******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



                         Before the
              Federal Communications Commission
                   Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of                  )
                                 )
Core Communications, Inc.,        )
                                 )
      Complainant,                )
                                 )
                v.                )   File No. EB-01-MD-007
                                 )
Verizon Maryland Inc.,            )
                                 )
       Defendant.                 )
                                 )



                            ORDER 


Adopted:  May 10, 2004                  Released:   May  11, 
2004

By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, 
Enforcement Bureau:

     1.        On March 21, 2001, Core Communications, Inc. 
(``Core'') filed a formal complaint1 against Verizon 
Maryland Inc. (``Verizon'') pursuant to section 208 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'').2  In its 
Complaint, Core alleged, inter alia, that Verizon violated 
section 251(c) of the Act.3  The Complaint requested that 
Commission staff bifurcate the proceeding pursuant to 
section 1.722(d) of the Commission's rules,4 and address 
liability issues prior to consideration of damages issues.5  

     2.        In the Liability Order, 6 the Commission 
granted the Complaint in part, finding that Verizon had 
violated section 251(c)(2)(D) of the Act.7  In accordance 
with Core's request that the proceeding be bifurcated, the 
Liability Order did not address the issue of damages.8

     3.        After the Liability Order was released, Core 
filed a Supplemental Complaint, pursuant to section 1.722 of 
the Commission's rules, seeking damages and interest.9  In 
addition, Verizon filed a Petition for Reconsideration10 of 
the Liability Order pursuant to section 405(a) of the Act.11    

     4.        Core and Verizon have now filed a Joint 
Motion requesting that the Complaint, the Supplemental 
Complaint, and the Petition be dismissed with prejudice.12  
Core and Verizon state in the Joint Motion that they have 
reached a mutually-acceptable resolution of the dispute 
between them.13

     5.        We are satisfied that dismissing the 
Complaint, the Supplemental Complaint, and the Petition with 
prejudice will serve the public interest by promoting the 
private resolution of disputes and by eliminating the need 
for further litigation and the expenditure of further time 
and resources of the parties and this Commission.

     6.         Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 
sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 208, 
sections 1.720-1.729 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 
1.720-1.729, and the authority delegated in section 0.111 
and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111 and 
0.311, that the Joint Motion IS GRANTED, that the Complaint, 
the Supplemental Complaint and the Petition ARE DISMISSED 
WITH PREJUDICE, and this proceeding is hereby terminated. 

                         
                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                                                      
Radhika V. Karmarkar
                                                      Deputy 
     Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division
                         Enforcement Bureau
_________________________

11   Formal  Complaint, File  No. EB-01-MD-007  (filed Mar. 
21, 2001) (``Complaint'').

2    47 U.S.C. § 208.

3    Complaint  at  8-9, ¶¶  27,  31  (citing 47  U.S.C.  § 
251(c)).

4    47 C.F.R. § 1.722(d).  

5    Complaint at 9-10, ¶ 33.  See 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(c).

6    Core  Communications, Inc.  v. Verizon  Maryland Inc., 
Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  18 FCC  Rcd  7962  (2003) 
(``Liability Order'')  at 7983,  ¶ 53, petition  for recon. 
pending. 

7    47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(2)(D). 

8    See Liability  Order, 18  FCC Rcd  at 7984  n.64.  See 
also 47 C.F.R. § 1.722(c).

9    Supplemental Complaint for Damages, File No. EB-01-MD-
007  (filed  July  21, 2003);  First  Amended  Supplemental 
Complaint for  Damages, File  No. EB-01-MD-007  (filed Aug. 
11, 2003) (collectively, ``Supplemental Complaint'').

10   Verizon's   Petition   for  Reconsideration   of   the 
Commission's Memorandum Opinion and  Order, File No. EB-01-
MD-007 (filed May 23, 2003) (``Petition'').

11   47 U.S.C. § 405(a).

12   Joint Motion  to Dismiss with Prejudice,  File No. EB-
01-MD-007 (filed May 7, 2004) (``Joint Motion'').

13   Joint Motion at 2.