********************************************************    
                         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                     )
                                     )       CCBPol No. 99-1
Petition of MCI for                  )
Declaratory Ruling                   )



                  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted:  June 11, 1999                 Released:  June 11, 1999
                                
                                
By the Chief, Policy and Program Planning Division:

1.        On March 13, 1997, MCI Telecommunications Corp ("MCI") filed a Petition for
Declaratory Ruling requesting that the Commission clarify certain aspects of its rules regarding the
combination of unbundled network elements ("UNEs"), as set forth in Implementation of the Local
Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report and Order, CC Docket
No. 96-98 (Aug. 8, 1996)  328-340 ("Local Competition Order").  In particular, MCI requested
clarification that states may not undermine the "all elements rule," under which competitors are
permitted to provide local phone service relying solely on UNEs obtained from the incumbent local
exchange carrier ("ILEC").  MCI argued that such clarification was necessary on grounds that several
state commissions had reached results, in interconnection arbitrations, that impermissibly restricted
recombination of UNEs contrary to the Local Competition Order.

2.        We find that MCI's petition, and the clarification requested in it, is moot in light of
developments occurring since MCI filed its petition.  On January 25, 1999, the Supreme Court upheld
all but one of the Commission's local competition rules that had been challenged before the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ("Eighth Circuit"), including the "all elements rule."  See
AT&T Corp. et al. v. Iowa Utils. Bd. et al., 119 S.Ct. 721 (1999) (reversing in part and affirming in
part Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d 753 (8th Cir., 1997)).  In this respect, then, the rules which MCI
has asked the Commission to "reemphasize" have been expressly upheld both by the Eighth Circuit and
the Supreme Court.  

3.        We recognize that the Supreme Court stated that its affirmation of the "all elements
rule" may be "largely academic" in light of its decision to vacate Rule 319, 47 C.F.R.  51.319, which
identified seven network elements which ILECs must unbundle.  See AT&T v. Iowa Utils. Bd. at 736. 
Specifically, the Court suggested that a competitive local exchange carrier's ability to provide local
service relying solely on UNEs will depend on the outcome of the Commission's proceedings on
remand.  See id.; see also Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98 et al., FCC 99-70 (Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking) (rel. Apr. 16, 1999).

4.        Based on the Supreme Court's decision upholding certain aspects of the Commission's
rules and vacating others, we find that MCI's petition has been rendered moot.  It is an inefficient use
of the Commission's resources to issue an order addressing MCI's arguments given subsequent events
and the pending rulemaking.  Because we are dismissing MCI's Petition, it is unnecessary for us to
address the substantive allegations presented by MCI.

5.        Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act,
47 U.S.C.  154(i), and the authority delegated under Sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's
rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, that the Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed by MCI
Telecommunications  Corporation on March 13, 1997, IS DISMISSED AS MOOT.


                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                              
                              
                              
                              Carol E. Mattey
                              Chief
                         Policy and Program Planning Division
                              Common Carrier Bureau