*Pages 1--7 from  Microsoft Word - 60510.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  06-  2112 
 1 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of 
 Gorham  Telephone  Company,  Inc.,  and  Rural  Telephone  Service  Company,  Inc. 


 Joint  Petition  for  Waiver  of  the  Definition  of  Study  Area  Contained  in  Part  36,  Appendix-Glossary 
 of  the  Commissions  Rules;  Petition  for  Waiver  of  Section  69.3(  e)(  11)  of  the 
 Commissions  Rules 


 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 


 CC  Docket  No.  96-  45 


 ORDER 
 Adopted:  October  25,  2006  Released:  October  25,  2006 
 By  the  Chief,  Wireline  Competition  Bureau: 
 I.  INTRODUCTION 
 1.  In  this  Order,  we  grant  a  joint  request  from  Gorham  Telephone  Company,  Inc.,  (Gorham)  and  Rural  Telephone  Service  Company,  Inc.,  (RuralTel)  (collectively,  the  Petitioners)  for  a  waiver  of  the 


 study  area  boundary  freeze  codified  in  the  Appendix-  Glossary  of  Part  36  of  the  Commissions  rules.  1  The  study  area  waiver  will  permit  RuralTel  to  remove  two  exchanges  comprising  approximately  272 
 access  lines  from  its  Kansas  study  area.  The  waiver  also  will  permit  Gorham  to  add  these  exchanges  to  its  existing  Kansas  study  area.  2  We  also  grant  Gorham  a  waiver  of  section  69.  3(  e)(  11)  of  the  Commissions 
 rules  in  order  to  allow  it  to  continue  to  use  the  National  Exchange  Carrier  Association  (NECA)  as  its  tariff 


 1  See  47  C.  F.  R.  Part  36  App.;  Gorham  Telephone  Company,  Inc.  and  Rural  Telephone  Service  Company,  Inc.,  Joint 
 Petition  for  Waiver  of  the  Definition  of  Study  Area  of  the  Appendix-  Glossary  of  Part  36  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  96-  45  (filed  June  15,  2006)  (Petition).  The  Petition  also  includes  a  request  by  Gorham  for 


 waiver  of  section  69.  3(  e)(  11)  of  the  Commissions  rules.  Id.  On  July  25,  2006,  the  Wireline  Competition  Bureau  (Bureau)  released  a  public  notice  seeking  comment  on  the  petitions.  See  Wireline  Competition  Bureau  Seeks 
 Comment  on  the  Petition  of  Gorham  Telephone  Company,  Inc.,  and  Rural  Service  Telephone  Company,  Inc.,  to  Waiver  the  Study  Area  Boundary  Freeze,  as  Codified,  in  Part  36,  and  Gorham  Telephone  Companys  Request  for 
 Waiver  of  Section  69.3(  e)(  11)  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  96-  45,  Public  Notice,  21  FCC  Rcd  8514  (2006).  We  note  that  the  Bureau  has  granted  transfer  of  control  of  the  exchanges.  See  Notice  of  Streamlined 
 Domestic  214  Applications  Granted,  WC  Docket  Nos.  06-  112,  06-  116,  &  06-  117,  Public  Notice,  21  FCC  Rcd  8709  (2006). 


 2  Gorham  is  acquiring  the  Luray  and  Paradise  exchanges  from  RuralTel.  See  Petition  at  1.  The  two  exchanges 
 subject  to  this  transaction  were  recently  acquired  by  RuralTel  from  United  Telephone  Company  of  Kansas  and  are  included  as  part  of  a  companion  study  area  waiver  granted  today  by  the  Bureau.  See  Rural  Telephone  Service 


 Company,  Inc.,  Nex-  Tech,  Inc.,  United  Telephone  Company  of  Kansas,  and  United  Telephone  Company  of  Eastern  Kansas,  Joint  Petition  for  Waiver  of  the  Definition  of  Study  Area  Contained  in  Part  36,  Appendix-  Glossary  of  the 
 Commissions  Rules;  Petition  for  Waiver  of  Section  69.  3(  e)(  11)  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  CC  Docket  No.  96-  45,  Order,  DA  06-  2111  (rel.  Oct.  25,  2006)  (RuralTel-  United  Waiver  Order). 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  06-  2112 
 2 
 pool  administrator.  3 
 II.  STUDY  AREA  WAIVER 
 A.  Background 
 2.  Study  Area.  A  study  area  is  a  geographic  segment  of  an  incumbent  local  exchange  carriers  (LEC)  telephone  operations.  The  Commission  froze  all  study  area  boundaries  effective 


 November  15,  1984.  4  The  Commission  took  this  action  to  prevent  the  establishment  of  high-  cost  exchanges  within  existing  service  territories  as  separate  study  areas  merely  to  maximize  high-  cost 
 universal  service  support.  A  carrier  must  therefore  apply  to  the  Commission  for  a  waiver  of  the  study  area  boundary  freeze  if  it  wishes  to  sell  or  purchase  additional  exchanges.  5 


 3.  Universal  Service  Support.  Section  54.305(  b)  of  the  Commissions  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.  6  Section  54.305(  b)  is  meant  to  discourage  a  carrier  from  transferring  an  exchange  merely  to  increase  its  share  of 
 high-  cost  universal  service  support.  7 
 4.  The  Petition  for  Waiver.  Gorham  and  RuralTel  filed  a  joint  petition  for  a  waiver  of  the  study  area  boundary  freeze  on  May  31,  2006.  A  study  area  waiver  would  permit  RuralTel  to  alter  the 


 boundaries  of  its  Kansas  study  area  by  removing  the  two  exchanges  that  it  is  transferring  to  Gorham  and  would  permit  Gorham  to  add  the  acquired  exchanges  to  its  existing  Kansas  study  area.  8  The  Petitioners 
 state  that  granting  of  the  waiver  is  in  the  public  interest.  9  Moreover,  the  Petitioners  state  that  the  change  in  study  area  boundaries  will  not  adversely  affect  the  universal  service  fund  because  of  the  operation  of 
 section  54.305  of  the  Commissions  rules.  10  The  Petitioners  note,  however,  that  Gorham  may  be  eligible  for  additional  support  for  new  investment  pursuant  to  the  Commissions  safety  valve  rules  and  for 
 additional  interstate  common  line  support  (ICLS).  11  The  State  Corporation  Commission  of  the  State  of 


 3  See  47  C.  F.  R.    69.3(  e)(  11). 
 4  See  MTS  and  WATS  Market  Structure,  Amendment  of  Part  67  of  the  Commissions  Rules  and  Establishment  of  a 
 Joint  Board,  CC  Docket  Nos.  78-  72,  80-  286,  Decision  and  Order,  50  Fed.  Reg.  939  (1985)  (Part  67  Order),  adopting  Recommended  Decision  and  Order,  49  Fed.  Reg.  48325  (1984).  See  also  47  C.  F.  R.  Part  36,  App. 


 5  Part  67  Order  at  para.  1. 
 6  47  C.  F.  R.    54.305(  b).  This  rule  applies  to  high-  cost  loop  support  and  local  switching  support.  A  carriers 
 acquired  exchanges  may  receive  additional  support  pursuant  to  the  Commissions  safety  valve  mechanism.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    54.305(  d)-(  f).  A  carrier  acquiring  exchanges  also  may  be  eligible  to  receive  interstate  common  line 


 support,  which  is  not  subject  to  the  limitations  set  forth  in  section  54.  305(  b).  See  47  C.  F.  R.    54.  902.  7 
 See  Federal-  State  Joint  Board  on  Universal  Service,  CC  Docket  No.  96-  45,  Report  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  8776,  8942-  43  (1997)  (subsequent  history  omitted). 


 8  Including  the  exchanges  recently  acquired  from  United,  RuralTel  owns  and  operates  approximately  16,000  access 
 lines  in  41  exchanges  in  one  study  area  in  the  state  of  Kansas.  See  Petition  at  2;  RuralTel-  United  Waiver  Order  at  paras.  1,  4.  Gorham  owns  and  operates  approximately  330  access  lines  in  one  study  area  in  the  state  of  Kansas.  See 


 Petition  at  2.  9 
 See  Petition  at  5-  6.  See  also  infra  para.  10.  10 
 See  Petition  at  4-  5.  See  also  47  C.  F.  R.    54.  305(  b).  11 
 See  Petition  at  4-  5;  47  C.  F.  R.    54.  305(  d)-(  f)  and  54.  902(  b). 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  06-  2112 
 3 
 Kansas  (Kansas  Commission)  has  approved  Gorhams  application  for  a  certificate  of  convenience  and  authority  to  provide  incumbent  LEC  services  in  the  two  exchanges.  12 
 5.  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)  the  state  commission  having  regulatory  authority  over  the  transferred  exchanges  does  not  object  to  the  transfer;  and  (3)  the  transfer  must  be  in  the  public 
 interest.  13  In  evaluating  whether  a  study  area  boundary  change  will  have  an  adverse  impact  on  the  universal  service  fund,  we  analyze  whether  a  study  area  waiver  will  result  in  an  annual  aggregate  shift  in 
 an  amount  equal  to  or  greater  than  one  percent  of  high-  cost  support  in  the  most  recent  calendar  year.  14  The  Commission  began  applying  the  one-  percent  guideline  in  1995  to  limit  the  potential  adverse  impact 
 of  exchange  sales  on  the  overall  fund,  also  recognizing  that,  because  high-  cost  loop  support  is  capped,  an  increase  in  the  draw  of  any  fund  recipient  necessarily  reduces  the  amounts  that  other  LECs  receive  from 
 the  fund.  15  After  the  Commission  adopted  section  54.305,  it  continued  to  apply  the  one-  percent  guideline  to  determine  the  impact  on  the  universal  service  fund  in  light  of  the  adoption  of  safety  valve  support  and 
 ICLS.  16 
 B.  Discussion 
 6.  We  find  that  good  cause  exists  to  waive  the  study  area  boundary  freeze  codified  in  the  Appendix-  Glossary  of  Part  36  of  the  Commissions  rules  to  permit  RuralTel  to  alter  the  boundaries  of  its 


 existing  Kansas  study  area  by  removing  the  two  exchanges  that  it  is  transferring  to  Gorham.  17  We  also  find  that  good  cause  exists  to  permit  Gorham  to  add  the  two  acquired  exchanges  to  its  existing  Kansas 
 study  area.  For  the  reasons  discussed  below,  we  conclude  that  the  Petitioners  have  satisfied  the  three-prong  standard  that  the  Commission  applies  to  determine  whether  a  study  area  waiver  is  warranted. 


 12  See  infra  note  24. 
 13  See,  e.  g.,  US  WEST  Communications,  Inc.,  and  Eagle  Telecommunications,  Inc.,  Joint  Petition  for  Waiver  of  the 
 Definition  of  Study  Area  Contained  in  Part  36,  Appendix-  Glossary  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  AAD  94-  27,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  10  FCC  Rcd  1771,  1772,  para.  5  (1995)  (PTI/  Eagle  Order). 


 14  See  id.  at  1774,  paras.  14-  17.  See  also  US  WEST  Communications,  Inc.,  and  Eagle  Telecommunications,  Inc., 
 Joint  Petition  for  Waiver  of  "Study  Area"  Contained  in  Part  36,  Appendix-  Glossary  of  the  Commission's  Rules,  and  Petition  for  Waiver  of  Section  61.  41(  c)  of  the  Commission's  Rules,  AAD  94-  27,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  on 


 Reconsideration,  12  FCC  Rcd  4644  (1997).  15 
 See  PTI/  Eagle  Order,  10  FCC  Rcd  at  1773,  para.  13.  16 
 See  supra  note  6.  See  also  Multi-  Association  Group  (MAG)  Plan  for  Regulation  of  Interstate  Services  of  Non-Price  Cap  Incumbent  Local  Exchange  Carriers  and  Interexchange  Carriers  in  CC  Docket  No.  00-  256,  Federal-State 


 Joint  Board  on  Universal  Service  in  CC  Docket  No.  96-  45,  Access  Charge  Reform  for  Incumbent  Local  Exchange  Carriers  Subject  to  Rate-  of-  Return  Regulation  in  CC  Docket  No.  98-  77,  Prescribing  the  Authorized  Rate 
 of  Return  From  Interstate  Services  of  Local  Exchange  Carriers  in  CC  Docket  No.  98-  166,  Second  Report  and  Order  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  Fifteenth  Report  and  Order,  and  Report  and  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  19613, 
 19667-  69,  paras.  155-  57  (2001),  recon.  pending.  17 
 Generally,  the  Commission  may  waive  its  rules  for  good  cause  shown.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    1.3.  The  Commission  may  exercise  its  discretion  to  waive  a  rule  where  the  particular  facts  make  strict  compliance  inconsistent  with  the 


 public  interest.  See  Northeast  Cellular  Telephone  Co.  v.  FCC,  897  F.  2d  1164,  1166  (D.  C.  Cir.  1990)  (Northeast  Cellular).  In  addition,  the  Commission  may  take  into  account  considerations  of  hardship,  equity,  or  more  effective 
 implementation  of  overall  policy  on  an  individual  basis.  See  WAIT  Radio  v.  FCC,  418  F.  2d  1153,  1159  (D.  C.  Cir.  1969),  cert.  denied,  409  U.  S.  1027  (1972);  Northeast  Cellular,  897  F.  2d  at  1166.  Waiver  of  the  Commissions  rules 
 is  therefore  appropriate  only  if  special  circumstances  warrant  a  deviation  from  the  general  rule,  and  such  deviation  will  serve  the  public  interest. 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  06-  2112 
 4 
 7.  Impact  on  the  Universal  Service  Fund.  We  conclude  that  the  universal  service  fund  will  not  be  adversely  affected  by  granting  this  study  area  waiver.  With  regard  to  the  272  lines  that  RuralTel  is 
 transferring  to  Gorham,  section  54.305(  b)  of  the  Commissions  rules  limits  high-  cost  loop  support  and  local  switching  support.  18  Therefore,  Gorham  is  limited  to  the  same  per-  line  levels  of  support  that 
 RuralTel  was  receiving  prior  to  the  transfer.  19  Although  Gorham  may  be  eligible  for  safety  valve  support  for  investments  in  the  acquired  lines,  there  is  nothing  in  the  record  to  suggest  that  such  eligibility  would 
 significantly  increase  the  federal  universal  service  fund  or  would  come  close  to  the  one-  percent  threshold.  20  As  stated  above,  ICLS  is  not  subject  to  the  limitations  of  section  54.305(  b)  of  the 
 Commissions  rules.  21  The  Petitioners  state  that  as  a  result  of  this  transaction,  for  the  year  2007,  Gorhams  ICLS  will  increase  by  approximately  $39,  500  and  RuralTels  ICLS  will  be  reduced  by 
 approximately  $132,000.  22  As  a  result,  there  is  a  net  decrease  of  approximately  $92,500  in  universal  service  support  as  a  result  of  this  transaction.  We  find,  therefore,  that  this  transaction  will  have  no 
 adverse  impact  on  the  universal  service  fund. 
 8.  To  further  ensure  that  this  transaction  is  in  the  public  interest,  we  direct  Gorham,  as  part  of  its  annual  universal  service  data  submissions,  to  file  a  schedule  showing  its  methodology  for  excluding 


 the  costs  associated  with  the  acquired  access  lines  from  the  costs  associated  with  Gorhams  pre-acquisition  exchange.  23 


