WPCU 2MBKRK Z"|jT X* X #XP\  P6QXP#"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN %<"|PSTimes New RomanTimes New Roman Bold#XP\  P6Q DXP#Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic P6Q,,N"\P2,vppkVka8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# 2^vya2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersC @` A. ` ` (#` 2   ;  a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h 2"   y Ra6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers h` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p a1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  2Tba5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   2]Qa4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . 23e+Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNj<<<@jHHHH((>><8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""dYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCddddddd<d<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd2U\M@uR% y.X80,H;X\  P6G;P7jC:,Xj\  P6G;XP7nC:,kXn4  pG;Xy.\80, \4  pG;W!@(#,8h@\  P6G;hPH5!,8,5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,%W*f9 xr G;X\5hC:,% Xh*f9 xr G;XX z-X80,<X9 xOG;6jC:,<M*Xj9 xOG;X.7UC2XoxXU4  pQX.y.G8*XoG4  pQW!0(X h0\  P6QhP5PC2X9EXP*f9 xQXXlz-E8*XE9 xyQl6RC2X>BXR9 xyQX"5@^2Nodd8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdNdzzozzzC8CrdCddYdYCdo88d8odddNN8oYdYNF,Fr2CC!CCPRCdddddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddoooozYddddzYdzddddYYYYYYddddooPdNdNCNdddz8zRoodNRoNoNNF2ddNdddddd5section 1.1206 of the rules. Ex parte presentations are generally permissible in such proceedings, subject  {O-  to certain disclosure requirements. See 47 C.F.R.  1.1206. Formal complaint actions initiated pursuant to  {O-  Lsection 208 of the Act, on the other hand, are "restricted" under section 1.1208. Ex parte presentations are   >expressly prohibited in such proceedings, unless certain exemptions specified in section 1.1204(b) apply.  {O--See 47 C.F.R.  1.1204(b) and 1.1208.(#4 The Bureau declared the tariff investigation "restricted"  X - xfor purposes of the Commission's ex parte rules, effectively requiring that any pleading or other  xMwritten presentation filed in connection with either the tariff investigation or any one of the  x.complaint actions be served by the submitting party on all parties to the tariff investigation as  xwell as on all parties to the various formal complaint actions. The Bureau's ruling ensured that  xzall parties to the tariff investigation and the complaint proceedings were fully apprised of all  xinformation and arguments presented to the Commission regarding the reasonableness of the  XQ-defendant BOCs' special access tariffs in comparison with the SNFAs.Q yO !-  ԍXxFor example, in September 1989, the Bureau issued a "Protective Order" which contemplated that documents   zand information properly subject to discovery requests in a particular SNFArelated complaint proceeding   \would be disclosed to any party of record in the tariff investigation and all other SNFArelated complaint  {Ox#-  >proceeding under specified terms and conditions. See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Bell Telephone  {OB$-Company of Pennsylvania, et al., 4 FCC Rcd 6767 (Com.Car.Bur. 1989).(#Ǝ ":,))qq "Ԍ X- ` ox 10.` ` In January 1990, MCI filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental reply to the  X- xidirect cases presented by the BOCs and AT&T.i yOb-ԍXxMCI Supplemental Reply (filed January 12, 1990).(#i The Commission later determined that because  xthe BOCs and AT&T submitted in their replies a substantial amount of new data and information  xrelevant to the comparison of SNFAs and special access functions and rates, and relevant to  xMCI's exhibits and rate comparisons, accepting MCI's supplemental reply would ensure a  X-balanced record in the proceeding.$X yO-ԍxThe Bureau further noted that much of the information in the BOC and AT&T replies could have been  yO^ -xpresented in the supplemental direct cases. Investigation of Special Access Tariffs of Local Exchange  {O& -xCarriers, CC Docket 85166, Phase I, Tentative Decision, 8 FCC Rcd 1059, 1061 (1993) ("Tentative  {O -xDecision").  