WPC ' 2 BJZCourier3|a x6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4Si (Additional)HPLA4SAD.PRSx  @\x&bTX@ X4#Xj\  P6G;+XP#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#Xj\  P6G;+XP#2<KTXCourierTimes New Roman"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd<?xxx,x6X@`7X@7jC:,+Xj\  P6G;XP?xxx,x6X@`7X@HPerJet 4Si (Additional)HPLA4SAD.PRSx  @\x&bTX3|a 2e K9 Z<K "i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNI\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\2QK  KK"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd S' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#&J\  P6Q0&P#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#XP\  P6Q+XP##&I\  P6Q0&P#"i~'^09]SS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99]]]Sxnxxng?Snxgx]nxxxxn9/9aS9S]I]I9S]/9]/]S]]I?9]SxSSIC%CW9+Wa999+999999S9]/xSxSxSxSxSxxInInInInI>/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNg\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\2KKKKd"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d"" @,$ {O (ԍSee Texas Preemption Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 34643466,  711. { In this case, however, TDSs construction of Tenn. Code Ann.  654201(d) conflicts with that of the  X2Tennessee Authority, which we regard as dispositive.?,$ {OH(ԍId. See also, e.g., Ginsburg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 64344 (1968).  Ć According to the Authority, Tenn. Code Ann.  654201(d) does require the Tennessee Authority to deny any and all CPCN  X 2applications within its scope.i@Z d ,$ yO( @ԍTPSC Restriction Order at 4 ( Subsection (d) clearly restricts the authority of the Public Service  {O\( 2!Commission to grant a certificate to a Competing Telecommunications Service Provider . . . . ); see also Denial  yO&(Order at 8. ` ` i For this reason we reject TDSs argument that Tenn. Code  X\ 2Ann.  654201(d) may stand even if the Authoritys Denial Order must fall. We decline, however, to grant Hyperions request that we direct the Tennessee Authority to grant Hyperions application for a CPCN because we do not believe such a step is necessary at this  X 2time.@A ,$ yO,(ԍPetition at 23.@ Based on our explanation regarding the force and effect of section 253 in this case, we expect that the Authority will respond to any request by Hyperion to reconsider Hyperions application for a concurrent CPCN consistent with the Communications Act and  X2this decision.B,$ yOS( @4ԍGiven our disposition of the Petition on the bases discussed in the text, we need not and do not address the merits of other arguments raised by the parties.  XF223. ` ` Hyperion brings to our attention that states other than Tennessee have legal requirements that appear to be similar to Tennessees Section 654201(d), and maintains that these requirements may also restrict competition in the way we have found unlawful here and  X2in the Silver Star and Texas Preemption Orders.rC^n,$ {O%( @ԍHyperion Petition at 21; See Letter from Kecia Boney, MCI Telecommunications Corp., to Magalie R. Salas,  {O&( 2!Secretary, FCC, Jan. 6, 1999. See also Louisiana, In re Regulations for Competition in the Local  {O'( 2!Telecommunications Market, General Order, app. B, sec. 201 (LPSC, rel. Apr. 1, 1997) ( TSPs are permitted to"'B,|(|('"  2!provide telecommunications services in all historically designated ILEC services areas . . . with the exception of  2!service areas served by ILECs with 100,000 access lines or less statewide.); New Mexico, N.M. STAT. ANN.   2!639A6 D (1997) ( [A]ny telecommunications company with less than one hundred thousand access lines . . . shall  2!have the exclusive right to provide local exchange service within its certificate service territory . . . .); North  2!ZCarolina, N.C. GEN. STAT.  62110 f(2) (1997) ( [The Commission shall not be authorized to issue a certificate]  2!~applicable to franchised areas . . . served by local exchange companies with 200,000 access lines or less . . . .);  2!Utah, UTAH CODE ANN.  548b2.1(2)(c) (1953) ( An intervening incumbent telephone corporation serving fewer  2!than 30,000 access lines in the state may petition the Commission to exclude from an application [filed by a  2!competing LEC] any local exchange with fewer than 5,000 access lines . . . ); and Oregon, OR. REV. STAT.   2!759.020 (1989), Admin. Rules Chapter 860, Div. 32, 86032005(8)(a) (providing for certification of competing LECs if the ILEC consents or does not protest).r Hyperion urges us to clarify generally the" ( C,|(|(,,"  X2scope of section 253 as it might apply in such cases.ID( ,$ yO (ԍHyperion Petition at 21.I While the requirements of other states are not before us at this time, we would expect to apply a similar analysis to other state statutes. Thus, we encourage these and any other states, as well as their respective regulatory agencies, to review any similar statutes and regulations, and to repeal or otherwise nullify any that in their judgement violate section 253 as applied by this Commission.  X.2H IV. ORDERING CLAUSE ă  X224.` `  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 253 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.253, that the Petition for Preemption and Declaratory Ruling filed by AVR, L.P. d/b/a/ Hyperion of Tennessee, L.P. on May 29, 1998, IS GRANTED to the extent discussed herein, and in all other respects IS DENIED.  X9 225.` `  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 253 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.253, that the enforcement of Tenn. Stat. Ann.654 X 2201(d) and the Denial Order are preempted. ` `  MhhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  MhhMagalie Roman &R.  Salas ` `  MhhSecretary X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: