PUBLIC NOTICE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
1919 M STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554_____________________________DA 97-1062
K'ewj media inlannanon 202/4IX-OVK) l:iix-()n-l)oniati>l 2'M JlS-ix.WIiiiemcr hiip-./wwv.icx.i'o,' I'lp.lcc.i'nv
Released: May 21, 1997
EX PARTE PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED FOR FORMAL COMPLAINT FILED BY 
AMERITECH CORPORATION AGAINST MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS
CORPORATION (FILE NO. E-97-17), AND FOR MCI PETITION FOR
DECLARATORY RULING REGARDING THE JOINT MARKETING RESTRICTION
IN SECTION 271(E)(1) (CC DOCKET NO. 96-149)
Ameritech Corporation ("Ameritech") filed a formal complaint, File No. E-97-17, against 
MCI Telecommunications Corporation ("MCI") on April 9, 1997. Ameritech subsequently 
amended its complaint on April 24. 1997. In both the original and the amended complaints. 
Ameritech alleges, inter alia, thai MCI has violated the joint marketing restriction in Section 
271(e)(l) of the Communications Act ("the Act"), 47 U.S.C. § 271(e)(l), and Section 53.100(c) 
of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 53.100(c), by representing in its advertising that MCI 
may offer bundled packages of interLATA and local exchange services, and that MCI may sell 
such services in one transaction. The formal complaint is restricted for purposes of the 
Commission's ex pane rules. See 47 C.F.R.§ 1.1208(c)(l)(i)(B).
Section 271(e)(l) prohibits certain imerexchange carriers, including MCI, from marketing 
jointly interLATA services with telephone exchange service purchased for resale from a Bell 
Operating Company ("BOC") in an in-region state until the earlier of February 8, 1999, or the 
dale on which the BOC is authorized to provide interLATA services in such state. On 
December 24. 1996, the Commission released a report and order in which the Commission 
discussed, among other things, the joint marketing restriction in Section 271(e)(l), and the 
marketing practices that it interpreted Section 271(e)(l) to proscribe and to permit. See 
Implementation of the Non-Accounting Safeguards of Sections 277 and 272 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended. First Report and Order and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 96-149. FCC 96-489 (rel. December 24, 1996) (Non- 
Accounting Safeguards Order), petitions for recon. pending.
On May 1, 1997, MCI filed a petition for declaratory ruling regarding how the rules the 
Commission adopted in the Non-Accounting Safeguards Order concerning the joint marketing 
restriction in Section 271(e)(l) would apply to certain MCI marketing materials. MCI stales that 
a declaratory ruling would terminate a significant controversy and remove substantial uncertainly 
in the marketplace. On May 9. 1997. the Commission issued a Public Notice establishing (he 
pleading cycle for comments and reply comments pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the 
Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R §§ 1.415, 1.419, on MCl's petition for declaratory ruling 
regarding the joint marketing restriction in Section 271(e)(l) of the Act (CC Docket No. 96- 
149).
18046
Upon review, it appears that MCI's petition for declaratory ruling and Ameritecfo'a 
complaint raise the same fundamental issues. Both proceedings raise the issue of how the 
constraints applicable to the joint marketing by covered long distance carriers of their long 
distance and resold BOC local exchange services would apply to MCI's marketing 
advertisements. Additionally, both proceedings raise issues relating to Section 271(e)(l) of the 
Communications Act.
The declaratory ruling proceeding raises legal and policy issues that have widespread 
impact and importance. We believe that the public interest in fully and expeditiously resolving 
the significant issues raised by the declaratory ruling proceeding would best be served by 
conducting the declaratory ruling proceeding as a "permit but disclose" proceeding, as 
contemplated oy the Commission's ex. pane rules. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(4). Because the 
declaratory ruling and the complaint proceedings raise the same issues, however, as a practical 
matter, we will be unable to do so if the complaint proceeding continues to be conducted as a 
restricted proceeding. Therefore, pursuant to Section 1.1200(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 
C.F.R. § 1.1200(a), we find, in this particular instance, that the public interest would be served 
by applying to both proceedings the "permit but disclose" ex pane rules applicable to non- 
restricted proceedings. Accordingly, this Public Notice establishes that both the formal 
complaint and the declaratory ruling proceedings are "permit but disclose" proceedings for 
purposes of the Commission's ex pane rules. See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200-1.1216.
Consistent with this Public Notice, all parties making ex pane presentations in either 
proceeding shall file any written ex pane presentations and summaries of oral ex pane 
presentations in both the declaratory ruling proceeding, CC Docket No. 96-149, and the formal 
complaint proceeding, File No. E-97-17.
Questions relating to the formal complaint may be directed to Sumita Mukhoty of the 
Enforcement Division, Common Carrier Bureau, at (202) 418-0960. The tbrmal complaint 
materials are available for inspection and copying in the Enforcement Division, Formal 
Complaints and Investigations Branch, Room 6120, 2025 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 
20554. Questions relating to MCI's petition for declaratory ruling may be directed to 
Christopher Heimann, Policy and Program Planning Division, Common Carrier Bureau, at (202) 
418-1580. The MCI petition for declaratory ruling, comments, and reply comments will be 
available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 
Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Copies can also be obtained from 
ITS at 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037, or by calling (202) 857-3800.
-FCC-
18047