X_- ` x 11.` ` On February 16, 1993, the Commission issued a Tentative Decision based on its  XJ- xreview of the record developed on remand in the tariff investigation.BJD {O?-ԍXxId.(#B With regard to the first  X3- xissue specified by the court in the SNFA Remand Order, whether some SNFA facilities are "like  x\special access," the Commission performed a lengthy analysis of the record and tentatively  xconcluded that "1647 [of the SNFAs at issue] or 18.4 percent of all BOC transmission SNFAs  X - x[are 'like' special access."\  {Ow-  ԍXxId. at 1073. In emphasizing the tentative nature of its conclusions, the Commission noted that it may be   "possible to refine the analysis and improve the results, for example, by additional record evidence on the  {O -precise number of interLATA and piecepart SNFAs." Id.(#Ɔ In addressing the second issue remanded by the court, whether the  xspecial access tariffs are discriminatory in comparison to rates for "like" SNFAs, the Commission  xtentatively concluded that "MCI had presented some evidence that SNFA lease charges were  xlower than equivalent rates for 'like' special access channels, both overall and in some but not  X- xall specific cases."s   {O?-  MԍXxId. at 1078. This tentative conclusion was based largely on studies submitted by MCI. MCI's Opposition   to Supplemental Direct Cases (filed November 13, 1989). The Commission noted that while the BOCs and   AT&T were critical of MCI's analysis of the special access rates that AT&T would have paid for channels   equivalent to SNFA facilities, neither the BOCs nor AT&T had provided an alternative method for rate  {Oa-comparisons. Tentative Decision, 8 FCC Rcd at 1073. (#s With regard to the third and final remand issue, whether the differences in  x-charges between "like" transmission SNFAs and special access are unjust and unreasonable, the  xCommission tentatively concluded, as it had in the initial order, that the discriminatory SNFA  XO-rates "are justified as a transitional program."K!O {O"-ԍXxId. at 1079.(#K  X!- ` x 12.` ` The Commission emphasized in the Tentative Decision that, while the record on  x-remand had enabled it to establish a test for determining when SNFA and special access facilities  X- xare "like," additional comment would be useful as to other issues.K"@ {O'-ԍXxId. at 1080.(#K Accordingly, the Commission"",))qq"  xsought comment on the "(1) the general sufficiency of the record and the tentative analyses  xxundertaken thus far to satisfy the terms of remand, and (2) possible supplemental exhibits directed  X-to improving the record, including BOC rate comparisons."# {OK-  ԍXxId. We also rejected arguments by several BOCs challenging the Bureau's decision to allow evidence in  {O-  zthe parallel section 208 complaint proceedings to be admitted in the tariff investigation. Id. at 1061; see  {O-  [MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, et al., 4 FCC Rcd 6767,   l6768 (Com.Car.Bur. 1989). We ruled that the information adduced in the complaint proceedings was   "clearly relevant" to the resolution of the issues in the tariff investigation and including the information in   the record of the tariff investigation would best serve the interests of justice and the purposes of the tariff  {O -investigation. Tentative Decision, 8 FCC Rcd at 1061. (#Ƣ  X- ` x 13.` ` In response to the Tentative Decision, the BOCs and AT&T submitted  xsupplemental direct cases. Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, NYNEX, and US West all provided  Xx- xialternative rate disparity studies based on samplings of SNFAs in their respective service areas.$Xx yO9-  ԍXxBell Atlantic Second Supplemental Direct Case, Attachment C, filed April 16, 1993; BellSouth Second   Supplemental Direct Case, Exhibits 2 and 3, filed April 16, 1993; NYNEX Second Supplemental Direct Case at pp. 1112, filed April 16, 1993; US West Second Supplemental Direct Case, filed April 16, 1993. (#Ə  x{Ameritech, PacTel, Southwestern, and AT&T, using the MCI studies as a starting point,  XJ- x.submitted adjustments to correct for what they characterized as errors in MCI's submission.%ZJ0  {O+-  ?ԍXxSee Ameritech Second Supplemental Direct Case, Attachment A, filed April 16, 1993; Pactel Second   Supplemental Direct Case at pp. 34, filed April 16, 1993; Southwestern Bell Second Supplemental Direct Case at 1617, filed April 16, 1993; AT&T Second Supplemental Direct Case, filed April 16, 1993. (#Ƌ  X3- x-MCI, US Sprint, Metromedia, and Wiltel filed oppositions to the supplemental direct cases,K&X3R  yO6-  MԍXxMCI Second Supplemental Opposition, filed May 17, 1993; US Sprint Second Supplemental Oppositions,   filed May 17, 1993; Metromedia Second Supplemental Oppositions, filed May 17, 1993; WilTel Second Supplemental Oppositions, filed May 17, 1993.(#K and  X -AT&T and the BOCs filed replies to the oppositions.V' r yO?-  ԍXxAT&T Second Supplemental Reply (filed June 17, 1993); Ameritech Second Supplemental Reply (filed June   17, 1993); Bell Atlantic Second Supplemental Reply (filed June 17, 1993); BellSouth Second Supplemental   Reply (filed June 17, 1993); NYNEX Second Supplemental Reply (filed June 17, 1993); PacTel Second   Supplemental Reply (filed June 17, 1993); Southwestern Bell Second Supplemental Reply (filed June 17, 1993); US West Second Supplemental Reply (filed June 17, 1993).(#V  X - ` `x 14.` ` On February 14, 1997, we issued a final decision on the issues specified by the  X - xcourt in the SNFA Remand Order. As discussed thoroughly in our Tariff Investigation MO&O,  xwe analyzed issues remanded by the court based on the voluminous record compiled in the tariff  X - xinvestigation and the parallel Section 208 complaint proceedings.K(& " yO~$-  ԍXxThe consolidated record of this sixyear proceeding contains well over 165,000 pages of pleadings and  {OF%-  exhibits submitted in response to the SNFA Filing Requirements Order, the Tentative Decision, and in the  {O&-  various complaint proceedings. See,e.g., Attachment A to Tariff Investigation MO&O; Tariff Investigation  {O&-MO&O at VII. D ("Commingling" of Evidence); Tentative Decision, 8 FCC Rcd at 1061. (#K We placed particular  xemphasis on the supplemental filings submitted by the parties in response to the tentative analyses"(,))qq"  X- x<and conclusions set forth in the Tentative Decision. As an initial matter, we held that the SNFAs  X- x=are not a common carrier offering and thus not subject to regulation under Title II of the Act.k) {Od-ԍXxTariff Investigation MO&O at paras. 1424. (#kNOT COMMON CARRIER  X- xNonetheless, we assumed, arguendo, that SNFAs are subject to regulation under Title II and  X- x[applied the threepronged discrimination analysis mandated by the court in the SNFA Remand  X- xOrder.`*Z {O-ԍxSee SNFA Remand Order, 842 F.2d at 1303. ` As discussed in detail in the Tariff Investigation MO&O, we determined that the BOCs  xmhad made persuasive showings that their special access rates were not unreasonably  X~- x=discriminatory, in comparison to the SNFAs within the meaning of Section 202(a) of the Act.g+~ {O -ԍXxTariff Investigation MO&O at para. 205. (#g  xKSpecifically, we found that slightly less than 20 percent of the transmission SNFAs at issue could  xbe considered "like" special access channels for purposes of section 202(a) and that a rate  X9- xdisparity of at most $29.1 million existed between these "like" services.V,9~ {Oh-ԍXxId. at paras. 92, 167. (#V We concluded,  xhowever, that $6.7 million of the rate disparity was reasonable because of the administrative cost  xidifferences between the provision of special access and SNFA administration. We found that the  xremaining $22.4 million rate disparity was justified as a transition mechanism from a  x.monopolistic market to a competitive one and, therefore, was not unreasonably discriminatory  X - xwithin the meaning of Section 202(a).Y-  {O-ԍXxId. at paras. 182186. (#Y In addition, we found that the rate disparity could be at  xleast partially justified by (1) AT&T's retained leasehold property rights in the SNFA facilities  X- xit rented; (2) the "turnkey" feature of special access service that was nonexistent with SNFAs, i.e.,  xspecial access was an integrated service, while AT&T had to combine several piecepart SNFA  xjfacilities to obtain something like special access; (3) the BOCs' right to preempt AT&T's use of  XU-SNFA facilities; and (4) differences in service quality between SNFAs and special access.d.U {O-ԍxTariff Investigation MO&O at paras. 187205. d  X>- T  X'- III. DISCUSSION ă  X- ` `x15.` ` Our determination in the Tariff Investigation MO&O that the defendant BOCs'  xspecial access rates were not unreasonably discriminatory under Section 202(a) of the Act  x0effectively disposes of the discrimination claims alleged in each of the abovecaptioned  xcomplaints. As we noted above, many of the complaints were filed "contingent" on the outcome  X- xof the tariff investigation.l/4  {O$-ԍXxSee n. CONTINGENT21, supra. (#l Moreover, all of the complainants were afforded ample opportunity  X- xto submit evidence, arguments, and comments in the tariff investigation. Our Tentative Decision  xiinvited all parties, including the complainants, to address the Commission's tentative findings and  xconclusions, as well as to bolster their claims regarding the lawfulness of the defendants' tariffed"\ /,))qq0"  X- xspecial access rates under Section 202(a) of the Act.0 yOy-ԍXxWe note that two of the complainants, MCI and US Sprint, actively participated in the tariff investigation.(#Ƥ Accordingly, no further proceedings on  X- xthe discrimination issue under Section 208 of the Act are required.1X yO-  ԍXxSection 208 of the Act gives the Commission the authority "to investigate matters complained of in such   manner and by such means as it shall deem proper." 47 U.S.C.  208. The Bureau's rulings contemplating   Lfurther complaint proceedings after conclusion of the tariff investigation was necessary since the Bureau had   to account for the possibility that the defendants special access rates might be found unlawful visavis the   SNFAs under Section 202(a) of the Act. In such event, further proceedings would have been required with respect to each complainants' claim for damages. (# Nor do the separate claims  X- x<raised by certain of the complainants which were not addressed in the Tariff Investigation Order  X- xKwarrant further proceedings under section 208. We address each of these additional claims in the  xparagraphs that follow. We will therefore lift the stay orders issued by the Bureau and dispose of each of the pending complaints.  Xx-  Xa- ` Qx16.` ` Alleged Violations of Section 211(a). Certain complainants allege that some or  XJ- xall of the defendant BOCs and AT&T violated Section 211(a) of the Act*2J yO-  ԍXx47 U.S.C.  211(a). This section provides, in part, that "[e]very carrier . . . shall file with the Commission copies of all contracts, agreements, or arrangements with other carriers . . . in relation to any traffic. . ."(#* by failing to file the  xSNFA contracts with the Commission. These complainants allege that the defendants entered into  xjSNFA agreements in 198385, but did not file these agreements with the Commission until June  X - x1989, when ordered by the Commission in the SNFA Filing Requirements Order.3 (  yO-  ԍXxThe following complainants raised this Section 211(a) allegation: MCI (File Nos. 8988110); ClarkBader,  yO-  Inc. (File No.E89140); Action Telecom Co. (File No. E89143); Litel Telecommunications Corp. (File   .Nos. E89147165); Advanced Telecommunications Corp. (File Nos. E89278296); RCI Corp. (File Nos.   E89318339); Total Tel USA (File No. E89359); Telecom*USA, Inc. (File Nos. E90134155); MLD Holdings, Inc. (File Nos. E90365387); and Burlington Telephone Co. (File Nos. E90456457). (#Ɗ Complainants  x<allege that SNFAs are within the scope of "carriertocarrier" contracts that, under Section 211(a),  X - xmust be filed with the Commission when entered.