NOTICE


*************************************************************************
             

                         NOTICE


*************************************************************************

This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect.  

If the original document contained--

                    *  Footnotes
                    *  Boldface & Italics

--this information  is missing in this version

The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) is changed too.

If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect
version.

For information about downloading documents (FTP) see file
pnmc5021.

File  pnmc5021 (.txt & .wp) is in directory
\pub\Public_Notices\Miscellaneous.

*************************************************************************
FCC 96-307 


                               Before the 
                    FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMMISSION
                         Washington, D.C. 20554
                                    
                                    
In the Matter of 

Petition for Declaratory Ruling
that Any Interstate Non-Access
Service Provided by Southern
New England
Telecommunications
Corporation Be Subject to Non-
Dominant Carrier Regulation
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)



                                  ORDER

Adopted:  July 17, 1996                                Released:  July
18, 1996

By the Commission:


     1.   On January 17, 1996, Southern New England
Telecommunications Corporation (SNET) filed a Petition for
Declaratory Ruling seeking permission to offer interstate non-access
communications services directly, rather than through a separate
affiliate, pursuant to non-dominant carrier regulation.  In this Order,
we dismiss SNET's petition on procedural grounds for the reasons
discussed below. 

     2.   SNET states that current Commission policy, which requires
SNET and other independent local exchange carriers (LECs) to offer
interstate non-access service through an affiliate in order to obtain the
benefits of non-dominant carrier regulation, imposes substantial costs
on SNET.  SNET states that changes in federal and state regulatory
policies, as well as in the interstate non-access market, over the last
decade have substantially reduced the ability of SNET's LEC to leverage
any market power it has in the access market into the interstate non-
access market.  SNET states that the Commission should find that the
separate affiliate requirement no longer serves its intended purpose
with respect to SNET, and thus allow SNET to offer interstate non-
access services directly, as a nondominant carrier. 
     
     3.   AT&T and MCI filed comments opposing SNET's Petition on
both procedural and substantive grounds.  They argued, primarily, that
SNET's petition is procedurally defective because the relief sought by
SNET can only be granted through a petition for rulemaking or a
petition for waiver.  As a substantive matter, AT&T and MCI also
dispute SNET's claims that local competition and regulations -- in
Connecticut and at the federal level -- would be sufficient to guard
against discrimination and other anti-competitive conduct.

      4.  Section 1.2 of the Commission's rules states that the
Commission may on motion or on its own motion issue a declaratory
ruling terminating a controversy or eliminating uncertainty.    SNET's
request, however, does not ask us to resolve a controversy or
uncertainty with respect to the Commission's existing rules as set forth
in Competitive Carrier.  Rather, SNET asks us to find that due to
regulatory and marketplace changes, at both local and federal levels, it
is no longer necessary for us to require SNET to comply with the
Competitive Carrier separations requirements in order to provide
interstate, interexchange services on a nondominant basis.  As such,
SNET's request is more properly addressed in the context of either a
petition for rulemaking or a petition for waiver.  In fact, the issues
raised in SNET's petition are currently being considered in the context
of several ongoing rulemakings.  Therefore, we find that as a matter of
both procedure and administrative efficiency, the issues raised in
SNET's petition should be resolved in the context of the Commission's
existing rulemaking proceedings addressing these issues.

     5.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), and Section 1.2
of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.2, that the above-captioned
petition for declaratory ruling IS DENIED.


                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION



                         William F. Caton
                         Acting Secretary