The Commission subsequently granted Foresthill and Ducor a delay for implementation of the dialing parity requirements until 30 days after a final decision was made in A.99-09-044 (D. 00-01-004, Ordering Paragraph 1.) As ORA indicates, that decision closed A.99-06-009. Therefore, ORA states that the Commission must explicitly establish an interLATA equal access implementation schedule for Foresthill and Ducor in this docket and this decision.

We decline to adopt ORA's recommendation that we order interLATA equal access for Foresthill and Ducor in this proceeding. We find we have no record before us in A.99-09-044 which would allow us to address the issue. The issue was not within the scope of this proceeding, no testimony was heard on the issue, and the first time the issue was raised was in ORA's comments on the PD. However, O.P. 1 to D.00-01-044, clearly requires the applicants to implement the dialing parity requirements of 47 U.S.C. § 251 within 30 days after a final decision in this docket. Section 251(b)(3) includes a requirement to implement dialing parity for "telephone toll service" which would include both intraLATA and interLATA toll service. Therefore, our earlier decision already places the requirement on Foresthill and Ducor to implement interLATA equal access. Nothing in this decision overturns our earlier order.

In their Reply Comments, the Small LECs support ORA's proposal and suggest that the two companies be allowed to implement interLATA and intraLATA equal access simultaneously and adhere to federal rules for implementation of interLATA equal access. We deny the Small LECs' request because we are not willing to further defer implementation of intraLATA equal access for Foresthill and Ducor. The Small LECs do not provide any information on how or when implementation would take place. We suggest that the two companies use the schedule adopted here for implementation of intraLATA equal access to implement interLATA equal access as well.