over 30,000 access lines). *See* Appendix
    for the exchanges originating the majority of interLATA traffic.