=4  {Ob-  MԍXxSee e.g., ClarkBader Complaint  at 7 (File No. E89140; Action Telecom Co. Complaint at 7 (File No.  {O,-E89143); and Litel Telecommunications Corp. Complaint at 10 (File Nos. E89147 through E89165). (#= Accordingly, complainants argue that  xmdefendants violated Section 211(a) and are thus liable for damages on the theory that  X - xcomplainants would have claimed a right to the presumably more favorable SNFA rates.B5 4 {O -ԍXxId.(#B  xDefendants that filed answers deny any Section 211(a) violation for failure to file SNFAs. These  xjdefendants assert that Section 211(a) does not mandate the filing of every SNFA schedule and  x=that defendants promptly and fully complied with the Commission's request for SNFA material  XO-when asked to do so.6O {O%-  /ԍXxSee, e.g., Southern Central Bell Telephone Co. Answer at 4 (File No. E89290); Illinois Bell Telephone  {O&-Co. Motion to Dismiss at 20 (File No. E89278). (# "8 "6,))qqf"Ԍ X- ` x17.` ` Discussion. We find no merit to the complainants' claims that certain defendants  X- xviolated Section 211(a) of the Act. As the Court noted in the SNFA Remand Order, these  xyagreements stemmed from resolution of the antitrust settlement and not out of the defendants'  X- xobligations as carriers.7 {O6-  ԍXxSee SNFA Remand Order, 842 F.2d at 1300 n.8. The court acknowledged the section 211(a) issue but   kdeferred to the Commission's interpretation that "section 211(a)'s filing requirement does not encompass  {O-  [courtapproved assetsharing agreements necessitated by an antitrust settlement . . . ." Id. The court stated   that it was not surprised that the Commission treated SNFAs differently than privately negotiated intercarrier   =agreements because SNFAs resulted from the AT&T antitrust settlement, which covered matters beyond the  {O" -compass of the Commission's jurisdiction under the Act. Id.(# Accordingly, the defendants were under no obligation to file copies of  X-their agreements until the Commission directed them to do so in 1989.U8F {O -  ԍXxIn the Tariff Investigation MO&O, the Commission found, as a threshold matter, that SNFAs are not a  {Og -common carrier offering, and thus, not subject to regulation under Title II of the Act. See n. NOT COMMON CARRIER41, supra.(#U  Xx- ` 5x18.` ` Alleged Conspiracy to Violate Sections 201(b) and 202(a). A number of  x[complainants further allege, without affidavits or other evidentiary support, that the BOCs and  XJ- xAT&T conspired to violate the just and reasonable provisions of Sections 201(b)"9J yO-  =ԍXx47 U.S.C.  201(b). This section states, in part, that "[a]ll charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with [interstate] communication service, shall be just and reasonable . . . ." (#" and 202(a) of  xthe Act by secretly agreeing to thousands of unreasonably low SNFA rates during preparations  X - x?for divestiture when the BOCs were still subsidiaries under the control of AT&T.:  yO-  kԍXxThe following complainants allege conspiracyrelated violations: MCI (File Nos. E8988 through E89  110); ClarkBader, Inc. (File No. E89140); Action Telcom Co., File No. E89143); Litel   =Telecommunications Corp. (File Nos. E89147 through E89165); Advanced Telecommunications Corp.    (File Nos. E89278 through E89296); Total Tel USA (File No. E89359); Telecom*USA, Inc. (File   ]Nos. E90134 through E90155); MLD Holdings, Inc. (File Nos. E90365 through E90387); and Burlington Telephone Co. (File Nos. E90456 and E90457). (#ƹ The  xdefendants deny these conspiracy allegations and further contend that the allegations fail to state  X -a cognizable claim under the Act.b;\ r {O-  lԍXxSee, e.g., Illinois Bell Telephone Co. Answer at 7, Motion to Dismiss at 19 (File No. E89278); New  {O-  Jersey Bell Telephone Co. Answer at 2 (File No. E89359); Pacific Bell Telephone Co. Answer  at 5, (File No. E89140).(#b  X - ` qx19.` ` Discussion. Anticonspiracy statutes typically require a combination or  x[confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint  X- xZefforts, some unlawful or criminal act.p< {O#-ԍXxSee, e.g., 18 U.S.C.  371; 15 U.S.C.  1. (#p We need not decide whether, as defendants contend, the  xcomplainants' conspiracy allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We  xhave already determined that the defendants did not violate the Act in connection with the special  XM- xyaccess tariffs and SNFAs at issuec=M( {O&(-ԍxSee Tariff Investigation MO&O at para. 205. c and have no evidence on this record indicating that AT&T"M =,))qqg"  X- xand the BOCs deliberately attempted to establish a discriminatory program.P> {Oy-ԍxSee id. at paras. 2205. P In the absence of  x such evidence, we have no basis on which to consider complainants' further allegations of conspiracy.  X-} IV. CONCLUSION ă  Xv- ` Px20.` ` For the foregoing reasons, we lift the stays issued by the Common Carrier Bureau  xin the abovecaptioned complaint proceedings. Consistent with our findings and conclusions in  XH- xthe Tariff Investigation MO&O, we deny each of the complaints insofar as the complainants  xLallege that the defendants violated sections 202(a), 201(b), and 211(a) of the Act in connection  X -with the special access tariffs and SNFAs at issue.<? Z {O' -ԍxId. <  X -  X -6V. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  X - ` x21.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 208 of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 208, that the Orders issued by  X-the staff holding the abovecaptioned formal complaints in abeyance @h  {O/-  .ԍXxSee MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Bell Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania, 4 FCC Rcd 8227 (Com.Car.Bur.  {O-  ]1989); ClarkBader, Inc. v. Pacific Bell Telephone, 4 FCC Rcd 8783 (Com.Car.Bur. 1989); US Sprint  {O-  zCommunications Co. v. Bell Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania, et al., 5 FCC Rcd 446 (Com.Car.Bur. 1990);  {O-  RCI Corp. v. Bell Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania, et al., 5 FCC Rcd 447 (Com.Car.Bur. 1990); Total Tel  {OW-  !USA v. New Jersey Bell Telephone Co., 5 FCC Rcd 448 (Com.Car.Bur. 1990); WTGWest et al. v. Bell  {O!-  zTelephone Co. of Pennsylvania, et al., 5 FCC Rcd 1356 (Com.Car.Bur. 1990); Telesphere Network, Inc. v.  {O-  Bell Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania, et al., Notice of Formal Complaint, File Nos. E9090 through E9099,  {O-  (Com.Car.Bur. dated January 22, 1990); MidAmerican Long Distance Co. v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co.,  {O-  \et al.,  Notice of Formal Complaint, File Nos. E90100 through E90104, (Com.Car.Bur. dated January  {OI-  23, 1990); One Call Communications, Inc. v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co., et al.,  Notice of Formal  {O-  Complaint, File Nos. E90111 through E90112 (Com.Car.Bur. dated February 12, 1990); Telecom*USA,  {O-  [Inc., v. Bell Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania, et al., Notice of Formal Complaint, File Nos. E90134 through  {O-  E90155, (Com.Car.Bur. dated May 2, 1990); MLD Holdings, Inc. and Its Subsidiaries v. Bell Telephone  {Oq-  Co. of Pennsylvania, et al., Notice of Formal Complaint, File Nos. E90365 through E90379,  {O;-  >(Com.Car.Bur. dated July 3, 1990); Burlington Telephone Co. v. New England Telephone and Telegraph  {O -  =Co., et al., Notice of Formal Complaint, File Nos. E90456 through E9057, (Com.Car.Bur. dated October  yO -22, 1990). (# ARE HEREBY LIFTED.  Xd- ` x22.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all motions filed in each of the complaints listed in the Attachments to this Memorandum Opinion and Order ARE DISMISSED as moot. "6 @,))qq"  X- ` x23.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each complaint listed in the Attachments to this Memorandum Opinion and Order IS DENIED and each proceeding IS TERMINATED. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhWilliam F. Caton x` `  hhActing Secretary " @,))qq"  X-    X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: