WPCg< 2BET Z Romanr New (TT) X-#Xj\  P6G;W XP#Apple LaserWriter II NTXPT1APLAIINT.WRSX\  P6G;$`P2+@33|PRoman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT);ynXP#3|jTimes New Roman (TT) (TT)HPLAS5SI.PRSX\  P6G;\u"<PTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)n Italic2 R]XKK> Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT))r7PC2X DXP\  P6QXP.s7UC2XxXU4  pQXW!0(X h0\  P6QhPSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""/>/>/>/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+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN"5@^*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ*7777BD7TTxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7/7/7/7/xTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxJxTxTxTxTxT\TxTxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxTxTxxTxTxTxTBT7T777TAxTf/fDxTxTxTxo7oD\A\AN:*KT7JTTTTT.3}}T2T}277JJT77TT7J72t7[[[[^[e*B`^.wRTTn[Cfx`xWlRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ7TJTT7\777JJ:T7A7xx*7TTTT!T7.T^7TB[227`K*723T}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx\TJJJJJJoJJJJJ////TTTTTTT[TTTTTTTSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g2@ y"5@^2BRdd$BBdq2B28dddddddddd88qqqYzoBNzoozzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`l2BB!BBPRBddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdBdBBBdNdz8zRdddBRoNoNNF2ZdBYddddd7>d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd23(@@Y@"Z%"5@^2Boddȧ8BBdr2B28ddddddddddBBrrrdzNdzoȐB8BtdBdoYoYBdo8Bo8odooYNBodddYO,Oh2BB!BBPRBdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNBNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldBddddddN;WBCBGI5I5SE\>WB_R\RLVJI]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]](1<d<d<BBoodBBddBoBddzzzzzzzzzzBBBBozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd"5@^*7FTT#77Tp*7*/TTTTTTTTTT77pppTffoxffxx7Jo\oxfxfT\xff\\A/AFT7TTJTJ/TT//J/xTTTTAA/TJoJJAB.BZ*7777BD7TTfTfTfTfTfTooJfJfJfJfJ7/7/7/7/oTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxT\JfTxTxTxT\JxTfTfTfTfToJoJoJfJfJfJxTxTxxTxTxTxTBT7T777TJoJ\/\DoToTxTofAfDTATAN:*WTATTTTTT.3}}T2T}277\\T77TT7\72t7[[[[p[e*B`p.wRTTn[Cfx`xWlRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7FTT#77Tp*7*/TTTTTTTTTT77pppTffoxffxx7Jo\oxfxfT\xff\\A/AFT7TTJTJ/TT//J/xTTTTAA/TJoJJAB.BZ7T\TT7T777\\:T7A7o\*ATTTT.T7.Tp7TB[227`W*723T}}}Tffffffoffff7777xoxxxxxpxxxxx\fTTTTTTToJJJJJ////TTTTTTT[TTTTTJT"5@^*7\TT/77T_*7*/TTTTTTTTTT77___TxoxxofAToxfx\oxxxxo7/7aT7T\J\J7T\/7\/\T\\JA7\TxTTJB%BW*7777BD7T\xTxTxTxTxTxxJoJoJoJoJA/A/A/A/x\TTTTx\x\x\x\xTxTx\TTxTxTf\xTxTxTxJxJxJoJoJoJTTTT\\B\A\A7A\T\o/oDx\x\TxxJxJ\A\AN:*ZT7TTTTTT27}}T2}}T}277TTT77TT7T72t7[[[[_[e*B`_.wRTTn[Cfx`xWlRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7\TT/77T_*7*/TTTTTTTTTT77___TxoxxofAToxfx\oxxxxo7/7aT7T\J\J7T\/7\/\T\\JA7\TxTTJB%BW7TTTT7\777TT:T7A7xx*7TTTT%T7}2T_7}TB[227`Z*727T}}}TxxxxxxxooooAAAAxx_xxxxxf\TTTTTTxJJJJJ////T\TTTTT[T\\\\T\y.C8*,gC\  P6QP7PC2,W XP\  P6QXP.7UC2,PXU4  pQXW!0(,h0\  P6QhPI(!,,(\  P6Q,P5PC2,3.MXP*f9 xQXX{,C8*,3C*f9 xQX.y.G8*,.G4  pQHC7=HH^HH=!!/2!-2-2-!222N2222!'22H22-006!!!!()!22H-H-H-H-H-=-=-=-=-!!!!H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H-H2H2H2H2H272H2H-H-C-C-C-=-=-=-H2H2H23<@5@8)P"5@^*7FSS$77Sq*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77qqqSffoxffxx7Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS7SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ*7777CE7SSfSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSfSoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS7S777SJoJ].]EoSoSxSofAfESASAN:*WSASSSSSS.4}}S2S}277]]S77SS7]72t7[[[[qee*C`q.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7FSS$77Sq*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77qqqSffoxffxx7Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS7SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ7S]SS7S777]]:S7A7o]*ASSSS.S7.Sq7SC[227`W*724S}}}Sffffffoffff7777xoxxxxxqxxxxx]fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSJS"5@^*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BW*7777CE7S]xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxJxJxJoJoJoJSSSS]]C]A]A7A]S]o.oEx]x]SxxJxJ]A]AN:*ZS7SSSSSS27}}S2}}S}277SSS77SS7S72t7[[[[_ee*C`_.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BW7SSSS7]777SS:S7A7xx*7SSSS%S7}2S_7}SC[227`Z*727S}}}SxxxxxxxooooAAAAxx_xxxxxf]SSSSSSxJJJJJ....S]SSSSS[S]]]]S]2e< X- X *  X-y  #XP PW XP#Federal Communications Commission`(# FCC 98205 ă  yxdddy *  Њ*2 Before the y Federal Communications Commission  X-Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  X-In the Matter of hh@)  Xv-x` `  hh@)hpp  xx 0(#(#X X_-Silver Star Telephone Company, Inc.@)hCCB Pol 971  XH-Petition for Preemption hh@)h  X1-and Declaratory Ruling @)h  X - \  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ă  X -xAdopted: August 19, 1998hh@hReleased: August 24, 1998xx By the Commission:  XK-J I. INTRODUCTION Ń  X-x1.` ` Pursuant to section 1.106 of the Commission's rules,m0s yO-#C\  P6QgP#эx47 C.F.R. 1.106.m the Wyoming Public Service Commission (Wyoming Commission) and a collection of Wyoming incumbent local exchange carriers (the Wyoming Group) filed petitions for reconsideration of the  X-Commission's Silver Star Preemption Order.X0s {O-#C\  P6QgP#эxSilver Star Telephone Company, Inc. Petition for Preemption and Declaratory Ruling, Memorandum  {O-Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 15639 (1997) (Silver Star Preemption Order). The petitions for reconsideration were filed on October 24, 1997. The Commission placed the petitions for reconsideration on  {O=-public notice on October 31, 1997. Commission Seeks Comment on Petitions for Reconsideration Filed by  {O-Wyoming Public Service Commission and Wyoming Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, Public Notice, 12 FCC Rcd 17619 (1997). Silver Star Telephone Company, Inc. is the only nonpetitioner that responded to the Public Notice. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petitions for reconsideration. ",D'D'CC"  X-g II. BACKGROUND ă  X- x2.` ` In the Silver Star Preemption Order, the Commission exercised its preemption  X-authority under section 253(d) of the Communications Act, as amended.