******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) In the Matter of ) ) Petitions for Limited Modification of LATA ) CC Docket No. 96-159 Boundaries to Provide Expanded Local ) File Nos. NSD-LM-97-2 Calling Service (ELCS) at Various Locations ) through NSD-LM-97-25 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: July 3, 1997 Released: July 15, 1997 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION 1. Five Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) have filed petitions with the Commission requesting relief from the effects of certain local access and transport area (LATA) boundaries. The petitions were filed pursuant to Section 3(25) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which permits modification of LATA boundaries by Bell Operating Companies (BOCs), if such modifications are approved by the Commission. The petitions request LATA relief in order to provide expanded local calling service (ELCS) between communities that lie on different sides of existing LATA boundaries (ELCS requests). The petitions were placed on public notice and comments and replies were filed. 2. There are 24 ELCS requests before the Commission. For the reasons discussed below, we grant 23 of the ELCS requests and order amendment of one request. We also provide guidelines for future ELCS requests. II. BACKGROUND A. ELCS Requests 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 BOCs. The Court divided all Bell territory in the continental United States into geographic areas called LATAs. 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). InterLATA traffic was to be carried by interexchange carriers. 4. The LATAs did not cover territory served by independent telephone companies (ITCs). The Court, however, did classify some independent exchanges as "associated" with a particular LATA. Traffic between a LATA and an associated exchange was treated as intraLATA, and could be carried by the BOC, while traffic between a LATA and an unassociated exchange was treated as interLATA, and could not be carried by the BOC. The ITCs were not subject to the restrictions imposed by the Consent Decree, and could carry traffic regardless of whether that traffic crossed LATA boundaries. 5. In establishing the LATAs, the Court recognized that there were existing local calling areas that would cross the newly created LATA boundaries. The Court stated that the LATAs were not intended to interfere with local calling areas that had been established by state regulators. Accordingly, the Court granted "exceptions" to permit BOCs to carry interLATA traffic if necessary to preserve existing ELCS arrangements. The Court found that such exceptions were consistent with the purposes of the Consent Decree because (1) they were limited in scope, (2) they would avoid additional charges being imposed on ratepayers, and (3) it was unlikely that toll traffic potentially subject to competition would be affected. 6. The Court subsequently received more than a hundred requests for waivers of the Consent Decree to permit new interLATA ELCS routes. The requests for new ELCS routes were generally initiated by local subscribers who asked their state commission to approve an expanded local calling area. If the proposed ELCS route was intraLATA it could be ordered by the state commission; if the route was interLATA, the BOC would also have to obtain a waiver from the Court. The Court developed a streamlined process for handling such requests both because of the large number of requests involved and because most of the requests were non-controversial. Under this process, the BOC would submit its waiver 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. 7. In evaluating such requests, DOJ and the Court considered the number of customers or access lines involved. They also considered whether there was a sufficiently strong community of interest between the exchanges to justify granting a waiver of the Consent Decree to allow local calling. In particular, they considered the state commission's community of interest finding and any additional evidence supporting this finding. A community of interest could be demonstrated by such evidence as: (1) poll results indicating that customers in the affected exchange were willing to pay higher rates to be included in an expanded local calling area; (2) usage data indicating a high level of calling between the exchanges; and (3) narrative statements describing how the two exchanges were part of one community and how the lack of local calling between the exchanges caused problems for community residents. The Court was willing to grant waivers when the competitive effects were minimal and a sufficient community of interest across LATA boundaries was shown. The Court frequently granted waivers to permit interLATA ELCS. 8. The Court granted waivers for more than a hundred flat-rate, non-optional ELCS plans that allow the provision of traditional local telephone service between nearby exchanges. Under such plans, subscribers pay no extra charge for calls beyond their established monthly service charge (the plan involves a flat-rate), and all subscribers in the exchange are included in the plan (the plan is non-optional). The Court refused, however, to grant waivers for optional or measured-rate ELCS plans. Under optional plans, subscribers may chose to pay an additional monthly charge for an expanded local calling area, while under measured-rate plans, subscribers pay measured-rates based on such factors as duration, distance, and time of day. The Court found that granting waivers for such ELCS arrangements could have an anticompetitive effect because these services were similar to the toll service normally provided by interexchange carriers, and that these arrangements were basically discounted toll service for calls that would otherwise be carried competitively. The Court was especially concerned that the discount appeared to result from the fact that BOCs, unlike interexchange carriers, did not have to pay access charges on such calls. The Court also noted that, in the case of optional or measured- rate plans, the state commission had not found a sufficient community of interest between the exchanges to justify traditional local service, (i.e., flat-rate, non-optional ELCS). Finally, the Court expressed concern that allowing new exceptions for measured-rate or optional plans could lead to a "piecemeal dismantling" of the prohibition on the BOCs' provision of interLATA service. B. ELCS Requests Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 9. On February 8, 1996, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act) became law, amending the Communications Act of 1934 (Act). Pursuant to the 1996 Act, matters previously subject to the Consent Decree are now governed by the Act. Section 271(b)(1) of the Act prohibits a BOC from providing "interLATA services originating in any of its in-region States" 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. In addition, while the Commission may forbear from applying certain provisions of the Act under certain circumstances, the Commission may not forbear from Section 271. Section 3(25)(B) of the Act provides that BOCs may modify LATA boundaries, if such modifications are approved by the Commission. 