 9.  State  Commission  Position.  On  August  9,  2006,  the  Kansas  Commission  issued  an  order  approving  Gorhams  application  for  a  certificate  of  convenience  and  authority  to  provide  incumbent  LEC 
 services  in  the  two  exchanges.  24  Thus,  we  find  that  the  state  commission  with  regulatory  authority  over  the  transferred  exchanges  does  not  oppose  the  transfer. 


 10.  Public  Interest  Analysis.  Finally,  we  are  persuaded  that  the  public  interest  is  served  by  a  waiver  of  the  study  area  freeze  rule  to  permit  RuralTel  to  remove  from  its  Kansas  study  area  the  two 
 exchanges  and  to  permit  Gorham  to  add  the  acquired  exchanges  to  its  existing  Kansas  study  area.  Importantly,  Gorham  intends  to  make  several  improvements  to  the  facilities  in  the  Paradise  and  Luray 
 exchanges,  including  installing  fiber  and/  or  Digital  Subscriber  Line  technology  throughout  the  acquired 
 18  See  47  C.  F.  R.    54.  305(  b). 
 19  We  note  that  because  RuralTels  high  cost  support  for  the  Luray  and  Paradise  exchanges  were  already  subject  to 
 section  54.305  as  a  result  of  the  exchanges  being  recently  acquired  from  United,  the  same  per-  line  support  that  United  received  prior  to  its  transaction  with  RuralTel  is  passed  to  Gorham.  See  supra  note  2;  RuralTel-  United 


 Waiver  Order  at  note  22.  20 
 In  reaching  this  conclusion,  we  note  that  the  proposed  study  area  waiver  directly  involves  the  transfer  of  only  approximately  272  access  lines.  Moreover,  safety  valve  support  is  capped  at  50  percent  of  any  positive  difference 


 between  a  rural  carriers  calculated  high-  cost  loop  support  for  the  transferred  exchanges  and  the  index  year  amount.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    54.  305(  d).  Also,  the  total  amount  of  safety  valve  support  available  to  rural  carriers  is  capped  at  five 
 percent  of  annual  high-  cost  loop  support  available  to  rural  carriers  in  any  particular  year,  thereby  providing  an  additional  limitation  on  the  amount  of  safety  valve  support  available  to  carriers.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    54.  305(  e). 
 21  See  supra  note  6. 
 22  See  Petition  at  Exhibit  A. 
 23  See  47  C.  F.  R.    36.  611,  54.  301. 
 24  See  In  the  Matter  of  the  Joint  Application  of  Rural  Telephone  Service  Company,  Inc.  (RuralTel)  and  Gorham 
 Telephone  Company,  Inc.  (Gorham)  for  Permission  of  RuralTel  to  Cease  Operating  as  a  Telephone  Public  Utility  in  Two  Kansas  Exchanges  It  Is  Acquiring  from  United  and  to  Grant  Gorham  a  Certificate  of  Public  Convenience  for 


 the  Same  Two  Exchanges,  and  for  Authority  to  Transfer  Property,  Plant  and  Equipment  of  RuralTel  Located  in  the  Two  Exchanges  to  Gorham  and  Complete  All  Matters  Incident  to  the  Transfer,  State  Corporation  Commission  of  the 
 State  of  Kansas,  Docket  No.  06-  GRHT-  1095-  COC,  Order  Approving  Stipulation  and  Agreement  and  Granting  Certificate  to  Gorham  Telephone  Company,  Inc.,  Upon  the  Consummation  of  the  Sale  of  Exchanges  (Aug.  9,  2006). 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  06-  2112 
 5 
 exchanges  and  providing  services  over  such  facilities  at  affordable  and  competitive  prices.  25  Because  expanding  the  availability  of  broadband  communications  is  one  of  the  Commissions  top  priorities,  we 
 believe  that  Gorhams  proposed  improvements  should  benefit  consumers  in  the  exchanges  at  issue.  Based  on  the  totality  of  these  representations,  we  conclude  that  the  transfer  of  the  two  exchanges  to 
 Gorham  will  serve  the  public  interest  by,  among  other  things,  providing  increased  access  to  advanced  services  in  rural  areas. 