\z0s yO-#C\  P6QgP#эx47 U.S.C. 253(d) ("If, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, the Commission determines that a State or local government has permitted or imposed any statute, regulation, or legal requirement that violates subsection (a) or (b), the Commission shall preempt the enforcement of such statute, regulation, or legal requirement to the extent necessary to correct such violation or inconsistency"). Section 253 was added to the Communications Act of 1934 (Communications Act or Act) by the Telecommunications Act of  {O -1996 (1996 Act), Pub. L. No. 104104, 110 Stat. 56, codified at 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq. All citations herein to the 1996 Act will be to the 1996 Act as codified in Title 47 of the United States Code.\ In particular, the Commission preempted the enforcement of two legal requirements of the State of Wyoming:  Xx-(i) a provision of the Wyoming Telecommunications Act of 1995 (Wyoming Act)x 0s {O3-#C\  P6QgP#эxWyo. Stat. Ann. 3715101, et seq. that empowers certain incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) serving 30,000 or fewer access lines in Wyoming to preclude anyone from providing competing local exchange service in  X3-their territories until at least January 1, 2005;| 30s {O-#C\  P6QgP#эxWyo. Stat. Ann. 3715201(c). In the Silver Star Preemption Order, we referred to this provision as the "rural incumbent protection provision." The rural incumbent protection provision provides: "Prior to January 1, 2005, in the service territory of a local exchange telecommunications company [in existence prior to January 1, 1995] with thirty thousand (30,000) or fewer access lines in the state, the commission shall, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, issue a concurrent certificate or certificates of public convenience and necessity to provide local exchange service, only if the application clearly shows the applicant is willing and able to provide safe, adequate and reliable local exchange service to all persons within the entire existing local exchange area for which the certification is sought and the incumbent local exchange service provider: (i) Consents to a concurrent certificate; or (ii) Is unable or unwilling to provide the local exchange service for which the concurrent certificate is sought; or (iii) Fails to protest the application for the certificate after notice and opportunity for a hearing; or (iv) Has applied for and received a concurrent certificate to provide competitive local exchange telecommunications service in any area of this state; or (v) On or after the effective date of this chapter, begins to provide oneway transmission of radio or video signals through terrestrial,  {O-nonsatellite local distribution facilities in an area with existing service." Id.| and (ii) an order of the Wyoming Commission denying, on the basis of this rural incumbent protection provision, the application of Silver Star Telephone Company, Inc. (Silver Star) for a "concurrent" Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to provide local exchange service in competition with the  X -certificated incumbent LEC in the Afton, Wyoming local exchange area.P X0s {O!-#C\  P6QgP#эxApplication of Silver Star Telephone Company, Inc. for a Certificate of Public Convenience and  {O"-Necessity to Service the Afton Local Exchange Area, Order Denying Concurrent Certification, Docket No.  {Ot#-70006TA9624 (Wyoming Commission Dec. 4, 1996) (Denial Order). In the parlance of the Wyoming Act, a "concurrent" CPCN is a CPCN granted to a LEC to provide service in an area already served by an incumbent LEC. Wyo. Stat. Ann. 3715201.P " ,D'D'CC "Ԍ X- x3.` ` In ordering such preemption, the Commission determined, inter alia, that the  X-rural incumbent protection provision and the Wyoming Commission's Denial Order fall within the proscription of entry barriers set forth in section 253(a), because they enable certain incumbent LECs to prohibit--legally, absolutely, and entirely at their own discretion--the  X-ability of any entity to provide competing local exchange telecommunications service."0s {O!-#C\  P6QgP#эxSilver Star Preemption Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 1565657,  3839. Section 253(a) of the Communications Act provides: "No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service." 47 U.S.C. 253(a). The Commission also determined that those Wyoming legal requirements are not "competitively neutral" within the meaning of section 253(b), because they award certain incumbent LECs the ultimate competitive advantage--preservation of monopoly status and simultaneously saddle potential new entrants with the ultimate competitive disadvantage an insurmountable  X5-barrier to entry.M50s {O-#C\  P6QgP#эxSilver Star Preemption Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 15658, 15660,  42, 46. Section 253(b) of the Communications Act provides: "Nothing in this section shall affect the ability of a State to impose, on a competitively neutral basis and consistent with section 254, requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers." 47 U.S.C. 253(b).M Given the dispositive nature of these determinations, the Commission  X -declined to decide whether the rural incumbent protection provision and the Denial Order are "necessary" to preserve and advance universal service and ensure the continued quality of  X -telecommunications services within the meaning of section 253(b).k \ d 0s {O-#C\  P6QgP#эxSilver Star Preemption Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 15660,  45. The Silver Star Preemption Order provides  {O-all additional relevant background information. Silver Star Preemption Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 1564048, 15651-61  117, 2547. k  X - III. DISCUSSION ă  X-x4.` ` Both the Wyoming Commission and the Wyoming Group claim that, under the  X-ruling in Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC,  0s {O-#C\  P6QgP#эx120 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 1997), cert. granted, U.S. , 118 S.Ct. 879 (1998). the Commission lacks jurisdiction to preempt the  Xj-rural incumbent protection provision and the Denial Order pursuant to section 253 because  XU-those State legal requirements pertain primarily to intrastate communications. U0s yO !