10. Since passage of the 1996 Act, the Commission has received six petitions requesting LATA relief in order that ELCS can be offered. On July 26, 1996 the Commission issued a public notice requesting comment on petitions filed by BellSouth and SWBT for a "waiver" of LATA boundaries. On January 15, 1997 the Commission issued a Second Public Notice requesting comment on petitions filed by Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, and US West, and allowing additional comment on the petitions previously filed by BellSouth and SWBT. The Second Public Notice stated that, although several of the petitions describe the relief requested as a "waiver" of LATA boundaries, all of the petitions cited Section 3(25) as the basis of the Commission's jurisdiction to act upon these requests. Accordingly, the Commission stated that it would treat all of these petitions as requests for modification of LATA boundaries for the limited purpose of providing the specific service indicated in the request. The Commission further stated that the LATA boundaries would remain unchanged for all other purposes. III. COMMENTS 11. In response to the First Public Notice, formal comments or reply comments were filed by AT&T, BellSouth, Intelcom, the North Carolina PUC, and SWBT. AT&T states that the Commission lacks authority to waive LATA boundaries and that the petitions can only be properly characterized as LATA modification requests if they propose to move a LATA boundary so that certain calls previously classified as intraLATA are now interLATA, and other calls previously classified as interLATA are now intraLATA. AT&T further contends that such LATA modification requests raise serious competitive issues because, if granted, they will completely displace the interexchange carrier currently providing that service. AT&T also states that granting such requests could allow a BOC to "chip away" at the prohibition against its provision of in-region interLATA service prior to meeting the requirements of Section 271, thus reducing the BOCs' incentive to open its own local market to competition. Accordingly, AT&T concludes that LATA modifications should be granted "sparingly, if at all." Like AT&T, Intelcom also has expressed concern about possible anticompetitive effects and states that the Commission should approach these and future LATA modification requests with caution. Intelcom, however, takes no position on the current petitions and states that the proposed modifications would appear to have no more than a de minimis effect on competition. BellSouth, the North Carolina PUC, and SWBT all strongly support the grant of particular ELCS requests. 12. In response to the Second Public Notice, comments were filed by the Ohio PUC, the Virginia Commission and Western Reserve. These petitions all support granting particular ELCS requests. The Virginia Commission, in its comments, also requests approval for a LATA boundary modification to permit ELCS between the Waverly and Wakefield exchanges in Virginia (Virginia Commission's Waverly/Wakefield request). This request was not included in any of the LATA modification petitions previously filed with the Commission. IV. DISCUSSION A. General Considerations 13. Section 3(25) of the Act defines LATA 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. Section 10(d) prohibits the Commission from forbearing from applying the requirements of Section 271. Thus, for a BOC to provide service on a new ELCS route that crosses existing LATA boundaries, the statute appears to require that BOC either to modify the LATA so that the route no longer crosses a LATA boundary and obtain Commission approval therefor, or satisfy the requirements of Section 271. 14. The state commissions have determined that certain communities have an immediate need for traditional local telephone service. 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 BOCs to meet the Section 271 requirements would not be the most expeditious way to ensure that local telephone service can be provided to these communities 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 involved for each of the proposed ELCS areas in the petitions before the Commission, as well as the type of service to be offered (i.e., traditional local service), it is highly unlikely that provision of ELCS service would reduce a BOC's motivation to open its own market to competition. Similarly, the small volume of traffic would seem inconsequential to any interexchange carrier. Thus, requiring the BOCs to meet the Section 271 requirements prior to offering this service would not further Congress's intent to guard against competitive abuses. 15. While it appears that LATA modification is the preferable means by which the BOCs can achieve the goal of providing ELCS service, a modification of the boundary for all purposes in order to accommodate the ELCS routes could be counterproductive. If an exchange were moved to another LATA for all purposes, any existing local calling routes between that exchange and the original LATA would be lost because such traffic would now be interLATA and could no longer be carried by the BOC. Instead the traffic would generally be carried by an interexchange carrier charging long distance rates. Consequently, such action could merely shift the same problem from one community to another. 