 III.  WAIVER  OF  SECTION  69.3(  e)(  11) 
 A.  Background 
 11.  Under  section  69.3  of  the  Commissions  rules,  annual  access  tariffs,  including  the  tariffs  filed  by  NECA  on  behalf  of  companies  that  participate  in  NECAs  access  tariffs,  go  into  effect  on  July  1 


 of  each  year.  26  To  minimize  the  complexity  of  administering  NECAs  common  line  pool,  any  change  in  NECA  common  line  tariff  participation  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.  27  Because  the  next  annual  access  tariff  filing  effective  date  is  July  1,  2007,  Gorham  would  have  to  wait 
 until  that  date  to  participate  in  NECAs  access  tariffs  and  would  be  required  to  file  its  own  interstate  tariff  for  the  interim  period.  28  To  avoid  the  burdens  associated  with  filing  its  own  tariff  during  this  interim 
 period,  Gorham  has  requested  a  waiver  of  section  69.3(  e)(  11)  of  the  Commissions  rules.  29  The  waiver  would  enable  Gorham  to  include  the  acquired  access  lines  in  the  NECA  carrier  common  line  tariff.  The 
 Petitioners  indicate  that  the  inclusion  of  the  small  number  of  access  lines  that  it  is  acquiring  from  United  in  the  NECA  carrier  common  line  tariffs  would  represent  a  minimal  increase  in  NECA  common  line  pool 
 participation.  30 
 B.  Discussion 
 12.  We  find  that  Gorham  has  demonstrated  special  circumstances  warrant  a  deviation  from  section  69.3(  e)(  11)  of  the  Commissions  rules  and  that  it  would  be  in  the  public  interest  to  grant 


 Gorhams  waiver  request.  31  NECA  has  indicated  that  it  has  no  objection  to  including  the  acquired  exchanges  in  the  NECA  tariff,  as  this  would  create  no  undue  administrative  burden  for  NECA.  32  Based 
 on  NECAs  representation  in  its  letter,  we  conclude  that  including  the  acquired  access  lines  in  the  NECA  carrier  common  line  tariff  represents  a  minimal  increase  in  NECA  common  line  pool  participation.  Also, 
 we  believe  that  it  would  be  administratively  burdensome  for  Gorham  to  develop  and  file  its  own  interstate  tariff  for  use  only  until  July  1,  2007,  for  a  relatively  small  number  of  access  lines.  Consequently,  we  find 
 that  Gorham  presents  special  circumstances  to  justify  a  waiver  of  section  69.3(  e)(  11).  Moreover,  we  believe  that  a  waiver  of  section  69.3(  e)(  11)  is  in  the  public  interest  because  it  allows  Gorham  to  devote  its 


 25  Id.  at  6. 
 26  See  47  C.  F.  R.    69.  3(  a). 
 27  47  C.  F.  R.    69.3(  e)(  11).  See  Amendment  of  Part  69  of  the  Commissions  Rules  Relating  to  the  Common  Line  Pool 
 Status  of  Local  Exchange  Carriers  Involved  in  Mergers  or  Acquisitions,  CC  Docket  No.  89-  2,  Report  and  Order,  5  FCC  Rcd  231,  248  (1989). 


