WPC$- 2BJ Z Courier#|d]BoldUnivers6X@`7@HP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4d  @8;\_)^@2n6F*D#|d]CourierCourier BoldRM 149HPLA4MPC.PRSd  @8;\IZ@X01Í ÍX01Í ÍCourierCourier BoldUniversUnivers Bold2!Xf lZ0<r5ddd,Oed6X@`7@s4ddd,鑡d `7 t.s==,(&sxP7&P$ .t==,`&tps7&iiiiiiii~fbjii~fimicrcccrryjcrrrrjcjrrrrrr3,rrrr4nXrrzrc,c>rrcBc,j}jrjruBuBuru\u\u\urrIrBrrijrrji~rnXnXnXrrrrurrr~fy=\\===WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN\rr=_ffrrsKKrFF\\rF==\\sDDsspp\\\~pp=\\F"\a\4 \==m=\rfs\=s\siwbzpNm\QQ====fsbf\biUpNib3,z\_ffsNiimbmmQsU~bX~i=s~~bf~~==sssssss~~~=i\Q=Tgnj}}ccyyTjcc;T;TXFu",tB^ f ^==\rr===r====rrrrrrrrrr==_rif3fzbmuur~n===\\=bibibBii,,b,iiii@\BifffXQ\Qr4rrrrr=rrrrrr\rn,bbbbbbibibibib3,3,3,3,iiiiiiiii~fbjii~fimicrcccrryjcrrrrjcjrrrrrr3,rrrr4nXrrzrc,c>rrcBc,j}jrjruBuBuru\u\u\urrIrBrrijrrji~rnXnXnXrrrrurrr~fy=\\===WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN\rr=_ffrrsKKrFF\\rF==\\sDDsspp\\\~pp=\\F"\a\4 \==m=\rfs\=s\siwbzpNm\QQ====fsbf\biUpNib3,z\_ffsNiimbmmQsU~bX~i=s~~bf~~==sssssss~~~=i\Q=Tgnj}}ccyyTjcc;T;TXFu"i~'K2^%%7DDnT%%%Dn%%%%DDDDDDDDDD%%nnn9nQDMO?=QO=I;cOTAVFFDOOnOKB%%%77%;?;?;(??;_????'7(?=_==5171nDDDDDD%DDDDDD7DBQ;Q;Q;Q;Q;l\M;?;?;?;?;O?T?T?T?T?O?O?O?O?K=Q;O@T?T?K=O?A?Q;QDQ;M;M;MDMDOI@;DDDD@;Q@QDQDQDQDODODDDDDBY5DDID;;%DD;(;O@KO@ODT@TDndF(F(FDF7F7F7FDD,D(DDO?O@ODODO@O?n_KDB5B5B5ODDDODFDDDK=I%77%%%WnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNOOO7DD%9==DDjE--nnD**77Dn*%%77En))nnEECCTn7n7O7KffCCn%77jn*"nnnnOOnnn7Onn:OOnnnnn7nnnnnn7%%nnnnnOAnnOOOOOOOOOO%n7QD=EnnOnQ7%EO7E?OVGnnOOOOOOOOOOnnnnn;nOOOOnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnOOnnnnnn\ICVnOnnn/AOOOOnnnnnnOOO7OOnOOnnnOOO1OOOO1OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO%OOO%OOO%OOO%OOOOOOOOOOOOOQ=E;=7Q;?3C/O?T;I7Q9d=O=E/T?O?A;AA1E3K;ZMO5XKQTQ?O%ETKKQ;=TKKQ%%EEEEQOEEEKKKQ%?71%nnr}c3wc}}yMMc>Bwgwgcccccc@XKKgg;;c\\\{I\waaIZQQOMXacccujygggpeyuVrQjQcccc3Qlc@uuccc;;ccccccccccccccccccccccnnnnnnnn#3#cccccj3cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccrrrrnnnnnnnnnnXXccccccllccVVVVuuccaaaaccZZuZVVVV5*FVcc<r5ddd,Oed6X@`7@s4ddd,鑡d `7 t.s==,(&sxP7&P$ u.t==,`&tps7& RE%%,:JExP7JP( ( ( (  Z Z Z @F2f ! Z"-",tB^ f ^==_rr===r====rrrrrrrrrr==_rif3fzbmuur~n===\\=bibibBii,,b,iiii@\BifffX\\\r3rrrrr=rrrrrr\rn,bbbbbbibibibib3,3,3,3,iiiiiiiii~fbjii~fimicrcccrrjcrrrrjcjrrrrrr3,rrrr3nXrrzrc,cIrrcHc3jjrjruBuBuru\u\u\urrTrBrrijrrji~rnXnXnXrrrrurrr~f=\\===WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN\rr=_ffrrsKKrFG\\rF==\\sDDsspp\\\~pp=\\F"\f\4 \==p=\rmsX=sfsi~\zpNm\\\====ismf\ii\pUip30z\\mfXipmipwUsU~mfi=s~~iw~==sssssss~~~=p\Q=Tgnj}}ccyyTjcc;T;TXFu O-Ԋ   #&sxP7(&P#$// Ord. on Recon., AT&T v. MCI, File No. E89297, FCC 94353 //$ $/ 47 U.S.C.  208 Complaints to the Commission,  409 Provisions relating to Proceedings Witnesses and Depositions /$ ` ` Ghh}pp!X    O`-7 Before the f 1FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  O-tWashington, D.C. 20554 ă ` `  Ghh}pp!X  xx  O-#&sxP7(&P#In the Matter of Ghh}) ` ` Ghh})  Op-AT&T COMMUNICATIONS,hh}) ` ` Ghh})  O -Complainants,G hh})pp!X  xx (#(#2` `  Ghh})  O -` ` v. Ghh}) File No. E89297 ` ` Ghh})  O -MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION,) ` ` Ghh})  O0-Defendant. Ghh})  O-^ ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION ă ` `  Adopted: December 28, 1994; Released: February 10, 1995 By the Commission:  O- (#/` ` 1. MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI), pursuant to Section 1.106 of  O- c) the Commission's rules, requests reconsideration" O0-#&sxP7(&P#эXMCI Petition for Reconsideration, E89297, filed June 1, 1993 (MCI Petition). (#Ư of the Commission's findingX01Í ÍX01Í Íhd O-  a&ԍXAT&T Communications v. MCI Telecomunications Corp., Memorandum Opinion and  O-Order, 8 FCC Rcd 3202 (1993) (Order). (# that MCI  c) !violated Section 203 of the Communications Act (the "Act"), as interpreted by the court in  Ox-AT&T v. FCC.X01Í ÍX01Í Íxd O-ԍXAT&T v. FCC, 978 F.2d 727 (D.C. Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 3020 (1993). (#Ɯ  O(- (#0` ` 2. MCI argues that the Commission should reconsider its finding that MCI  c) violated Section 203 because: (1) it is contrary to the Commission's decision in CC Docket  O- c)f!No. 9213 which reaffirmed and codified its permissive detariffing rules;X01Í ÍX01Í Í$8d O#- a&ԍXSee Tariff Filing Requirements for Interstate Common Carriers, CC Docket No. 9213,  O$- a&7 FCC Rcd 8072 (1992)(Rulemaking Order), stayed, 7 FCC Rcd 7989 (1992), rev'd,  O%- a&AT&T v. FCC, Order Nos. 921628 and 921666 (D.C.Cir. June 4, 1993), aff'd sub  O&- a&-nom. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. AT&T, Nos. 93356 and 93521 (U.S. June 17, 1994).(#$ and (2) it is based" 0*0*0*"  c) on a court decision that was still subject to further judicial review at the time MCI filed its  O-petition.Mb O@-ԍXMCI Petition at 23.(#M MCI contends the Commission's finding of a violation was premature and  O8- c)"unnecessary for purposes of conducting the remand proceeding ordered by the Court in AT&T  O-v. FCC.X01Í ÍX01Í ÍJh~ O -ԍXId. at 3. (#J   O-  (#` ` 3. In its Opposition, AT&T notes that on June 4, 1993, the court summarily  O- c)"reversed the Commission's Rulemaking Order as contrary to Section 203.~ O@ - a&ԍXAT&T Opposition to MCI's Petition for Reconsideration at 2, E 89297, filed June 11, 1993. (#ơ AT&T argues that  Op- c)although the AT&T v. FCC decision may be subject to further judicial review, that  OH -circumstance alone does not relieve agencies of their obligation to obey a Court's mandate.HH ~ Oh-ԍXId. at 2.(#H  O -  (#` ` 4. We deny MCI's petition. Its arguments are baseless. First, the Commission  O - c)"was required to apply the Court's mandate in AT&T v. FCC regardless of the views expressed  O - c)e"in the Rulemaking Order (which, in any event, the Commission had stayed in light of the AT&T  O - c) v. FCC decision). Second, the fact that the AT&T v. FCC decision was subject to possible  OX- c)t"further Supreme Court review did not effect its enforceability in the interim.g X ~ O-ԍXSee Sup. Ct. R. 23; Fed. R. App. P. 41.(#g In any event, the  c)t"Supreme Court has denied certiorari of that decision and recently the Court affirmed the Court  O- c)+ of Appeals' reversal of our Rulemaking Order.<  ~ Oh-  a&yԍXAT&T v. FCC, 978 F.2d 727 (D.C. Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 3020 (1993);  O@- a&yMCI Telecommunications Corp. v. AT&T, Nos. 93356 and 93521 (U.S. June 17,  O-1994).  (#< Our prior decision was appropriate, and timely.   (#` ` 5. We note, however, that, although it is now settled that MCI is required under  c)!the Act to file tariffs, it was the Commission itself that earlier determined that MCI and other  c) nondominant carriers need not file tariffs. Subsequent judicial rulings have overturned the  c))"Commission's determinations on this issue, and we have no choice but to reaffirm that MCI's  O-failure to file tariffs violated the Communications Act. ` ~ O$-  a&ԍXOur decision is without prejudice to the issues and arguments raised by MCI in its  a&Ypending petition for declaratory ruling that nondominant carriers will not be held liable  OP&-  a&for damages for tariff filing violations that predated the court's ruling. See MCI Petition For Declaratory Ruling, Enf. 9402, filed March 8, 1993. (# X"8 0*(("Ԍ  a&6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 208, and 409 of the  c) Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  4(i), 208, 409 and Section 1.106 of the  c)I Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, that the petition for reconsideration filed by MCI Telecommunications Corporation IS DENIED. ` ` Ghh}FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` ` Ghh}William F. Caton ` ` Ghh}Acting Secretary