16. Thus, we believe that LATA modifications for a "limited purpose" that would authorize BOCs to provide only flat-rate, non-optional local calling service between specific exchanges, would best achieve the desired goals discussed in paragraph 14. Modification of the LATA for the limited purpose of providing the ELCS routes would avoid the anomalous situations described above. In addition, limited modifications would reduce the potential for anticompetitive effects to a greater degree than general LATA modifications because the former limit the amount of additional traffic that the BOC may carry whereas the latter would permit the BOC to offer any type of service, including toll service, between the new exchange and any other point in its LATA. 17. LATA modification for a limited purpose 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 a limited purpose. As explained above, LATA waiver requests to permit precisely the type of ELCS traffic at issue here were regularly and routinely granted by the Court under the terms of the AT&T Consent Decree. Although Congress did not include corresponding authority when it amended the Communications Act, Congress did acknowledge the possible need for changes to the LATA boundaries by enacting Section 3(25). Nothing in either the statute or the legislative history suggests a decision by Congress intentionally to eliminate the ability of a locality, with a demonstrated community of interest that happens to straddle a LATA boundary, to obtain reasonably priced telephone service. Thus a broad reading of the term "modify" in Section 3(25) is reasonable. Moreover, we will consider each individual request carefully, weighing the community need for the modification against the potential harm from BOC anticompetitive activity. We find that this weighing can best be accomplished by considering those factors previously considered by the Court. B. ELCS Requests 1. Flat-rate, non-optional ELCS 18. Twenty-three of the pending requests seek limited modifications of LATA boundaries in order to provide flat-rate, non-optional ELCS (i.e., traditional local service). We find that these twenty-three requests demonstrate a strong community need for the proposed ELCS routes. We note that each of the proposed ELCS routes, in the twenty-three requests, was approved by a state commission. Furthermore, each request includes a demonstration of need for the proposed modification. In particular, each request indicates that the ELCS route was approved after the state commission found there was a sufficient community of interest between the exchanges to justify such service. Each request also documented this community of interest through additional evidence including: (1) poll results showing that subscribers were willing to pay higher monthly rates in order to be included in the expanded local calling area; (2) usage data showing a high level of calling between the potentially affected exchanges; and (3) narrative statements explaining why the exchanges to be part of the ELCS area should be considered part of one community. These statements indicated that many community services (such as hospitals, doctors offices, schools, stores, public transportation facilities, and government offices) were located in a nearby community in the adjacent LATA, and that the need to make interLATA toll calls for such services caused significant expenses for residents. We note that granting ELCS petitions removes the proposed routes from the competitive interexchange market and that some LATA modifications could reduce the BOCs' incentive to open their own markets to competition pursuant to Section 271. The LATA modifications proposed here, however, would expand the petitioning BOCs' provision of local service to limited areas and each request involves only a small number of customers or access lines. Given the limited amount of traffic and the type of service involved, we find that the proposed modifications will not have a significant anticompetitive effect on the interexchange market or on the BOCs' incentive to open their own markets to competition. Finally, we note that several commenters strongly urge the Commission to grant particular ELCS requests, and that no commenter has argued that any one of these 23 requests should be denied. 19. We conclude that, in each of the twenty-three requests, the need for the proposed ELCS routes outweighs the risk of potential anticompetitive effects. Furthermore, we are approving these modifications solely for the limited purpose of allowing the BOC to provide a particular type of service, namely, flat-rate, non-optional local calling service, between specific exchanges or geographic areas. In each case, the LATA is not modified to permit the BOC to offer any other type of service, or calls that originate or terminate outside the specified areas. Thus, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between the specified exchanges will be deemed intraLATA, and the provisions of the Act governing intraLATA service will apply. Other types of service between the specified exchanges will be deemed interLATA, and the provisions of the Act governing interLATA service will apply. 2. Measured-rate, optional ELCS 20. US West requests a LATA modification in order to provide measured-rate, optional ELCS from its Albany exchange in the Eugene, Oregon LATA to the Scio Mutual Telephone Association's Scio exchange. US West states that the Oregon state commission requires carriers to offer both flat-and measured-rate options for all ELCS routes in the state. Accordingly, US West's plan would offer subscribers the following options: (1) unlimited calling for a flat monthly charge; (2) a "usage only" option in which calls are charged at a set rate per minute; and (3) a three or six hour "measured usage" package. US West argues that the proposed ELCS plan is not the type of "optional" plan previously rejected by the Court because subscribers would have to select one of the ELCS plans, and could not choose between the ELCS plan and the service offered by an interexchange carrier. US West also states that the Scio exchange has approximately 1600 access lines, and that the state commission found there was a "community of interest" between the exchanges and that the ELCS route was necessary to meet the "critical needs" of Scio exchange customers. 