WPCs' 2BEVZ\3|wle) Y-#Xw P7[hXP#"Sh5^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoYi{xxxl888SS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS>A.SSxSSJJSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxSxSxSrSrSrS{SiSiSiSiSxSxSxSxSxS{S{SS.SSSSz]SSuSiSiSk2g/a{S{SxSxSxoSoSZ?YSYSiSiSiS{S{S{S{SxxSkI8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8JDDSSSSSS;SSSS;88VVS++SSffSSxSc]]8VS;"xxSxWxxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfi]f]oJiAlJ{SxJ8.uJo]]{JoSxJxf`SfSSiJxJofx]fffxi{8SxxxfJffff88SSSSx{SSSxxxf8`SJ8HP LaserJet IIISiHPLASIII.PRSc P7H~P25 E-X  Y-#Xw P7[hXP#"Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYddddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdddddddd~d~d~d~ddddddddd8ddddoddd~d~d<|8tddddddlLkdkd~d~d~ddddddXCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"Ȑdhd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUvŐdȐYYCCCCŐz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYCȢ)x/c81,c P7P8wC;,[hXw P7XP3  &@K2K;U7?JJ{  Ami Pro 1.0 Ami Pro 1.22g Ew  -l3|w Y-#Xw P7[hXP#"Sh5^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoYi{xxxl888SS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS>A.SSxSSJJSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxSxSxSrSrSrS{SiSiSiSiSxSxSxSxSxS{S{SS.SSSSz]SSuSiSiSk2g/a{S{SxSxSxoSoSZ?YSYSiSiSiS{S{S{S{SxxSkI8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8JDDSSSSSS;SSSS;88VVS++SSffSSxSc]]8VS;"xxSxWxxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfi]f]oJiAlJ{SxJ8.uJo]]{JoSxJxf`SfSSiJxJofx]fffxi{8SxxxfJffff88SSSSx{SSSxxxf8`SJ8CG Times (Scalable)CG Times Bold (Scalable)25 Z%HP LaserJet IIISiHPLASIII.PRSc P7H~P"Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYddddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdddddddd~d~d~d~ddddddddd8ddddoddd~d~d<|8tddddddlLkdkd~d~d~ddddddXCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"Ȑdhd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUvŐdȐYYCCCCŐz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC"Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲdxN`xoȐCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddddddddCddddddddo8dddddϐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddxoddddddodddddddddood8doddrddoddN8ooddddoNododdddooooȐdYCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"Ȑdsd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ`ȐȐȮzȐUvŐdȐddCCCCŐzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC"Sh5^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx:J2J2H2H2YHC2C26&6262?2?2?2J2J2J2J2^HH2@,!22!!!WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHHH222!,))22X222YY2#2222Y#!!442Ydd22==Ld2d2H2;SS88Y!42^x#"ddddHHddd2Hdd4HHYYddd2YYddd Y2!!dddddH=dYHHHHHHHHHHx!d2H282YdHdC2!2H,29HNAddHHHHHHHHHHddddd.dHHHHdddddddddddddddddddHHddddddSC=NdHddd+;HHHHddddddHHH2HHdHHdddHHH,HHHH,HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!HHH!HHH!HHH!HHHHHHHHHHHHHH=?8=8C,?'A,J2H,!F,C8[8J,C2H,H=92=22?,H,C=H8N===H?J!2HHH=,====!!2222HJ222HHH=!92,!dJx/c81,c P7PK8wC;,[hXw P7XPL7zC;,sXz_ p^7XMV"G($,hG P7hPH<!, ,< P7,PF7F8F9F10F11F12F13F14F15F16Commands&Program&WPWP_CHAR WP_DEADCHARWP_HELPSUPPRESSWP_MACROEXTERNALWP_I  FCC 96307 X(#P  X-/ Before the  FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMMISSION  X-Washington, D.C. 20554 ĐTT T TPC7(#҇In the Matter of Petition for Declaratory Ruling that Any Interstate NonAccess Service Provided by Southern New England Telecommunications Corporation Be Subject to NonDominant Carrier Regulation "0*0*0*" ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) "0*0*0*" R 0*0*0*P .yyH0*0*Rԯ Xy-: ORDER TP  YK-Adopted: July 17, 1996 hh@hppReleased: July 18, 1996 By the Commission:  Y- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. a. i.(1)(a)(i) 1) a)x1.` ` On January 17, 1996, Southern New England Telecommunications Corporation (SNET) filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling seeking permission to offer interstate nonaccess communications services directly, rather than through a separate affiliate, pursuant to  Y-nondominant carrier regulation. 8 xP -ԍxPleading Cycle Established for Comments on SNET's Petition for Declaratory Ruling that Any Interstate NonAccess Service Provided by SNET Be Subject to NonDominant Carrier Regulation, CCBPOL 9603, Public Notice DA 9672 (rel. Jan. 25, 1996). AT&T and MCI filed comments, and SNET filed Reply Comments. The record closed on March 12, 1996. In this Order, we dismiss SNET's petition on procedural grounds for the reasons discussed below.  YN-x2.` ` SNET states that current Commission policy, which requires SNET and other independent local exchange carriers (LECs) to offer interstate nonaccess service through an  Y -affiliate in order to obtain the benefits of nondominant carrier regulation,@  8 xP#-ԍxPolicy and Rules Concerning Rates for Competitive Common Carrier Services and Facilities  xPI$-Authorizations Therefor, CC Docket No. 79252, Notice of Inquiry and Proposed Rulemaking, 77 FCC 2d 308  xP%-(1979); First Report and Order, 85 FCC 2d 1 (1980) (First Report and Order); Further Notice of Proposed  xP%-Rulemaking, 84 FCC 2d 445 (1981) (Further NPRM); Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 82187, 47 Fed. Reg. 17,308 (1982); Second Report and Order, 91 FCC 2d 59 (1982); Order on Reconsideration, 93 FCC 2d 54 (1983); Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 48 Fed. Reg. 28,292 (1983); Third Report and Order, 48 Fed. Reg. 46,791 (1983); Fourth Report and Order, 95 FCC 2d 554 (1983)  xP(-(Fourth Report and Order), vacated AT&T v. FCC, 978 F.2d 727 (D.C. Cir. 1992), cert. denied, MCI"(0*0*0*)"  xP-Telecommunications Corp. v. AT&T, 113 S. Ct. 3020 (1993); Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,  xPX-96 FCC 2d 1191 (1984); Fifth Report and Order, 98 FCC 2d 1191 (1984) (Fifth Report and Order); Sixth  xP -Report and Order, 99 FCC 2d 1020 (1985), vacated MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, 765 F.2d 1186  xP-(D.C. Cir. 1985) (collectively referred to as the Competitive Carrier proceeding). imposes" 0*0*0*" substantial costs on SNET. SNET states that changes in federal and state regulatory policies, as well as in the interstate nonaccess 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  Y-interstate nonaccess 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 nonaccess services directly, as a nondominant carrier. x  Y`-x3.` ` 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  Y -level would be sufficient to guard against discrimination and other anticompetitive conduct.  Y -x 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  Yz-eliminating uncertainty.Dz xP-ԍx47 C.F.R.  1.2.D 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  YL-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  Y-comply with the Competitive Carrier separations requirements in order to provide interstate,  Y-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  Y-ongoing rulemakings.` X@ xP-ԍxIn the recent Interexchange NPRM, the Commission addressed whether it should modify or eliminate the separation requirements currently imposed upon independent LECs in order to qualify for nondominant treatment in the provision of interstate, interexchange services that originate outside the areas in which they  xP !-control local access facilities. Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace, CCDocket No. 9661, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 960182, at  5663 (rel. Mar. 25, 1996). The Commission recently concluded that, for now, these separation requirements should be imposed on Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) in order to qualify for nondominant treatment in the provision of outofregion  xP+$-interstate, interexchange services. Bell Operating Company Provision of OutofRegion Interstate,  xP$-Interexchange, Services, CC Docket No. 9621, Report and Order, FCC 96288 (rel. July 1, 1996). In addition, the Commission also has initiated a rulemaking addressing the appropriate regulatory treatment of BOCs and independent LECs that provide interstate, interexchange services within the areas in which they also  xPK'-provide local exchange service. Implementation of the NonAccounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of"K'0*((A'" the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; and Regulatory Treatment of LEC Provision of Interexchange  xPX-Services Originating in the LEC's Local Exchange Area, CC Docket No. 96149, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 96308 (rel. July 18, 1996). Therefore, we find that as a matter of both procedure and"0*((" 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.  Y-x5. ` ` 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 abovecaptioned petition for declaratory ruling IS DENIED. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS C jM xxxxxxxxxxxxCCOMMISSION  x` `  hh jM@William F. Caton x` `  hhActing Secretary