Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 1997 / Notices 43161

Frequency of Response: varies from

weekly to biannually.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:

11.3 million hours.

Estimated Total Annualized Cost

Burden: $204.7 million.

Send comments on the Agency’s need

for this information, the accuracy of the

provided burden estimates, and any

suggested methods for minimizing

respondent burden, including through

the use of automated collection

techniques to the following addresses.

Please refer to EPA ICR No. 00270.38

and OMB Control No. 2040–0090 in any

correspondence.

Ms. Sandy Farmer, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, OPPE Regulatory

Information Division (2137), 401 M

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460

and

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for

EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20503.

Dated: August 6, 1997.

Joseph Retzer,

Director, Regulatory Information Division.

[FR Doc. 97–21274 Filed 8–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Chapter 1

[FRL–5873–7]

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (Pub L. 92–

463), the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency gives notice of a meeting of the

Good Neighbor Environmental Board.

The Good Neighbor Environmental

Board was created by the Enterprise for

the Americas Initiative Act of 1992. An

Executive Order delegates implementing

authority to the Administrator of EPA.

The Board is responsible for advising

the President and the Congress on

environmental and infrastructure issues

and needs within the States contiguous

to Mexico. The statute calls for the

Board to have governmental and

nongovernmental representatives from

the States of Arizona, California, New

Mexico and Texas, and from U.S.

Government agencies. The Board meets

at least twice annually.

The meeting is open to the public,

with seating on a first-come, first-served

basis. Members of the public are invited

to provide oral and/or written

comments to the Board. Time will be

provided during the meeting to obtain

input from the public.

Most of this meeting of the Good

Neighbor Environmental Board will be

conducted jointly with the Board’s

Mexican counterpart, Region 1 of the

Mexican National Advisory Council for

Sustainable Development.

DATES: The Board will meet on

September 10 and 11, 1997. The Board

will meet on September 10, 1997 from

8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and on

September 11, 1997 from 8:30 a.m. to

3:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The Town and Country

Hotel, 500 Hotel Circle North, San

Diego, CA 92108.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Robert Hardaker, Designated Federal

Officer, U.S. EPA, Office of Cooperative

Environmental Management, telephone

202–260–2477.

Dated: July 30, 1997.

Robert Hardaker,

Designated Federal Officer, Good Neighbor

Environmental Board.

[FR Doc. 97–21272 Filed 8–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

Sunshine Act Meeting; Farm Credit

Administration Board; Regular Meeting

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given,

pursuant to the Government in the

Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of

the forthcoming regular meeting of the

Farm Credit Administration Board

(Board).

DATE AND TIME: The regular meeting of

the Board will be held at the offices of

the Farm Credit Administration in

McLean, Virginia, on August 14, 1997,

from 9:00 a.m. until such time as the

Board concludes its business.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Floyd Fithian, Secretary to the Farm

Credit Administration Board, (703) 883–

4025, TDD (703) 883–4444.

ADDRESSES: Farm Credit

Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive,

McLean, Virginia 22102–5090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Parts of

this meeting of the Board will be open

to the public (limited space available),

and parts of this meeting will be closed

to the public. In order to increase the

accessibility to Board meetings, persons

requiring assistance should make

arrangements in advance. The matters to

be considered at the meeting are:

Open Session

A. Approval of Minutes

B. New Business

Regulation

Capital Phase III [12 CFR Part 615]

(Proposed)

Other

October 1997 Unified Agenda

*Closed Session

A. New Business

1. Enforcement Action

2. Supervisory Matters

*Session Closed—Exempt pursuant to 5

U.S.C. 552b(c) (8) and (9).

Dated: August 8, 1997.

Floyd Fithian,

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.

[FR Doc. 97–21431 Filed 8–8–97; 3:34 pm]

BILLING CODE 6705–01–P

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,
43162 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 1997 / Notices

1LATAs 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. § 153(25).

2On 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.

3See United States v. Western Electric Co, Inc.,

569 F. Supp. 1057, 1110–13 (D.D.C. 1983)

(hereinafter Western Electric I).

4The 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. § 153(25).

6The 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).

7United 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).

8See Western Electric II, 569 F. Supp. at 993, 994.

9 Id. at 994.

10 Id.

11See, 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.

15Western 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).

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

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

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

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 1997 / Notices 43163

16See, 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).

18See March 1984 Order at 2.

19See, e.g., February 1984 Order at 2.

20See, e.g., id. at 7 nn.11–12. See also supra note

6.

21Public Law. 104–104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).

22Section 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).

23Section 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. § 271(i)(1).

24 47 U.S.C. § 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. § 160 (a), (d).

25 47 U.S.C. § 153(21).

26 47 U.S.C. § 271(f).

27 47 U.S.C. § 153(25)(B).

28Mid-Plains Petition at 2.

29 Id.

30Cap Rock Petition at 2.

31 Id.

32See 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.

33Mid-Plains Petition at 2; Cap Rock Petition at

2.

34SWBT’s Supplement to Mid-Plains Petition,

filed April 1, 1997; SWBT’s Supplement to Cap

Rock Petition, filed April 1, 1997.

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

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

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 reroute 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

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

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.
43164 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 1997 / Notices

35See 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).

36Although 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. § 154(i).

37See supra para. 4 & note 15.

38The Court granted more than a hundred LATA

association requests. See supra para. 5.

39See id.

40See ELCS Order (modifying LATA boundaries

for the limited purpose of permitting BOCs to

provide ELCS in specific areas).

41SWBT can provide this service without meeting

the requirements of Section 271 and a separate

affiliate is not required. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 271(a),

272(a)(2)(B).

42See 47 U.S.C. § 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.

43 47 CFR §§ 0.91, 0.291.

44These 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 §§ 1.742–43.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

§§ 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 §§ 1.742 and 1.743 of the

Commission’s rules.45 Second, we ask
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 155 / Tuesday, August 12, 1997 / Notices 43165

46See supra para. 7.

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:

(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.

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. §§ 153(25), 154(i),

that the requests of Mid-Plains Rural

Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (MidPlains), 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. §§ 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. §§ 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.

§ 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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Public Information Collections

Approved by Office of Management

and Budget

August 5, 1997.

The Federal Communications

Commission (FCC) has received Office

of Management and Budget (OMB)

approval for the following public

information collections pursuant to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub.

L. 104–13. 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. For further information

contact Shoko B. Hair, Federal

Communications Commission, (202)

418–1379.

Federal Communications Commission

OMB Control No.: 3060–0785.

Expiration Date: 01/31/98.

Title: Changes to the Board of

Directors of the National Exchange

Carrier Association and the FederalState Joint Board on Universal Service,

CC Docket Nos. 97–21 and 96–45.

Form No.: FCC Form 457, Universal

Service Worksheet.

Respondents: Business or other for

profit.

Estimated Annual Burden: 20,000

respondents; 4.31 hours per response

(avg.); 86,250 total annual burden hours

for all collections.

Estimated Annual Reporting and

Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $7,580,500.

Frequency of Response: On occasion;

semi-annual; quarterly; monthly.

Description: The Telecommunications

Act of 1996 (1996 Act) directed the

Commission to initiate a rulemaking to

reform our system of universal service

so that universal service is preserved

and advanced as markets move toward

competition. To fulfill that mandate,

based on the recommendations of the

Federal-State Joint Board on Universal

Service, the Commission adopted a

Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96–

45 on May 8, 1997 to implement the

Congressional directives set out in

section 254 of the Communications Act

of 1934, as amended by the 1996 Act.

In Changes to the Board of Directors of

the National Exchange Carrier

Association, Inc. and Federal-State Joint

Board on Universal Service, Report and