21. We do not approve this proposed LATA modification. US West's request is related to a measured-rate optional ELCS plan. Furthermore, although the state commission found that there was a "community of interest" between the exchanges, it did not make a specific finding that there was a sufficient community of interest to warrant traditional local service (i.e., flat-rate, non-optional ELCS). Subscribers generally can be expected to prefer, and to benefit from, reduced rate service to nearby areas but ELCS plans with optional or measured-rate elements are similar to the toll services traditionally offered by interexchange carriers. We find that modifying a LATA boundary in order to permit a BOC to provide measured-rate service would allow the BOC to provide what would otherwise be interLATA toll service without first meeting the requirements of Section 271. Allowing LATA modifications for such ELCS plans might well lead to substantial expansion of BOC service, without the BOC satisfying the Section 271 requirements. The potential anticompetitive effect of optional and measured-rate plans, and the lack of any showing of a need for traditional local telephone service (i.e., flat-rate, non-optional ELCS) between the Albany and Scio exchanges, leads us to deny US West's request. While we recognize the state commission's interest in providing additional choices to consumers, we will not approve such optional or measured-rate plans for the reasons discussed above. 22. We note, however, that the Scio/Albany request was placed on public notice and that no objections were filed. Moreover, because of its general policy requiring both flat- and measured-rate options on all ELCS routes, the state commission apparently never considered whether a sufficient community of interest existed between the Albany and Scio exchanges to justify flat-rate, non-optional ELCS. Under these circumstances, we find that the public interest will best be served by our giving US West an opportunity to seek further clarification from the state commission. Accordingly, we direct US West to amend its request within 60 days of the release date of this order to state whether it has obtained a further ruling from the state commission that addresses whether there is a sufficient community of interest to warrant flat- rate, non-optional ELCS between the Albany and Scio exchanges and states whether such service has been approved. If no amendment is filed within the 60 day period, the request will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Section 1.748 of the Commission's rules. V. FUTURE LATA MODIFICATION REQUESTS 23. The Common Carrier Bureau has authority to act on petitions to modify LATA boundaries, consistent with the principles established in this order, pursuant to the delegation of authority contained in Sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules. We conclude that the following set of guidelines will assist the BOCs in filing those LATA modification petitions that involve ELCS and the Bureau in acting on those petitions. First, we request that each ELCS petition be filed by the BOC pursuant to the application filing requirements set forth in Sections 1.742 and 1.743 of the Commission's rules. Second, we ask that each individual ELCS LATA modification request be the subject of a separate petition. Third, we request that each petition be labeled "Request for Limited Modification of LATA Boundaries to Provide ELCS Between the [exchange name] and the [exchange name]." Finally, we request that each ELCS petition include the following information, under separately numbered and labeled categories, as indicated below: (1) Type of service (e.g., flat-rate, non-optional ELCS); (2) Direction of service (one-way, two-way; if one-way, indicate direction of service); (3) Exchanges involved (identity name of each exchange, the LATA and state in which each exchange is located; if an exchange is located in independent territory, indicate the LATA, if any, with which the exchange is associated); (4) Name of carriers (name of carrier providing local service in each exchange); (5) State commission approval (include a copy of that approval); (6) Number of access lines or customers (for each exchange); (7) Usage data (e.g., average number of calls per access line per month from exchange A to exchange B, from exchange B to exchange A, and, if available, percent of subscribers making such calls each month); (8) Poll results (for each exchange in which a poll was required by applicable state procedures and conducted in accordance with those procedures. Indicate the amount of proposed rate increase in those exchanges); (9) Community of interest statement (a statement explaining why the two exchanges should be considered part of a single community and why community residents need the ELCS); (10) Map (showing the exchanges and LATA boundary involved and including a scale showing distance); and, (11) Other pertinent information (e.g., copies of state commission reports, summary of hearing testimony). 24. If any of the above information is unavailable or inapplicable to a particular ELCS petition (for example, if polling is not required by state procedures), the petition should so indicate. A carrier will be deemed to have made a prima facie case supporting grant of the proposed modification if the ELCS petition: (1) has been approved by the state commission; (2) proposes only traditional local service (i.e., flat-rate, non-optional ELCS); (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. 25. We request that ELCS requests filed with the Commission, but not addressed in this order (including the Virginia Commission's Waverly/Wakefield request), be re-filed so that they comply with these guidelines. Each petition will be assigned a LATA modification (LM) file number and placed on public notice. VI. CONCLUSION 26. For the reasons set forth above, we approve the 23 requests for LATA relief in order to provide flat-rate, non-optional ELCS. These LATAs are modified solely for the limited purposes indicated in the requests, and shall remain unchanged for all other purposes. In addition, we allow US West an additional 60 days in which to amend its Scio/Albany request. Finally, we establish guidelines to direct the filing of future ELCS requests. These actions serve the public interest by permitting minor LATA modifications when such modifications are necessary to meet the needs of local subscribers and will not have any significant effect on competition. VII. ORDERING CLAUSES 27. 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 Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BellSouth), Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT), and US West Communications, Inc. (US West), for LATA modifications for the limited purpose of providing flat-rate, non-optional ELCS at specific locations, identified in File Nos. NSD-LM-97-2 through NSD-LM-97-24, ARE APPROVED. These LATA boundaries are modified solely for the purpose of providing flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between points in the specific exchanges or geographic areas indicated in the requests. The LATA boundary for all other services shall remain unchanged. 28. 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 Virginia State Corporation Commission's request for a LATA modification to permit ELCS between the Waverly and Wakefield exchanges IS DISMISSED without prejudice. 29. 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 US West Communications, Inc. (US West) SHALL AMEND its request for approval of a LATA modification to provide ELCS from the Albany exchange in the Eugene, Oregon LATA to the Scio Mutual Telephone Association's Scio exchange, File No. NSD-LM-97-25, as indicated herein, within 60 days of the release date of this order. If no amendment is filed, US West's LATA modification request will be dismissed without prejudice. 30. 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 petitioners listed in Appendix A. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary APPENDIX A List of Petitions and LATA Modification Requests Ameritech's November 12, 1996 Petition 1. Request to provide one-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS from Ameritech's Duffy exchange in the Columbus, Ohio LATA to Bell Atlantic's New Martinsville exchange in the Clarksburg, West Virginia LATA (Ameritech's Duffy/New Martinsville request) -- File No. NSD-LM-97-2. Bell Atlantic's January 14, 1997 Petition 2. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between Bell Atlantic's Waverly exchange in the Norfolk, Virginia LATA and GTE's Claremont exchange (Bell Atlantic's Claremont/Waverly request) -- File No. NSD-LM-97-3. 3. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between Bell Atlantic's Hampton zone of the Metropolitan exchange area in the Norfolk, Virginia LATA and GTE's Gloucester exchange (Bell Atlantic's Gloucester/Hampton zone request) -- File No. NSD-LM-97-4. 4. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between Bell Atlantic's Newport News zone of the Metropolitan exchange area in the Norfolk, Virginia LATA and GTE's Gloucester exchange (Bell Atlantic's Gloucester/Newport News zone request) -- File No. NSD- LM-97-5. 5. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between Bell Atlantic's Peninsula zone of the Metropolitan exchange area in the Norfolk, Virginia LATA and GTE's Gloucester exchange (Bell Atlantic's Gloucester/Peninsula zone request) -- File No. NSD-LM-97-6. 6. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between Bell Atlantic's Poquoson zone of the Metropolitan exchange area in the Norfolk, Virginia LATA and GTE's Gloucester exchange (Bell Atlantic's Gloucester/Poquoson zone request) -- File No. NSD-LM-97-7. 7. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between Bell Atlantic's Hampton zone of the Metropolitan exchange area in the Norfolk, Virginia LATA and GTE's Hayes exchange in the Richmond, Virginia LATA (Bell Atlantic's Hayes/Hampton zone request) -- File No. NSD-LM-97-8. 8. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between Bell Atlantic's Newport News zone of the Metropolitan exchange area in the Norfolk, Virginia LATA and GTE's Hayes exchange in the Richmond, Virginia LATA (Bell Atlantic's Hayes/Newport News zone request) - - File No. NSD-LM-97-9. 9. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between Bell Atlantic's Peninsula zone of the Metropolitan exchange area in the Norfolk, Virginia LATA and GTE's Hayes exchange (Bell Atlantic's Hayes/Peninsula zone request) -- File No. NSD-LM-97-10. 10. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between Bell Atlantic's Poquoson zone of the Metropolitan exchange area in the Norfolk, Virginia LATA and GTE's Hayes exchange (Bell Atlantic's Hayes/Poquoson zone request) -- File No. NSD-LM-97-11. 11. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between Bell Atlantic's Honaker exchange in the Roanoke, Virginia LATA and GTE's Richlands exchange in the Bluefield, West Virginia Independent Market Area (Bell Atlantic's Honaker/Richlands request) -- File No. NSD- LM-97-12. 12. Request to provide one-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS from Bell Atlantic's Mason exchange in the Charleston, West Virginia LATA to the Pomeroy and Middleport exchanges in Ohio (Bell Atlantic's Mason/Pomeroy-Middleport request) -- File No. NSD-LM-97-13. 13. Request to provide one-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS from Bell Atlantic's New Florence exchange in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania LATA to GTE's Johnstown exchange (Bell Atlantic's New Florence/Johnstown request) -- File No. NSD-LM-97-14. 14. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between Bell Atlantic's Stone Mountain exchange in the Roanoke, Virginia LATA and the Lynchburg exchange in the Lynchburg, Virginia LATA (Bell Atlantic's Stone Mountain/Lynchburg request) -- File No. NSD- LM-97-15. BellSouth Telecommunications' (BellSouth) July 2, 1996 Petition 15. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between BellSouth's Raleigh exchange in the Raleigh, North Carolina LATA and Carolina Telephone and Telegraph Company's (Carolina Telephone) Franklinton and Louisburg exchanges (BellSouth's Franklinton- Louisburg/Raleigh request) -- File No. NSD-LM-97-16. 16. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between BellSouth's Zebulon exchange in the Raleigh, North Carolina LATA and Carolina Telephone's Louisburg exchange (BellSouth's Louisburg/Zebulon request) -- File No. NSD-LM-97-17. 17. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between BellSouth's Apex, Cary, and Raleigh exchanges in the Raleigh, North Carolina LATA and Carolina Telephone's Pittsboro exchange (BellSouth's Pittsboro/Apex-Cary-Raleigh request) -- File No. NSD-LM-97-18. 18. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between BellSouth's Chapel Hill exchange in the Raleigh, North Carolina LATA and the Saxapahaw exchange in the Greensboro, North Carolina LATA (BellSouth's Saxapahaw/Chapel Hill request) -- File No. NSD-LM-97-19. 19. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between BellSouth's Wilmington exchange and that portion of the Scotts Hill exchange served by the 270 prefix in the Wilmington, North Carolina LATA, and Carolina Telephone's Holly Ridge exchange (BellSouth's Scotts Hill-Holly Ridge/Wilmington request) -- File No. NSD-LM-97-20. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company's (SWBT) June 25, 1996 Petition 20. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between SWBT's Albany exchange in the Abilene, Texas LATA and SWBT's Breckenridge exchange in the Dallas, Texas LATA (SWBT's Albany/Breckenridge request) -- File No. NSD-LM-97-21. 21. Request to provide two-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between United/Centel's Pawnee exchange and SWBT's Kenedy and Karnes/Fall City exchanges in the San Antonio, Texas LATA (SWBT's Pawnee/Kenedy-Karnes-Fall City request) -- File No. NSD-LM-97-22. US West Communications' (US West) November 4, 1996 Petition 22. Request to provide flat-rate, non-optional ELCS from US West's Omaha common service area in the Omaha, Nebraska LATA to Lincoln Telephone & Telegraph Company's (LT&T's) 234 exchange (serving the communities of Cedar Creek, Louisville, and Manley, Nebraska) (US West's 234/Omaha request) -- File No. NSD-LM-97-23. 23. Request to provide flat-rate, non-optional ELCS from US West's Omaha common service area in the Omaha, Nebraska LATA to LT&T's Murray exchange (US West's Murray/Omaha request) -- File No. NSD-LM-97-24. US West Communications' (US West) November 4, 1996 Petition 24. Request to provide measured-rate, optional ELCS from US West's Albany exchange in the Eugene, Oregon LATA to the Scio Mutual Telephone Association's Scio exchange (US West's Scio/Albany request) -- File No. NSD-LM-97-25. APPENDIX B Summary of ELCS LATA Modification Requests 1. Ameritech's Duffy/New Martinsville request. Ameritech seeks to provide one-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS from Ameritech's Duffy exchange in the Columbus, Ohio LATA to the New Martinsville exchange in the Clarksburg, West Virginia LATA. The request indicates that Duffy has approximately 1,200 access lines and that Duffy customers averaged 9.94 calls to the New Martinsville exchange per access line per month. The petition also states that the Duffy exchange has no medical specialists or hospital, and that Duffy residents rely heavily on the New Martinsville exchange, which is less than 5 miles away, for medical and emergency purposes. The petition further specifies that Duffy residents rely on New Martinsville for shopping and employment opportunities, and noted that most parents work in New Martinsville, and must call the Duffy exchange regarding their children, who go to school in Duffy. 2. Bell Atlantic's Claremont/Waverly request. Bell Atlantic seeks to provide two-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between the Claremont exchange, and the Waverly exchange in the Norfolk, Virginia LATA. The request states that the Claremont exchange has 724 customers, and 62% of Claremont poll respondents favored the ELCS. The Claremont exchange has no major industries, medical specialty clinics, hospitals, shopping malls, colleges, or commercial transportation facilities. The request indicates that ELCS service between Claremont and Waverly would provide Claremont residents with an important local calling link to the closest community with essential commercial, transportation, and basic medical services. This request meets Virginia State Corporation Commission ELCS requirements. 3. Bell Atlantic's Gloucester/Hampton zone request. Bell Atlantic seeks to provide two-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between the Gloucester exchange, and the Hampton zone of the Metropolitan exchange area in the Norfolk, Virginia LATA. The request indicates that the Gloucester exchange has 7,495 customers, and over 80% of Gloucester poll respondents favor the ELCS. The Gloucester exchange has no major industries, full-service hospitals, major shopping malls, colleges, or regional commercial rail or air transportation facilities. This request meets Virginia State Corporation Commission ELCS requirements. 4. Bell Atlantic's Gloucester/Newport News zone request. Bell Atlantic seeks to provide two- way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between the Gloucester exchange, and the Newport News zone of the Metropolitan exchange area in the Norfolk, Virginia LATA. The request indicates that the Gloucester exchange has 7,495 customers, and over 81% of Gloucester poll respondents favored the ELCS. The Gloucester exchange has no major industries, full-service hospitals, major shopping malls, colleges, or regional commercial rail or air transportation facilities. This request meets Virginia State Corporation Commission ELCS requirements. 5. Bell Atlantic's Gloucester/Peninsula zone request. Bell Atlantic seeks to provide two-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between the Gloucester exchange, and the Peninsula zone of the Metropolitan exchange area in the Norfolk, Virginia LATA. The request indicates that the Gloucester exchange has 7,495 customers, and over 81% of Gloucester poll respondents favored the ELCS. The Gloucester exchange has no major industries, full-service hospitals, major shopping malls, colleges, or regional commercial rail or air transportation facilities. This request meets Virginia State Corporation Commission ELCS requirements. 6. Bell Atlantic's Gloucester/Poquoson zone request. Bell Atlantic seeks to provide two-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between the Gloucester exchange, and the Poquoson zone of the Metropolitan exchange area in the Norfolk, Virginia LATA. The request indicates that the Gloucester and Poquoson exchanges have approximately 7,495 and 4,800 customers respectively, and that over 81% of Gloucester poll respondents favored the ELCS. The Gloucester exchange has no major industries, full-service hospitals, major shopping malls, colleges, or regional commercial rail or air transportation facilities. This request meets Virginia State Corporation Commission ELCS requirements. 