-#C\  P6QgP#эxWyoming Commission Petition at 10; Wyoming Group Reply at 4 n.7. We have  X>-already rejected that position in other proceedings. ((>0s {O#-#C\  P6QgP#эxThe Public Utility Commission of Texas, et al. Petitions for Declaratory Ruling and/or Preemption of  {Oc$-Certain Provisions of the Texas Public Utility Regulatory Act of 1995, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13  {O-%-FCC Rcd 3460, 3480 at 41 n.105 (1997) (Texas Preemption Order), petition for recon. pending, petition for  {O%-review pending, City of Abilene, Texas v. FCC, No. 971633 (D.C. Cir. filed Oct. 14, 1997) ; Classic Telephone,"% ,D'D'&"  {O-Inc. Petition for Preemption, Declaratory Ruling and Injunctive Relief, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11  {OZ-FCC Rcd 13082, 1309495, 2324 (1996), petition for review held in abeyance, City of Bogue, Kansas et al.  {O$-v. FCC, No. 961432 (D.C. Cir. Jan 14, 1997), petition for emergency relief, sanctions, and investigation denied,  {O-12 FCC Rcd 15619 (1997), petitions for recon. pending. We reiterate that, because sections"> ,D'D'CC*" 253(a) and 253(d) of the Communications Act expressly empower the Commission to preempt the enforcement of State legal requirements restraining the provision of intrastate telecommunications services, the limitation on the Commission's authority over intrastate  X-matters set forth in section 2(b) of the Communications Act "0s yO$ -#C\  P6QgP#эx47 U.S.C. 152(b). Section 2(b) of the Communications Act provides, in pertinent part: "[N]othing in this Act shall be construed to apply or give the Commission jurisdiction with respect to (1) charges, classifications, practices, services, facilities, or regulations for or in connection with intrastate communication  {O| -service...." Id. does not apply to the  X-Commission's preemption authority under section 253.0s {O -#C\  P6QgP#эxSee generally Silver Star Comments at 24. Consequently, we reject petitioners'  X-contention that the Silver Star Preemption Order exceeds the Commission's jurisdiction.  Xa-x5.` ` The Wyoming Commission contends that the Commission erred in concluding that the rural incumbent protection provision is a prohibition of competitive entry proscribed  X3-by section 253(a).{34 0s yO-#C\  P6QgP#эxWyoming Commission Petition at 57.{ The Wyoming Commission points out that an incumbent LEC loses its ability to block competitive entry if it: (i) fails to provide the local exchange service for which a concurrent CPCN is sought; (ii) obtains a concurrent CPCN to provide competing local exchange service outside of its incumbent territory; or (iii) begins providing competing  X -cable service.z 0s yOL-#C\  P6QgP#эxWyo. Stat. Ann. 3715201(c).z  X -x6.` ` Notwithstanding these aspects of the Wyoming Act relied upon by the Wyoming Commission, the rural incumbent protection provision can prohibit the ability of entities to provide competing local exchange telecommunications services. Silver Star, for example, was barred for over a year from providing local exchange service in Afton, Wyoming, solely because the rural incumbent protection provision required the Wyoming  X6-Commission to heed the incumbent LEC's request to deny Silver Star's CPCN application.$6T 0s {O;!-#C\  P6QgP#эxSince the release of the Silver Star Preemption Order, the Wyoming Commission has granted Silver Star's concurrent CPCN application to serve the Afton, Wyoming exchange. As explained elsewhere herein, however, this action does not mitigate the anticompetitive impact of the rural incumbent protection provision.  {O#-See discussion, infra, at 2023.  X-x7.` ` Moreover, a potential new entrant cannot do anything to avoid or hurdle the rural incumbent protection provision's bar. The incumbent LEC, instead, has essentially"@,D'D'CC" unfettered discretion to determine whether the rural incumbent protection provision will operate to preclude competitive entry in its territory. The incumbent LEC has total control over whether to exercise its veto power over CPCN applications in a particular case and  X-whether to engage in conduct that would void its veto power in the future. 0s yO4-#C\  P6QgP#эxWe note that the statutorily specified circumstances under which an incumbent LEC loses its veto power call into question the validity of the primary argument against preemption raised in this proceeding. The Wyoming Group and the Wyoming Commission argue at length that the rural incumbent protection provision was carefully crafted solely to ensure that rural incumbent LECs have the requisite financial incentives to make the system upgrades needed to create a modern and universally available network in the uniquely challenging environment of Wyoming. The Wyoming Group and the Wyoming Commission assert, therefore, that the rural incumbent protection provision is "necessary" to promote highquality universal service within the meaning of section 253(b). The ways in which an incumbent LEC can lose its "necessary" veto power seem to have little to do, however, with the financial incentives allegedly needed to encourage system upgrades. In particular, whether an incumbent LEC has obtained a CPCN to provide local exchange service outside of its incumbent territory, and whether an incumbent LEC begins to provide competing cable service, have no apparent connection to whether the incumbent LEC has recovered its investment in system upgrades within its incumbent  {O-territory. In any event, as this Order and the Silver Star Preemption Order point out, we need not and do not decide whether the rural incumbent protection provision is "necessary" within the meaning of section 253(b), because that provision clearly is not "competitively neutral." Thus, from the perspective of a potential new entrantthat is denied a CPCN by operation of Wyoming law,  X-the rural incumbent protection provision's prohibition is absolute.J 0s {O-#C\  P6QgP#эxSee generally Silver Star Comments at 79.  X_- x8.` ` In any event, whether the rural incumbent protection provision is deemed to be "absolute," "conditional," or something else, the fact remains that it is designed to prohibit the ability of entities to provide competing local exchange telecommunications services, which section 253(a) forbids. Moreover, the Wyoming Commission fails to explain why an incumbent LEC's decision not to compete outside of its incumbent territory justifies insulating  X -that provider from competition within its incumbent territory.t 0s {Oy-#C\  P6QgP#эxSee n.18, supra.t Accordingly, we reject the Wyoming Commission's contention that the rural incumbent protection provision falls outside the proscription of section 253(a).  X- x9.` ` According to the Wyoming Group, the Commission erred in determining that  Xy-the rural incumbent protection provision and the Denial Order are not "competitively neutral" within the meaning of section 253(b) of the Communications Act. In the Wyoming Group's  XM-view, the rural incumbent protection provision and the Denial Order are, in fact, competitively neutral, because those legal requirements subject all potential new entrants into small local exchange markets to the same possibility of exclusion. The Wyoming Group argues, in other words, that a state legal requirement is competitively neutral as long as it treats all new entrants equally, regardless of whether it favors incumbent LECs over new entrants:"n,D'D'CCr"ԌXxX` ` "Neutrality" in the context of the authority granted to the states by Section 253(b) to preserve and advance universal service, requires merely that when states introduce measures to further these goals, the implementation of these measures must apply equally to all new entrants. Clearly, neither Section 253 specifically, nor the 1996 Act generally, requires that incumbents  Xv-and new entrants be treated equally.xv0s yO-#C\  P6QgP#эxWyoming Group Petition at 1415.xx`  XH- x 10.` ` We reject the Wyoming Group's interpretation of the phrase "competitively neutral" in section 253(b) of the Communications Act. In particular, we reject the view that a state legal requirement is competitively neutral as long as it treats all new entrants equally, regardless of whether it favors incumbent LECs over new entrants (or viceversa). Neither the language of section 253(b) nor its legislative history suggests that the requirement of competitive neutrality applies only to one portion of a local exchange market new entrants--and not to the market as a whole, including the incumbent LEC. Indeed, the plain meaning of section 253(b) and the predominant procompetitive policy of the 1996 Act indicate just the opposite. Specifically, section 253(b)'s reference to competitive neutrality contains no hint of market segmentation, and requiring competitive neutrality marketwide  Xb-minimizes the States' capacity to create market entry barriers.bX0s {Ok-#C\  P6QgP#эxSee generally Silver Star Comments at 7. As a result, in various similar contexts the Commission has consistently construed the term "competitively neutral" as  X4-requiring competitive neutrality among the entire universe of participants and potential  X-participants in a market.(^ 0s {O-#C\  P6QgP#эxSee, e.g., Telephone Number Portability, Third Report and Order, FCC 9882, CC Docket No. 95116, 53 (rel. May 12, 1998) (a competitively neutral cost recovery mechanism "(1) must not give one service provider an appreciable, incremental cost advantage over another service provider when competing for a specific subscriber, and (2) must not disparately affect the ability of competing service providers to earn a normal  {O-return"); FederalState Joint Board on Universal Service, Access Charge Reform, Price Cap Performance  {O-Review for Local Exchange Carriers, Transport Rate Structure and Pricing, End User Common Line Charge, Fourth Order on Reconsideration, CC Docket Nos. 9645, 96262, 941, 91213, 9572, 13 FCC Rcd 5318, 5363  {O6-at 77 (1997), as corrected by, FederalState Joint Board on Universal Service, Errata, CC Docket Nos. 9645,  {O-96262, 941, 91213, 9572, DA 98158 (subsequent Commission citations omitted), appeal pending, Alenco  {O-Communications, Inc., et al. v. FCC and USA, No. 981064 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (holding that, due to mandate of competitive neutrality, a competitive eligible telecommunications carrier that receives longterm support for serving subscribers in an incumbent LEC's service area must lose longterm support when the incumbent LEC  {O$"-exits the NECA common line pool and loses longterm support); Jurisdictional Separations Reform and Referral  {O"-to the FederalState Joint Board, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 22120, 22132 at 24 (1997)  {O#-(Separations NPRM) (subsequent citations omitted) ("Competitive neutrality would require that separations rules  {O$-not favor one telecommunications provider over another or one class of providers over another class"); Texas  {OL%-Preemption Order at 82, 107 (holding that Texas legal requirements were not competitively neutral because  {O&-they imposed competitive burdens on one class of providers and not others); FederalState Joint Board on"&,D'D'&"  {O-Universal Service, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8776, 8801 47 (1997) (Universal Service Order) (subsequent citations omitted) ("competitive neutrality means that universal support mechanisms and rules  {O"-neither unfairly advantage nor disadvantage one provider over another"); FederalState Joint Board on Universal  {O-Service, Recommended Decision, 12 FCC Rcd 87, 267 at 345 (1996) (subsequent citations omitted) ("We recommend that any competitive bidding system be competitively neutral and not favor either the incumbent or  {O~-new entrants"); Access Charge Reform Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Third Report and Order, and Notice of Inquiry, 11 FCC Rcd 21354, 2144344 at 206 (1996) (subsequent citations omitted) ("If in practice only incumbent LECs can receive universal service support,  {O-then the disbursement mechanism is not competitively neutral"); Implementation of the Local Competition  {O-Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 19392, 19441 at 94 (1996) (subsequent citations omitted) ("We therefore reject the arguments of those commenters that assert that only new entrants should bear the costs of implementing dialing  {O -parity, because such an approach would not be competitively neutral"). See also TCI Cablevision of Oakland  {O -County, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 21396, 21443 at 108 (1997) (Troy Preemption  {O -Order) ("Local requirements imposed only on the operation of new entrants and not on existing operations of  {OZ -incumbents are quite likely to be neither competitively neutral nor nondiscriminatory"), petition for recon.  {O$-pending. ",D'D'CC"Ԍ X-ԙx 11.` ` We hold, therefore, that section 253(b) cannot "save" a state legal requirement  X-from preemption pursuant to sections 253(a) and (d) unless, inter alia, the requirement is  X-competitively neutral with respect to, and as between, all of the participants and potential  X-participants in the market at issue.0s yO^-#C\  P6QgP#эxThis holding does not necessarily mean that, in order to qualify for protection under section 253(b), a state legal requirement must, in every circumstance, treat incumbent LECs and new entrants equally. As the Commission has previously explained: "'nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral' treatment does not necessarily mean 'equal' treatment. For instance, it could be a nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral regulation for a state or local authority to impose higher insurance requirements based on the number of street cuts an entity planned to make, even though such a regulation would not treat all entities 'equally.'"  {O-Implementation of Section 302 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Open Video Systems), Third Report and  {O-Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 20227, 20310 at 195 (1996). See Separations  {O-NPRM, 12 FCC Rcd at 22132, 24 ("Competitive neutrality...would not, however, preclude carriers in dissimilar situations from being treated differently"). Accordingly, we affirm the Silver Star Preemption  X-Order's determination that the rural incumbent protection provision and the Denial Order are  X-not competitively neutral, even though they disadvantage all potential new entrants equally visavis certain incumbent LECs.  XR-x 12.` ` The Wyoming Group further maintains that the Silver Star Preemption Order  X=-breaches the Commission's statutory duty to preempt only "to the extent necessary."=0s {Oz!-#C\  P6QgP#эxWyoming Group Petition at 1720 (quoting 47 U.S.C. 253(d)). According to the Wyoming Group, the Commission did not need to "grant an unfettered state certificate to Silver Star, supplant state certification authority entirely, and void the Wyoming  X -statute."u 0s yO%-#C\  P6QgP#эxWyoming Group Petition at 18.u In the Wyoming Group's view, the Commission could have achieved its aims" ,D'D'CC " through at least two "less draconian options": (i) directing the State of Wyoming to reduce the duration of the rural incumbent protection provision, or (ii) directing the State of Wyoming to review periodically whether the rural incumbent protection provision has outlived  X-its utility.x0s yO4-#C\  P6QgP#эxWyoming Group Petition at 1819.x  X-x 13.` ` The Wyoming Group's argument has two fatal flaws. First, the Wyoming  Xv-Group mischaracterizes the holding of the Silver Star Preemption Order. The Silver Star  Xa-Preemption Order neither grants an unfettered state certificate to Silver Star nor supplants  XL-state certification authority. Indeed, the Silver Star Preemption Order expressly denies Silver  X7-Star's request for such relief.7X0s {O@ -#C\  P6QgP#эxSilver Star Preemption Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 1566061, 47. The Wyoming Commission's authority to grant and deny CPCNs remains almost entirely intact. The lone and narrow exception is that the Wyoming Commission cannot deny a potential new entrant's application for a concurrent CPCN solely because an incumbent LEC opposes the application. Second, neither of the "less draconian options" proposed by the Wyoming Group would afford potential new entrants any meaningful relief at this time. Such entities would remain subject to incumbent LEC vetoes for the indefinite future. Preempting the enforcement of the rural incumbent protection provision, therefore, is certainly "necessary" to correct the market barrier forbidden by section 253(a) that exists today. Accordingly, we reject the Wyoming Group's contention that the  Xh-Silver Star Preemption Order exceeds our authority under section 253(d).  X<-x 14.` ` The Wyoming Group also argues that the Commission erred in concluding that "the specific mechanisms listed in Section 251(f) [, Section 253(f),] and Section 214(e)(2) are  X-the exclusive remedies a State may employ to address its universal service concerns."0s yO-#C\  P6QgP#эxWyoming Group Petition at 12 (emphasis in Petition) (referencing 47 U.S.C. 251(f), 253(f), 214(e)(2)). The  X-Wyoming Group again mischaracterizes what the Commission concluded in the Silver Star  X-Preemption Order. What the Commission actually stated regarding sections 251(f), 253(f), and 214(e)(2) of the Communications Act was the following: because those federal provisions afford States special and carefully crafted latitude to regulate the emergence of  X-competition in markets served by rural telephone companies,@B0s yO -#C\  P6QgP#эxSection 251(f) enables State commissions, under certain circumstances, to relieve rural and small LECs of the obligation to comply with the socalled "interconnection" requirements set forth in sections 251(b) and  yO""-251(c). 47 U.S.C. 251(f). Section 253(f) allows a State, notwithstanding sections 253(a) and 253(d), to require a telecommunications carrier to meet certain universal service requirements as a condition for obtaining permission to compete with a rural telephone company. 47 U.S.C. 253(f). Section 214(e)(2) permits a State, with respect to an area served by a rural telephone company, to decline to designate more than one common carrier as an "eligible telecommunications carrier" for purposes of receiving universal service support; and if a State wishes, nevertheless, to designate more than one such carrier, it must first find that doing so would be in" &,D'D'_&"  {O-the public interest. 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(2). See generally 47 U.S.C. 153(37) (defining "rural telephone company").  Congress did not intend to"",D'D'CC" permit States to exceed that latitude by imposing the much more competitively restrictive  X-regulation of a categorical ban on entry."0s {O-#C\  P6QgP#эxSilver Star Preemption Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 1565859,  4344. The Commission did not state or imply that those provisions of the Communications Act constitute the exclusive means to promote universal  X-service. Indeed, the only mechanism for purportedly promoting universal service that the  X-Silver Star Preemption Order precludes is one that prohibits competitive entry. In reality,  X-therefore, the Silver Star Preemption Order has little impact on the States' authority to adopt legal requirements to promote universal service, and only to the extent plainly required by Congress.  