WPC 2B/J Z CourierCourierTimes New RomanTimes New Roman ItalicX@HP LaserJet 5SiHPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\%MX@4  @-  -@#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#2KX0Z3|x w Roman"i~'^5>I\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>\>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\nBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\<?xxx,x6X@`7X@2a=5,u&a\  P6G;&Pk(N1+,N\  P6G;P2a=5,u&a\  P6G;&PHP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MXXN\  PXP2~ 0XvЫXN\  PXP(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX&G\  P&P\ `&3|x2KK 'yKF "i~'^+2;II{r222IR&2&)IIIIIIIIII))RRRAjaaj[Rjj28j[jjRjaR[jjjj[2)2CI2AIAIA2II))I)rIIII28)IIjIIAFFO2&OC222&222222I2I)jAjAjAjAjA_aA[A[A[A[A2)2)2)2)jIjIjIjIjIjIjIjIjIjIjAjIjHjIjIjIRIjAjAjAaAaAaOaAj\[A[A[A[AjIjIjIjOjIjOjI2)2I222IgROOjI[)[;[2[2[)jIWjIjIjIjIja2a2a2R8R8R8RO[>[)[CjIjIjIjIjIjIjjO[A[A[AjI[2jIR8[2jI\&II11WggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN5XX5CI2AIIIII)/ooI,/ooIo,22AAI22XIIXo5XX5WxxRR2AI{,"aaaaooIoXUOIRXXI"i~'^5>I\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>jaaj[Rjj28j[jjRjaR[jjjj[X%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>\>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\nBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\"i~'^5>M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\nBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\2Z<?xxx,x6X@`7X@2a=5,u&a\  P6G;&Pk(N1+,N\  P6G;P2a=5,u&a\  P6G;&P\0_=5,&_*f9 xr G;&XxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN5XX5CI2AIIIII)/ooI,/ooIo,22AAI22XIIXoX5WxxRR2AI{,"aaaaooIoXUOIRXXI2I2I) S'#&G\  Pu&P#U1United States Court of Appeals  S' FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUITă [DFiled February 23, 1999 dNo. 981291  S'International Telecard Association j#and WorldCom, Incorporated, dcPetitioners  SH ' v.  S '=Federal Communications Commission [#and United States of America,  SX'`Respondentsă ` `  hhCOn Petition for Rehearing  S' "Glenn B. Manishin and Christy C. Kunin were on the petition for rehearing, for petitioner International Telecard Association.  SB'Before: Ginsburg, Sentelle, and Rogers, Circuit Judges.  S'Opinion for the court filed Per Curiam. "0*0*0*"  S' "VPer Curiam: In Richman Bros. Records, Inc., v. Federal Communications Commission, 124 F.3d  x1302 (D.C. Cir. 1997), we dismissed a petition for review because the petitioners had not yet sought  xtreview of the agency order by the full Federal Communications Commission, as required by 47 U.S.C.  x 155(c)(7). The question presented in this case is whether judicial review can be obtained when  xCommission review has been sought, but not yet obtained. In other words, is the act of filing a request  xfor Commission review in itself sufficient to satisfy the judicial review prerequisites of  155(c)(7). We hold that it is not.  "The order under review in this petition was issued March 9, 1998, by the Chief of the FCC's  S' x^Common Carrier Bureau, Implementation of the Payphone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions  St' xof the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Order No. DA 98481, 13 FCC Rcd 4998 (Com. Car. Bur. 1998).  xThe order was issued pursuant to authority delegated by the full Commission to the Common Carrier  S& ' xBureau Chief. See 47 U.S.C.  155(c)(1); 47 C.F.R.  0.91 & 0.291. In April 1998, petitioners filed  xan application for full Commission review of the March 9 order, pursuant to 47 U.S.C.  155(c)(1) (orders  x*issued on authority delegated by the Commission "may be adopted, amended, or rescinded only by a vote  xof the majority of the members of the Commission then holding office"). Petitioners filed a petition for  xjudicial review in June 1998. The FCC moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because the full  xCommission had not yet resolved the application for administrative review. In an unpublished order filed September 15, 1998, we granted the FCC's motion and dismissed the petition for review.  "RPetitioner International Telecard Association (ITA) filed a petition for rehearing arguing that the  xtact of filing an application for Commission review satisfies the statutory prerequisite to judicial review,  xand that petitioners need not await the Commission's decision on review before petitioning this court.  xtITA's argument is based on the language of 47 U.S.C.  155(c)(7), which provides that "[t]he filing of  x an application for review [by the full Commission] shall be a condition precedent to judicial review of  xany order taken pursuant to"  W&X delegated authority, but does not explicitly require a petitioner to await the Commission's disposition.  S' "[ITA's reading of  155(c)(7), however, conflicts with the reasoning of Richman Bros. The  S' xpetition at issue in Richman Bros. arose out of a primary jurisdiction referral from a district court to the  x/FCC's Common Carrier Bureau. We disallowed Richman's attempt to obtain judicial review of the  S4' xresulting staff decision without first seeking Commission review. Richman Bros. rejected the claim that  x7 155(c)(7)'s "exhaustion requirement" is inapplicable to primary jurisdiction referrals, reasoning that "the  xCongress did not intend that the court review a staff decision that has not been adopted by the  S' xCommission itself." Id., 124 F.3d at 1304. The Richman Bros. reasoning applies equally to the situation  xppresented here. Because ITA's interpretation of  155(c)(7) would permit judicial review of a staff  Sp' xdecision before the Commission has "adopted, amended, or rescinded" that decision, see  155(c)(1), it must be rejected.  "uLest there be any misunderstanding, we expressly hold that a petition for review filed after a  xbureau decision but before resolution by the full Commission is subject to dismissal as incurably  xpremature. Ongoing agency review renders an order nonfinal for purposes of judicial review, and a  S#' xDpetition for review of the order is incurably premature. Cf. BellSouth Corp. v. FCC, 17 F.3d 1487, 1490  x(D.C. Cir. 1994) (while party's request for agency reconsideration remains pending, petition for judicial  S4%' xreview incurably premature); Wade v. FCC, 986 F.2d 1433, 1434 (D.C. Cir. 1993) ("danger of wasted judicial effort ... attends the simultaneous exercise of judicial and agency reconsideration"). Because ITA's petition for review was properly dismissed, we deny the petition for rehearing.