7. Bell Atlantic's Hayes/Hampton zone request. Bell Atlantic seeks to provide two-way, flat- rate, non-optional ELCS between the Hayes exchange, and the Hampton zone of the Metropolitan exchange area in the Norfolk, Virginia LATA. The request indicates that the Hayes exchange has 5,694 customers, and 88% of Hayes poll respondents were in favor of the ELCS. The request indicates that Hayes exchange has no major industries, full-service hospitals, major shopping malls, colleges, or regional commercial rail or air transportation facilities, and that one of the closest locations providing these services is the Hampton Zone. This request meets Virginia State Corporation Commission ELCS requirements. 8. Bell Atlantic's Hayes/Newport News request. Bell Atlantic seeks to provide two-way, flat- rate, non-optional ELCS between the Hayes exchange, and the Newport News zone of the Metropolitan exchange area in the Norfolk, Virginia LATA. The request indicates that Hayes has 5,694 customers and that 88% of Hayes poll respondents favored the ELCS. The Hayes exchange has no major industries, full-service hospitals, major shopping malls, colleges, or regional commercial rail or air transportation facilities. This request meets Virginia State Corporation Commission ELCS requirements. 9. Bell Atlantic's Hayes/Peninsula zone request. Bell Atlantic seeks to provide two-way, flat- rate, non-optional ELCS between the Hayes exchange, and the Peninsula zone in the Newport News Metropolitan exchange in the Norfolk, Virginia LATA. The request states that Hayes has 5,694 customers and that 88% of Hayes poll respondents favored the ELCS. The Hayes exchange has no major industries, full-service hospitals, major shopping malls, colleges, or regional commercial rail or air transportation facilities. This request meets Virginia State Corporation Commission ELCS requirements. 10. Bell Atlantic's Hayes/Poquoson zone request. Bell Atlantic seeks to provide two-way, flat- rate, non-optional ELCS between the Hayes exchange, and the Poquoson zone of the Metropolitan exchange area in the Norfolk, Virginia LATA. The request states that Poquoson and Hayes have 4,800 and 5,694 customers, respectively, and that 88% of Hayes poll respondents favored the ELCS. The Hayes exchange has no major industries, full-service hospitals, major shopping malls, colleges, or regional commercial rail or air transportation facilities. This request meets Virginia State Corporation Commission ELCS requirements. 11. Bell Atlantic's Honaker/Richlands request. Bell Atlantic seeks to provide two-way, flat- rate, non-optional ELCS between Bell Atlantic's Honaker exchange in the Roanoke, Virginia LATA and the Richlands exchange in the Bluefield, West Virginia Independent Market Area. The request indicates that Honaker has 3,460 access lines, that Honaker customers average 5.15 calls to the Richlands exchange per access line per month, and that 90% of Honaker poll respondents favored the ELCS. The request further indicates that Honaker is a small rural exchange with no major industries, medical specialty clinics, hospitals, shopping malls, colleges, or commercial transportation facilities and that Richlands is the closest location that provides such facilities and services. This request meets Virginia State Corporation Commission ELCS requirements. 12. Bell Atlantic's Mason/Pomeroy-Middleport request. Bell Atlantic seeks to provide one-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS from Bell Atlantic's Mason exchange in the Charleston, West Virginia LATA to the Pomeroy and Middleport exchanges in Ohio. This request indicates that Mason has 854 customers, that these customers average 17.4 calls to the Pomeroy and Middleport exchanges per access line per month, and that 83% of poll respondents said calling volume would increase substantially if an ELCS were provided. The request indicates that Mason customers are really a part of a larger community that includes the surrounding Pomeroy and Middleport exchanges in Ohio, and that as many as half the people live in one state and work in the other. The request indicates that the exchanges' schools, medical service providers, businesses, and fire departments suffer from large long distance bills due to frequent calling among the exchanges. 13. Bell Atlantic's New Florence/Johnstown request. Bell Atlantic seeks to provide one-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS from its New Florence exchange in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania LATA to the Johnstown exchange. The request states that New Florence has 1,155 access lines and averages 5.56 calls per month per access line, and that over 61% of New Florence poll respondents favored the ELCS. 14. Bell Atlantic's Stone Mountain/Lynchburg request. Bell Atlantic seeks to provide two-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between the Stone Mountain exchange in the Roanoke, Virginia LATA and the Lynchburg exchange in the Lynchburg, Virginia LATA. The request indicates that the Stone Mountain exchange has 6,120 access lines, and that 61% of Stone Mountain poll respondents favor the ELCS. The Stone Mountain exchange has no major industries, medical specialty clinics, hospitals, shopping malls, colleges, or commercial transportation facilities, and the closest communities providing these facilities are Roanoke and Lynchburg. Stone Mountain already has ELCS to Roanoke, and ELCS to Lynchburg would provide an important additional local calling link to customers in the eastern half of the Stone Mountain exchange. This request meets Virginia State Corporation Commission ELCS requirements. 15. BellSouth's Franklinton-Louisburg/Raleigh request. BellSouth seeks to provide two-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between the Franklinton and Louisburg exchanges, and the Raleigh exchange in the Raleigh, North Carolina LATA. The request indicates that Franklinton and Louisburg have 2,561 and 6,478 access lines respectively and that over 90% of poll respondents favored the ELCS. The request also indicates that the proposed ELCS meets the state commission's usage criteria for ELCS requests. 16. BellSouth's Louisburg/Zebulon request. BellSouth seeks to provide two-way, flat-rate, non- optional ELCS between the Louisburg exchange, and the Zebulon exchange in the Raleigh, North Carolina LATA. The request indicates that Louisburg and Zebulon have 6,478 and 6,604 access lines respectively, and that over 90% of Louisburg poll respondents favored the ELCS. The request also indicates that Louisburg and Zebulon do not meet the CIF criterion, but that the state commission approved the proposed ELCS because (1) it would provide county-seat calling to 15% of Zebulon subscribers;and (2) approximately 50% of the students in school in the Louisburg exchange live in the Zebulon exchange. 17. BellSouth's Pittsboro/Apex-Cary-Raleigh request. BellSouth seeks to provide two-way, flat- rate, non-optional ELCS between the Pittsboro exchange, and the Apex, Cary, and Raleigh exchanges in the Raleigh LATA. The petition indicates that Pittsboro has 6,302 access lines and that over 93% of the Pittsboro poll respondents favored the ELCS. The request indicates that the CIF criterion is satisfied for Pittsboro and Raleigh, but is not satisfied for Pittsboro and each of the Cary and the Apex exchanges. The request noted, however, that the state commission favored the ELCS because allowing an ELCS to only one of the three exchanges would require skipping the other two. 18. BellSouth's Saxapahaw/Chapel Hill request. BellSouth seeks to provide two-way, flat- rate, non-optional ELCS between the Saxapahaw exchange in the Greensboro, North Carolina LATA and the Chapel Hill exchange in the Raleigh, North Carolina LATA. The request indicates that Saxapahaw has 3,784 access lines and that 72% of Saxapahaw poll respondents favored the ELCS.` The request also indicates the state's usage criteria for ELCS have been met. 19. BellSouth's Scotts Hill-Holly Ridge/Wilmington request. BellSouth seeks to provide two- way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between the Holly Ridge exchange, and the Wilmington exchange and that portion of the Scotts Hill exchange served by the 270 prefix in the Wilmington, North Carolina LATA. The request indicates that the number of access lines, respectively, in Scotts Hill and Holly Ridge is 3,809, and 1,689, and that over 60% of Scotts Hill poll respondents and over 97% of Holly Ridge poll respondents favored the ELCS. The state's usage criteria were satisfied between Holly Ridge and Scotts Hill and between Holly Ridge and Wilmington. 20. SWBT's Albany/Breckenridge request. SWBT seeks to provide two-way ELCS between SWBT's Albany exchange in the Abilene, Texas LATA and the Breckenridge exchange in the Dallas, Texas LATA. The request indicates that Albany has a population of less than 2,000 and that over 70% of Albany poll respondents favored the ELCS. The request states that Albany residents, who rely on farming, ranching, and the oil industry for their economic basis, tend to own property that spans both counties and rely on Breckenridge for farming and ranching supplies. The petition further states that Breckenridge is the closet town of its size (5,203 access lines), and that Albany residents rely on Breckenridge for local government needs, including several state and federal agencies located in Breckenridge that serve both communities. The request also notes that Albany relies on Breckenridge for doctors, medicine and medical facilities, shopping, and employment opportunities. 21. SWBT's Pawnee/Kenedy-Karnes-Fall City request. SWBT Bell seeks to provide two-way, flat-rate, non-optional ELCS between the Pawnee exchange, and SWBT's Kenedy and Karnes/Falls City exchanges in the San Antonio, Texas LATA. The request indicates that Kenedy and Karnes/Falls City have 2,363 and 2,518 access lines respectively, and that over 70% of poll respondents of these exchanges favored the ELCS. The request explains that Pawnee residents depend on the Kenedy and Karnes/Falls City exchanges for shopping, groceries, banking, emergency services, and legal services, which are not available in Pawnee. Pawnee residents are also served by schools, churches, funeral services, and public utility companies of the other exchanges. 22. US West's 234/Omaha request. US West seeks to provide flat-rate, non-optional ELCS from its Omaha common service area in the Omaha, Nebraska LATA to Lincoln Telegraph & Telephone Company's (LT&T's) 234 exchange (covering the communities of Cedar Creek, Louisville, and Manley, Nebraska). The petition indicates that the 234 exchange has approximately 1,000 access lines, and averages about 20 calls to Omaha per month per account, with over 80% of the accounts placing two or more calls to Omaha per month. U S WEST's petition also indicates that this request was initiated by a petition of over 350 subscribers of the 234 exchange, and that the state commission found a community of interest between the exchanges based on medical, business, and social needs. 23. US West's Murray/Omaha request. US West seeks to provide flat-rate, non-optional ELCS from its Omaha common service area in the Omaha LATA to LT&T's Murray exchange. The petition states that Murray has approximately 930 access lines, and averages about 24 calls to Omaha per month per account, with over 85% of the accounts placing two or more calls to Omaha per month. The petition further indicates that the request was initiated by a petition of over 925 subscribers of the Murray exchange, and that the state commission found a community of interest between the exchanges based on health, medical, and educational needs. 24. US West's Scio/Albany request. US West seeks to provide measured-rate, optional ELCS from its Albany exchange in the Eugene, Oregon LATA to the Scio Mutual Telephone Association's Scio exchange. The request indicates that the Scio exchange has approximately 1,500 customers and 1,600 access lines. The request also indicates that 65% of Scio exchange customers made at least two toll calls per month to the Albany exchange, with an average of 9.7 toll calls per month per access line. The request describes Scio as a rural logging and agricultural area with a population of 650, where employment activities are limited to the Scio High School, and three other small businesses. The request explains that Albany is the closest and most convenient town upon which Scio residents can rely for their basic needs, including fire, medical, and 911 emergency services, as well as government services such as courts, law enforcement offices, and the Department of Motor Vehicles. Further, the request notes that 70% of the Scio School District's phone calls are placed to Albany, and that many Scio residents and children attend classes in Albany. The state commission has also approved a measured-rate, optional plan to cover calls from the independent telephone company's Scio exchange to the Albany exchange.