X7-x15.` ` Like the Wyoming Group, the Wyoming Commission contends that section  X -251(f) of the Communications Act undermines rather than supports the Silver Star Preemption  X -Order.| 0s yOp-#C\  P6QgP#эxWyoming Commission Petition at 810.| To buttress this contention, the Wyoming Commission first posits that the relief  X -from interconnection obligations!" D0s yO-#C\  P6QgP#эxIn this context, we use the term "interconnection obligations" to mean interconnection, resale, number portability, dialing parity, access to rightsofway, reciprocal compensation, access to unbundled network  {O{-elements, notice of interoperability changes, collocation, and good faith negotiation. See 47 U.S.C. 251(b), (c). accorded to rural incumbent LECs by section 251(f) is "effectively identical" to the relief from competition accorded to rural incumbent LECs by the rural incumbent protection provision. The Wyoming Commission then observes that section 251(f) does not establish any time limit for its relief, whereas the rural incumbent protection  X-provision does establish such a limit, i.e., January 1, 2005 (or possibly January 1, 2008).B". 0s yOy-#C\  P6QgP#эxThe rural incumbent protection provision expires on January 1, 2005. Wyo. Stat. Ann. 3715201(c). The Wyoming Commission may extend the life of the provision for an additional three years, however, if an eligible incumbent LEC timely "demonstrate[s] by clear and convincing evidence that it has yet to substantially recover its investment for upgraded services ordered by the commission or for which it has committed as of [March 1, 1995]...." Wyo. Stat. Ann. 3715201(d).B In the Wyoming Commission's view, therefore, the rural incumbent protection provision is actually a narrower impediment to competition than the obstacle authorized by Congress in section 251(f); and Congress surely did not contemplate that the Commission would preempt State legal requirements that are less competitively restrictive than the Communications Act itself. The Wyoming Commission concludes, as a result, that the Commission should not  X-preempt the enforcement of the rural incumbent protection provision.|#0s yO$-#C\  P6QgP#эxWyoming Commission Petition at 810.| " n#,D'D'CC"Ԍ X-x16.` ` We reject this contention because we reject its premise. The relief from  X-interconnection obligations accorded to rural incumbent LECs by section 251(f) is not "effectively identical" to the relief from competition accorded to rural incumbent LECs by the rural incumbent protection provision. First of all, section 251(f) permits relief only if a State commission determines that other important concerns specified by Congress will seriously  X-suffer otherwise;$ 0s yO-#C\  P6QgP#эxSection 251(f)(1)(A) provides, for example, that "[s]ubsection (c) of this section shall not apply to a rural telephone company until (i) such company has received a bona fide request for interconnection, services, or network elements, and (ii) the State commission determines...that such request is not unduly economically burdensome, is technically feasible, and is consistent with section 254...." 47 U.S.C. 251(f)(1)(A). the rural incumbent protection provision, by contrast, permits relief  Xx-whenever the incumbent LEC seeks it, even in the absence of a showing of need.%"x0s yO -#C\  P6QgP#эxAs stated earlier herein, we recognize that a Wyoming incumbent LEC can lose its veto power over  {O -competitive entry, but only if the incumbent LEC chooses to lose it by voluntarily engaging in certain specified conduct. Under the rural incumbent protection provision, therefore, the incumbent LEC has unfettered discretion to decide whether it will retain and exercise its veto power. Furthermore, a State commission's determination to afford relief from interconnection obligations under section 251(f) presumably will arise from fair and open proceedings, and will be subject to judicial review; an incumbent LEC's decision to veto competition under the rural incumbent protection provision, however, is conclusive. Moreover, the rural incumbent  X -protection provision affords relief from competition, whereas section 251(f) affords relief only  X -from interconnection obligations. The former makes competitive entry impossible; the latter certainly makes competitive entry more difficult, but it does not preclude such entry  X -altogether.& 0s yO-#C\  P6QgP#эxWe note that, in entering the Afton, Wyoming market, Silver Star's "primary approach would [be] deployment of Silver Star constructed facilities both wireline and wireless...." Letter dated January 15, 1998 from Allen R. Hoopes, President, Silver Star Telephone Company, Inc., to Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal  {Og-Communications Commission, CCB Pol 971. See Silver Star Opposition at 10 (stating that if the Wyoming Commission grants Silver Star's CPCN application, "[t]he residents of Afton...will enjoy the benefits of competition from two facilitiesbased providers, each of whom has a natural economic incentive to deploy the finest technology to secure market share"). At least in the Afton market, Silver Star's asserted business plan to engage in primarily facilitiesbased competition seems to belie the Wyoming Commission's fundamental assumption that "if the smaller incumbent companies d[o] not build the facilities required to support modern  {O-telecommunications services, they w[ill] probably not be built." Wyoming Commission Petition at 4 (emphasis in Petition). We believe, therefore, that section 251(f) is less competitively restrictive than the rural incumbent protection provision.  X-x17.` ` In addition, absent the Silver Star Preemption Order, the rural incumbent protection provision would render section 251(f) of the Communications Act superfluous in Wyoming, at least until January 1, 2005. If rural telephone companies in Wyoming would face no competition during that time, they certainly would not need to invoke the relief from interconnection obligations provided in section 251(f). This provides further evidence that Congress did not intend to permit States to enact prohibitions of competition in rural areas." &,D'D'CC" We conclude, accordingly, that section 251(f) does not support reversal or revision of the  X-Silver Star Preemption Order.  X-x18.` ` Apart from the contentions rejected above, neither the Wyoming Commission  X-nor the Wyoming Group raises an argument not already addressed in the Silver Star  X-Preemption Order. Most notably, the Wyoming Commission fails to even mention, much less  X|-address in any detail, one of the Silver Star Preemption Order's central conclusions-that the rural incumbent protection provision is not "competitively neutral" within the meaning of section 253(b) of the Communications Act. Moreover, both the Wyoming Commission and  X9-the Wyoming Group neglect to discuss the Attorney General Opinion,%'90s yO -#C\  P6QgP#эxMemorandum dated February 27, 1997 from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Wyoming to the Wyoming Commission, entitled "Opinion on preemption issues created by the enactment of the  {OB -Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996" (Attorney General Opinion) (attached to Letter dated May 30, 1997 from Dennis L. Sanderson, counsel for Silver Star, to William F. Caton, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, CCB Pol 971).% in which the Attorney  X$ -General of the State of Wyoming seems to conclude-as does the Silver Star Preemption  X -OrderĠ--that enforcement of the rural incumbent protection provision is subject to preemption  X -under section 253.~( z0s {O%-#C\  P6QgP#эxAttorney General Opinion at 68.~  X -x19.` ` By and large, what the Wyoming Commission and the Wyoming Group do in their petitions, instead, is restate an argument made previously: that the rural incumbent protection provision is somehow "necessary" within the meaning of section 253(b) of the  X-Communications Act. As in the Silver Star Preemption Order, we need not and do not reach that argument in this Order, because we affirm our conclusion that the rural incumbent protection provision is not "competitively neutral" as required by section 253(b).  XD-Nevertheless, what the Commission said in the Universal Service Order regarding the "false choice" between competition and universal service bears reiteration: XxX` ` Commenters who express concern about the principle of competitive neutrality contend that Congress recognized that, in certain rural areas, competition may not always serve the public interest and that promoting competition in these areas must be considered, if at all, secondary to the advancement of universal service. We believe these commenters present a false choice between competition and universal service. A principal purpose of section 254 is to create mechanisms that will sustain universal service as competition emerges. We expect that applying the policy of competitive neutrality will promote emerging technologies that, over time, may provide competitive alternatives in rural, insular, and high cost areas and thereby" (,D'D'CC" benefit rural consumers. For this reason, we reject assertions that competitive neutrality has no application in rural areas or is  X-otherwise inconsistent with section 254.)0s {OK-#C\  P6QgP#эxUniversal Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 880203, 50.x` Moreover, by requiring competitive neutrality of any state legal requirement that effectively prohibits the ability of an entity to provide local exchange service, Congress has already decided, in essence, that outright bans of competitive entry are never "necessary" to preserve and advance universal service within the meaning of section 253(b).  X1-x20.` ` We note, in conclusion, that after the petitions for reconsideration of the Silver  X -Star Preemption Order were filed, the Wyoming Commission granted Silver Star's application  X -for a concurrent CPCN to serve the Afton, Wyoming exchange.j* Z0s yO-#C\  P6QgP#эxLetter dated April 23, 1998 from Dennis L. Sanderson, counsel for Silver Star, to Magalie R. Salas,  {O-Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, CCB Pol 971, attaching, inter alia, a copy of Application of Silver Star Telephone Company, Inc. for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Service the Afton  {Ol-Local Exchange Area, Order Granting Certificate, Docket No. 70006TA9624 (Wyoming Commission Mar. 17,  {O6-1998) (Approval Order).j The Wyoming Group  X -argues that this action by the Wyoming Commission requires us to vacate the Silver Star  X -Preemption Order.+$ 0s yO-#C\  P6QgP#эxLetter dated May 6, 1998 from Bruce S. Asay and Marci E. Greenstein, counsel for The Wyoming Group, to Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, CCB Pol 971. The Wyoming  {O,-Group further asserts that, concurrent with vacating the Silver Star Preemption Order, we should dismiss the  {O-petitions for reconsideration as moot. Id. According to the Wyoming Group, preemption of the enforcement of Wyoming law is no longer "necessary" within the meaning of section 253(d) because (1) Silver Star has now obtained from the Wyoming Commission the relief it sought from us, and (2) Wyoming law, as applied to Silver Star, does not presently fall within section 253(a)'s  X-proscription of barriers to competitive entry.,$ 0s {O.-#C\  P6QgP#эxId. In a similar vein, before it granted Silver Star's CPCN application, the Wyoming Commission had suggested in this proceeding that, if it were so to grant Silver Star's CPCN application, we would have to vacate  {O-the Silver Star Preemption Order as moot. Wyoming Commission Petition at 13. See Wyoming Group Petition at 4 n.10; Wyoming Group Reply at 6.  XS-x21.` ` We reject the Wyoming Group's contention. For the following reasons, we hold that the Wyoming Commission's decision to grant Silver Star's application for a  X%-concurrent CPCN to serve the Afton, Wyoming exchange does not warrant vacating the Silver  X-Star Preemption Order as unnecessary or moot under section 253(d).  X-x22.` ` First, the Wyoming Commission did not base its Approval Order on a determination that the rural incumbent protection provision is invalid, unlawful, or" ,,D'D'CCq"  X-unenforceable. Instead, the Wyoming Commission based its Approval Order on a  X-determination that, in light of a change in key circumstances since the Denial Order, the rural  X-incumbent protection provision was no longer relevant.