*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 9505.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  1406 
 Before  the 
 Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of 


 AT&  T  Corp.  Request  to  Withdraw  Petition 
 for  Expedited  Declaratory  Ruling 


 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 


 NSD-  L-  00-  06 


 ORDER 
 Adopted:  June  8,  2001  Released:  June  11,  2001 
 By  the  Acting  Chief,  Network  Services  Division,  Common  Carrier  Bureau: 
 1.  On  November  15,  1999,  AT&  T  Corp.  (AT&  T)  filed  a  petition  (Petition)  1  for  an 
 expedited  declaratory  ruling,  pursuant  to  section  1.2  of  the  Federal  Communications 
 Commission’s  (Commission)  rules.  2  In  its  Petition,  AT&  T  requested  a  declaration  that  the  cost 
 recovery  methodology  contained  in  Ameritech  Ohio’s  (Ameritech)  intrastate  intraLATA  tariff 
 implementing  intraLATA  toll  presubscription  violated  both  section  51.215  of  the  Commission’s 
 rules  3  and  the  Commission’s  Local  Competition  Second  Report  and  Order.  4  The  Commission 
 released  a  Public  Notice  on  January  28,  2000,  requesting  that  comments  on  the  Petition  be  filed 
 by  February  14,  2000,  and  reply  comments  by  February  22,  2000.  5  Ameritech,  AT&  T,  MediaOne 
 Group  Inc.,  MCI  WorldCom,  Inc.,  and  the  Public  Utilities  Commission  of  Ohio  (PUCO)  filed 


 1  AT&  T  Corp.  Petition  for  Expedited  Declaratory  Ruling,  filed  on  November  15,  1999. 
 2  47  C.  F.  R.  §  1.2. 
 3  47  C.  F.  R.  §  51.215. 
 4  Implementation  of  the  Local  Competition  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  Interconnection 
 Between  Local  Exchange  Carriers  and  Commercial  Mobil  Radio  Service  Providers,  Area  Code  Relief  Plan  for 
 Dallas  and  Houston  Ordered  by  the  Public  Utilities  Commission  of  Texas,  and  Administration  of  the  North 
 American  Numbering  Plan,  Second  Report  and  Order,  and  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  CC  Docket  No.  96- 
 98,  11FCC  Rcd  19392,  (1996)  (Local  Competition  Second  Report  and  Order),  vacated  in  part  sub  nom.  People 
 of  the  State  of  California  v.  Federal  Communications  Commission,  124  F.  3d  934  (8  th  Cir.  1997),  rev’d,  AT&  T 
 Corp.  v.  Iowa  Util.  Bd.,  119  S.  Ct  721  (1999). 


 5  Common  Carrier  Bureau  Seeks  Comments  on  AT&  T  Corporation’s  Petition  for  Declaratory  Ruling  That 


 Ameritech  Ohio’s  Dialing  Parity  Cost  Recovery  Mechanism  Violates  47  C.  F.  R.  §  51.215,  Public  Notice,  DA  00- 
 127  (rel.  Jan.  28,  2000). 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  1406 
 2 
 comments.  Subsequently,  AT&  T  and  Ameritech  filed  reply  comments. 
 2.  On  March  28,  2000,  AT&  T,  PUCO,  and  Ameritech  filed  a  joint  request  with  the 
 Commission  (Joint  Request)  to  suspend  the  proceeding.  6  In  this  filing,  the  parties  informed  the 
 Commission  that  they  had  executed  a  settlement  agreement  (Settlement  Agreement)  that  would 
 resolve  the  issues  that  AT&  T  raised  in  its  Petition.  As  part  of  the  Settlement  Agreement,  AT&  T 
 agreed  to  withdraw  the  Petition  within  five  days  of  PUCO’s  final  adoption  of  the  Settlement 
 Agreement.  7  On  April  21,  2000,  the  Commission  granted  the  Joint  Request,  agreeing  with  the 
 parties  that  expending  Commission  resources  was  unnecessary  if  PUCO  were  to  ultimately  adopt 
 an  agreement  that  would  result  in  the  Petition’s  withdrawal.  8  On  April  27,  2000,  PUCO  adopted 
 the  Settlement  Agreement,  9  and  in  response,  on  May  3,  2000,  AT&  T  filed  a  request  to  withdraw 
 the  Petition  with  the  Commission.  10 


 3.  In  light  of  the  PUCO’s  adoption  of  the  Settlement  Agreement  and  AT&  T’s  request  to 
 withdraw  the  Petition,  the  issues  raised  by  AT&  T  in  the  Petition  are  moot.  Accordingly,  we  grant 
 AT&  T’s  request  to  withdraw  the  Petition. 


 ORDERING  CLAUSE 
 4.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED,  pursuant  to  Sections  0.291  and  1.2  of  the  Commission's 
 rules,  47  C.  F.  R.  §§  0.291  and  1.2,  that  AT&  T’s  request  to  withdraw  its  Petition  and  terminate  this 
 proceeding  is  hereby  GRANTED. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 Diane  Griffin  Harmon 
 Acting  Chief,  Network  Services  Division 
 Common  Carrier  Bureau 


 6  Joint  Request  For  Ruling  On  Stay  Request,  filed  by  AT&  T,  the  PUCO  staff,  and  Ameritech  on  March  28, 
 2000. 
 7  Id. 


 8  AT&  T  Corp.  Petition  for  Expedited  Declaratory  Ruling,  Order,  DA  00-  902,  para.  3  (rel.  Apr.  21,  2000). 
 9  Application  of  Ameritech  Ohio  (Formerly  known  as  The  Ohio  Bell  Telephone  Company)  for  Approval  of  an 
 Alternative  Form  of  Regulation,  Opinion  and  Order,  (Public  Utilities  Commission  of  Ohio,  Case  No.  93-  487-  TP-ALT), 
 (rel.  April  27,  2000). 


 10  AT&  T  Corp.  ’s  Request  to  Withdraw  Petition,  filed  on  May  3,  2000. 
2