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
 how2ftp.

File  how2ftp (.txt & .wp) is in directory
/pub/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/

*****************************************************************
********
CLAS No. 960167
FCC 96-114


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

Petition for Rulemaking to Determine the
Terms and Conditions Under Which Tier 1
LECs Should Be Permitted to Provide
InterLATA Telecommunications Services)
)
)
)
)
)



                                 RM-8303
                                  ORDER

Adopted:  March 15, 1996                            Released:

By the Commission:

I. INTRODUCTION
                     
       1.      On July 15, 1993, five of the seven Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) filed a
petition for rulemaking requesting that the Commission establish the terms and conditions under
which Tier 1 LECs would be able to enter the interLATA market.  In this Order, we dismiss the
petition as moot in light of recent legislative action by Congress. 

       2.      The five companies -- Bell Atlantic, BellSouth Corporation, NYNEX Corporation,
Pacific Telesis Group, and Southwestern Bell Corporation -- ask the Commission to declare that
BOC participation in the interLATA market is in the public interest and to define the terms and
conditions under which such participation would be appropriate.  The petitioners argue that the
Commission should "retake the policy initiative" by establishing ground rules that would facilitate
BOC entry into the interexchange market, despite Court-imposed line-of-business 
restrictions preventing that entry.  They argue that removing the interLATA restriction would
benefit the public by invigorating competition in the interLATA market and by allowing the
BOCs to compete more effectively with their local exchange competitors that are able to offer
a complete array of local, intraLATA and interLATA services.  In addition, the petitioners assert
that the safeguards against discrimination and cross-subsidy that currently apply to the BOCs'
provision of enhanced services and customer premises equipment are adequate and need only be
applied explicitly to BOC participation in the interLATA market.  

       3.      Most of the commenters opposed the Petition.  They argued, primarily, that the
Commission should not waste scarce resources on this petition.  Further, they indicated that
Commission resources would be better utilized if the Commission acted after Congress provided
guidance on this issue.

       4.      Section 1.401(e) of our rules authorizes the Commission to dismiss petitions for
rulemaking which are "moot, premature, repetitive, frivolous or which plainly do not warrant
consideration by the Commission."  We conclude that the issues raised by the petition are now
moot.  The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act) authorizes the BOCs to provide out-of-
region interstate and intrastate interLATA services upon enactment, and in-region services once
certain conditions are met.  The 1996 Act further provides for certain safeguards to apply to the
provisions of interLATA services in-region.  The Commission has initiated a rulemaking to
consider the appropriate regulatory classification for BOC provision of interLATA services out-
of-region, and will shortly commence other proceedings to examine other issues associated with
the provision of interLATA services by BOCs.  We will develop a new record in these
proceedings which will take into account recent changes in the industry and evolving marketplace
conditions. 

       5.      Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications
Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), and the Commission Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.401(e) and 47
C.F.R. 1.407, that the above-captioned petition for rulemaking, RM-8303, IS DENIED.


                                             FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                                             William F. Caton
                                             Acting Secretary