28107.doc

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF INLAND TELEPHONE COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF ITS PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF INTRASTATE, INTRALATA DIALING PARITY.
)
)
)
)
)
) CASE NO. INLT991

ORDER NO. 28107

Inland Telephone Company on March 18, 1999, filed an Application for approval of an intrastate, intraLATA toll dialing parity plan. Inland serves approximately 2,300 customers in the state of Washington and approximately 325 customers in the Lenore and Leon exchanges in north Idaho. On April 7, 1999, the Commission issued a Notice of Application and Notice of Modified Procedure to process Inland’s Application. During the comment period provided in the Notice, written comments were filed by the Commission Staff and U S WEST Communications, Inc.
On June 29, 1999, Inland filed a Motion to Suspend its dialing parity implementation deadline. In its Motion, Inland states that “it recently discovered that U S WEST does not have sufficient trunking capacity to accommodate intraLATA equal access from Inland’s Lenore exchange,” but that U S WEST anticipates that this lack of facilities will be relieved in January 2000. Inland states that until U S WEST installs additional trunking facilities, intraLATA equal access for Inland’s Lenore exchange is technically infeasible. Inland thus requested an Order from the Commission suspending its obligation to provide intraLATA equal access for the Lenore exchange until March 31, 2000. In subsequent correspondence with Staff, Inland stated that although technical feasibility is not an issue in the Leon exchange, “early implementation in Leon will be economically burdensome and will benefit only approximately 35 customers.” Accordingly, Inland stated it “would not object to an order that suspended the implementation deadline for both exchanges until March 18, 2000.” Inland states that a suspension Order is specifically authorized by Section 251(f)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. See 47 U.S.C.§ 251(f)(2).
Section 251(f)(2) provides that a local exchange carrier with fewer than 2% of the nation’s subscriber lines may petition a state commission for suspension or modification of a requirement contained in (b) or (c) of Section 251. The dialing parity requirement is contained in Section 251(b). Inland’s Motion represents that it is a local exchange carrier with fewer than 2% of the nation’s subscriber lines, that meeting the dialing parity implementation plan for Lenore is technically infeasible and economically burdensome until March 2000.
Section 251(f)(2) requires a state commission to grant a petition for suspension of a Section 251(b) or (c) requirement if a state commission determines that suspension is necessary to avoid imposing a requirement that is technically infeasible or unduly economically burdensome, and that suspension is consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. 47 U.S.C. § 251(f)(2). By its Motion Inland has established that it cannot provide intraLATA dialing parity until after January 2000 when additional trunking capacity from Lenore to Spokane, Washington is provided. Without the ability to implement dialing parity in the Lenore exchange, Inland states that implementing dialing parity in the Leon exchange would be costly and benefit only approximately 35 customers. On this record, we find that requiring Inland to implement intraLATA dialing parity prior to March 31, 2000, would be technically infeasible and unduly economically burdensome. We also find that temporarily suspending Inland’s duty to implement dialing parity is consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. We therefore grant Inland’s Motion to Suspend the deadline for implementing intraLATA dialing parity until March 31, 2000.

O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Inland’s obligation to implement intraLATA dialing parity in its Lenore and Leon exchanges is suspended until March 31, 2000.
THIS IS AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may file a petition for review within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order with regard to any matter decided in this Order. A petition to review may request that the Commission: (1) rescind, clarify, alter, amend; (2) stay; or (3) finalize this Interlocutory Order. After any person has petitioned for review, any other person may file a cross-petition within seven (7) days. See Rules 321, 322, 323.04, 324, 325 (IDAPA 31.01.01.321 –325.)

DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this
day of July 1999.

DENNIS S. HANSEN, PRESIDENT

MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER

PAUL KJELLANDER, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary

vld/INL-T-99-1_ws2

ORDER NO. 28107 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
August 2, 1999