-H0s {OO-#C\  P6QgP#эxApproval Order at 31. The change in circumstances was a change in the identity of the incumbent  {O-LEC serving the Afton, Wyoming exchange. In the Denial Order, the Wyoming Commission found that the incumbent LEC was Union Telephone Company, which serves fewer than 30,000 access lines in Wyoming and is thereby eligible to veto concurrent CPCN applications under the rural incumbent protection provision. In the  {Os-Approval Order, the Wyoming Commission found that, due to the collapse of the proposed sale of the Afton  {O=-exchange from U S WEST to Union Telephone Company, see Silver Star Preemption Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 1564245, 714, the incumbent LEC is U S WEST, which serves more than 30,000 access lines in Wyoming and is thereby ineligible to veto concurrent CPCN applications under the rural incumbent protection provision. Indeed, the Wyoming Commission stated that it "specifically consider[ed] neither the alternative standard of W.S. 3715201(c)  X-[i.e., the rural incumbent protection provision] nor the effectiveness under federal law of its  X-preemption by the FCC which we have formally challenged."~.0s {O-#C\  P6QgP#эxApproval Order at 31.~ In sum, the Approval Order does not nullify the rural incumbent protection provision. We must assume, therefore, that  Xg-but for the Silver Star Preemption Order, the Wyoming Commission would continue to follow that provision and deny any future concurrent CPCN application to which an eligible  X;-incumbent LEC duly objected. Consequently, the Silver Star Preemption Order remains "necessary" to remedy the Wyoming law's improper erection of barriers to the provision of  X -competitive local exchange service.n/ j 0s yO*-#C\  P6QgP#эx47 U.S.C. 253(d).n  X -x23.` ` Second, the plain language of section 253(d) of the Communications Act empowers the Commission to preempt upon its own motion (after notice and an opportunity for public comment). We may preempt under section 253(d), therefore, in the absence of a  X-directly aggrieved party or even a petition seeking preemption.0" 0s {OG-#C\  P6QgP#эxCf., Troy Preemption Order at 100 ("We do not agree with those commenters arguing that it is strictly necessary for a party challenging the validity of a Telecommunications Ordinance such as Troy's to have applied for, and have been denied, a franchise before filing a petition [for preemption pursuant to section 253] with this Commission"). Consequently, the elimination of present harm to Silver Star does not translate to the elimination of the Commission's authority to preempt under section 253. Moreover, independent of Silver Star's circumstances, the rural incumbent protection provision creates controversy and confusion concerning the extent to which the State of Wyoming lawfully may impede the advent of"@ 0,D'D'CC "  X-competition.10s {Oy-#C\  P6QgP#эxSee generally Silver Star Comments at 10. Thus, we have discretion to affirm the Silver Star Preemption Order to  X-terminate the controversy and remove uncertainty.& 2Z0s {O-#C\  P6QgP#эxSee generally Letter dated May 15, 1998 from Dennis L. Sanderson, counsel for Silver Star, to Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, CCB Pol 971. The Wyoming Group does not  {O-appear to rely on the standard mootness doctrine. Such reliance would have been misplaced, in any event. See  {OR-generally Metropolitan Council of NAACP Branches v. FCC, 46 F.3d 1154, 1161 (D.C.Cir. 1995) (holding that  {O-Article III limitations on federal judicial power are inapplicable to administrative agencies); Gardner v. FCC, 530 F.2d 1086, 1090 (D.C. Cir. 1976) ("The agencies' responsibility for implementation of statutory purposes justifies a wider discretion, in determining what actions to entertain, than is allowed to the courts by either the  {Ov -Constitution or the common law"). See also 47 U.S.C.  403 ("The Commission shall have full authority and power at any time to institute an inquiry, on its own motion,...relating to the enforcement of any of the  yO -provisions of this Act");  47 C.F.R. 1.2 ("The Commission may...issue a declaratory ruling terminating a  {O -controversy or removing uncertainty"); Telerent Leasing Corp. Petition for Declaratory Rulings on Questions of  {O -Federal Preemption, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 45 FCC 2d 204 (1974) ("we are not obliged to, nor do we deem it appropriate to, await some definitive action by a State or a carrier which creates a conflict between Federal and State regulation having the ingredients of a conventional 'case or controversy' before issuing such a  {O-[declaratory] ruling"), aff'd sub nom., North Carolina Utilities Commission v. FCC, 537 F.2d 787, 790 n.2 (4th Cir.) ("We have considered and found no merit in an argument that the Commission's resort to a declaratory order was premature and unwarranted because state agencies are merely threatening to prohibit or restrict the use  {ON-of customerprovided terminal equipment and have not yet imposed any such restriction"), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1027 (1976).&  X-x24.` ` In sum, we conclude that the petitions for reconsideration do not raise any  X-argument warranting reversal, revision, or vacation of the Silver Star Preemption Order.  X-Consequently, we deny the petitions for reconsideration.z3X 0s yON-#C\  P6QgP#эxThe record does not indicate why no representative of the State of Wyoming participated in this proceeding until the Wyoming Commission filed its petition for reconsideration. We encourage the States to participate in our proceedings under section 253 at the earliest feasible opportunity.z",3,D'D'CC"  X-E IV. ORDERING CLAUSE ׃  X-x25.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 253 and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.253 and 405, and section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.106, that the Petitions for Reconsideration filed by the Wyoming Commission and the Wyoming Group on October 24, 1997, ARE DENIED. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhMagalie Roman Salas x` `  hhSecretary