*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 37292*
 PUBLIC  NOTICE  Federal  Communications  Commission  445  12  th  Street,  S.  W.  Washington,  D.  C.  20554  News  Media  Information  202  /  418-  0500  Fax-  On-  Demand  202  /  418-  2830  TTY  202  /  418-  2555  Internet:  http://  www.  fcc.  gov  ftp.  fcc.  gov 
 DA  04-  955  Released:  April  5,  2004 
 NOTICE  OF  STREAMLINED  DOMESTIC  SECTION  214  APPLICATION  GRANTED 
 WC  Docket  No.  04-  45 
 The  application  listed  in  this  notice  has  been  granted  pursuant  to  the  Commission’s  streamlined  procedures  for  domestic  section  214  transfer  of  control  applications.  1  The  Wireline 


 Competition  Bureau  has  determined  that  grant  of  this  application  serves  the  public  interest.  2  For  purposes  of  computation  of  time  for  filing  a  petition  for  reconsideration  or  application  for 
 review,  or  for  judicial  review  of  the  Commission’s  decision,  the  date  of  “public  notice”  shall  be  the  release  date  of  this  notice.  3 


 1.  Domestic  Section  214  Application  Filed  for  Transfer  of  Control  of  Allegiance  Telecom,  Inc.  to  XO  Communications,  Inc.,  WC  Docket  No.  04-  45,  Public  Notice,  DA  04-  624  (rel. 
 March  5,  2004). 
 Effective  Date  of  Grant:  4/  5/  04 
 For  further  information,  please  contact  Dennis  Johnson,  Competition  Policy  Division,  Wireline  Competition  Bureau,  at  (202)  418-  1394  or  Julie  Veach,  Competition  Policy  Division, 


 1  47  C.  F.  R.  §  63.03. 
 2  Implementation  of  Further  Streamlining  Measures  for  Domestic  Section  214  Authorizations,  CC  Docket 
 No.  01-  150,  Report  and  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  5517,  5529,  para.  22  (2002).  Only  one  commenter,  Verizon,  filed  a  comment  in  this  proceeding  requesting  that  the  Commission  condition  grant  of  the  transaction  on  the  assumption 


 of  Allegiance’s  outstanding  debt  to  Verizon  upon  assignment  or  transfer  of  service  arrangements.  Verizon  Comments  at  7.  In  response  to  Verizon’s  comments,  Applicants  filed  a  reply,  in  which  they  argue  that  Verizon’s 
 request  is  not  ripe  because  the  Bankruptcy  Court  has  not  yet  ruled  on  the  assumption  and  rejection  process  or  issues  and  disputes  arising  from  that  process.  Allegiance  and  XO  Reply  Comments  at  5-  7.  Applicants  also  state 
 that  any  dispute  that  did  become  ripe  could  be  resolved  by  the  Bankruptcy  Court  as  part  of  the  normal  assumption-assignment  process.  Id  at  7.  We  reject  Verizon's  request  because  we  conclude  that  it  is  not  relevant  to  the  merits 
 of  the  transfer  itself  and  is  not  actually  ripe  for  resolution.  We  recognize  that  if  such  an  issue  of  controversy  arises  between  the  Applicants  and  Verizon  it  is  likely  to  be  addressed  by  the  Bankruptcy  Court. 


 3  Id;  see  47  C.  F.  R.  §  1.4  (computation  of  time). 
1
 2 
 Wireline  Competition  Bureau,  at  (202)  418-  1558. 
2