 28  See  47  C.  F.  R.    69.  3(  a). 
 29  See  Petition  at  6-  7. 
 30  Id. 
 31  See  supra  note  17. 
 32  See  Letter  from  Tracey  E.  J.  Saltenberger,  NECA,  to  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Federal  Communications  Commission, 
 CC  Docket  No.  96-  45  (filed  August  25,  2006). 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  06-  2112 
 6 
 resources  to  providing  improved  telecommunications  services  to  the  affected  rural  areas  rather  than  spending  those  resources  on  a  tariff  filing.  We  therefore  conclude  that  good  cause  exists  to  grant  a  waiver 
 of  section  69.3(  e)(  11)  to  Gorham. 
 IV.  OTHER  MATTERS 
 13.  On  May  11,  2001,  the  Commission  adopted  an  order  requiring  incumbent  LECs  to  freeze,  on  an  interim  basis,  the  Part  36  jurisdictional  separations  factors  beginning  July  1,  2001.  33  In  the 


 Separations  Freeze  Order,  the  Commission  addressed  how  an  incumbent  LEC  acquiring  exchanges  from  another  incumbent  LEC  shall  recalculate  its  frozen  separations  factors.  34  Accordingly,  Gorham  is 
 required  to  recalculate  its  jurisdictional  separations  factors  pursuant  to  the  Separations  Freeze  Order  and  the  Commissions  rules.  35 


 V.  ORDERING  CLAUSES 
 14.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED,  pursuant  to  sections  1,  4(  i),  5(  c),  201,  202  and  254  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    151,  154(  i),  155(  c),  201,  202,  and  254,  and 


 sections  0.91,  0.291,  and  1.3  of  the  Commissions  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    0.91,  0.291,  and  1.  3,  that  the  joint  petition  for  waiver  of  the  study  area  boundary  freeze  as  codified  in  Part  36,  Appendix-  Glossary,  of  the 
 Commissions  rules,  filed  by  Gorham  Telephone  Company,  Inc.,  and  Rural  Telephone  Service  Company,  Inc.,  on  June  15,  2006,  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  Commissions  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    0.  91,  0.291,  and  1.3,  that  Gorham  Telephone  Company,  Inc.,  SHALL  SUBMIT,  as  part  of  its  annual  universal  service  data  submissions  to 
 the  fund  administrator,  a  schedule  showing  the  methodology  for  excluding  costs  associated  with  the  acquired  access  lines  from  costs  associated  with  its  pre-  acquisition  study  area. 


 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,  and  1.3  of  the  Commissions  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    0.  91,  0.291,  and  1.3,  that  the  petition  for  clarification  or  waiver  of  section  69.3(  e)(  11)  of  the  Commission's  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    69.  3(  e)(  11),  filed  by 
 Gorham  Telephone  Company,  Inc.,  on  June  15,  2006,  IS  GRANTED,  as  described  herein. 


 33  See  Jurisdictional  Separations  and  Referral  to  the  Federal-  State  Joint  Board,  Report  and  Order,  CC  Docket  No. 
 80-  286,  16  FCC  Rcd  11382  (2001)  (Separations  Freeze  Order).  On  May  15,  2006,  the  Commission  extended  the  separations  freeze  an  additional  three  years.  See  Jurisdictional  Separations  and  Referral  to  the  Federal-  State  Joint 


 Board,  Order  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  CC  Docket  No.  80-  286,  21  FCC  Rcd  5516  (2006).  See  also  47  C.  F.  R.    36.  3(  c)  and  (d). 
 34  See  Separations  Freeze  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  11405-  07,  paras.  48-  53. 
 35  See  47  C.  F.  R    36.  3(  d). 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  06-  2112 
 7 
 17.  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,  36.  3(  d),  and  36.  3(  e)  of  the  Commissions  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    0.91,  0.  291,  1.3,  36.3(  d),  and  36.3(  e),  that  Gorham  Telephone  Company,  Inc.,  SHALL  ADJUST  its  jurisdictional  separations 
 factors  to  reflect  this  transaction,  consistent  with  this  Order. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 Thomas  J.  Navin  Chief 
 Wireline  Competition  Bureau 
7