WPCD 2 BJZCourier3|j x6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5SiHPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\'^X@ e4#B7  PT6Q P#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#XP7  PT6Q|XP#2<MXf i CourierCG Times"i~'K2^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoYi{xxxl888SS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS>A.SSxSSJJSJS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxIxSxIqIqIrSrS{dgIiSiSgIxSxSxSxSxS{S{S8.SSSS8Sz]SSuSg/g\4  pG;>;xxxXQ=x H@B @>,ZZZXQSZ H@B @ddddddddddddddddddddddNA.SSxSSJJSJS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxIxSxIqIqIrSrS{dgIiSiSgIxSxSxSxSxS{S{S8.SSSS8Sz]SSuSg/g!>"[?Bullet ListIndented Bullet List*M0 Y XX` ` (#` a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf $ a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf!/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf":` ` `  2B# @$@%gA&Ba4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf#E` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf$P  ` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf%[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf&f  2E' C(pC)qFD*eDa8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf'q 1 GL[\66OdDocument Style=(oD[ \*oDGL[$E(/0`  2 GL[]66OdDocument Style=(oD[ ]*oDGL[$E)1 2  . 3 GL[^66OdDocument Style=(oD[ ^*oDGL[$E* 34 2HG+eNE,E-pFF.F4 GL[_66OdDocument Style=(oD[ _*oDGL[$E+ 56 5 GL[`66OdDocument Style=(oD[ `*oDGL[$E,*78   6 GL[a66OdDocument Style=(oD[ a*oDGL[$E-9:`  7 GL[b66OdRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*oDGL[$E.8;<@    2I/zG0H1H2NI8 GL[c66OdRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*oDGL[$E/A=> @ `  `  9 GL[d66OdDocument Style=(oD[ d*oDGL[$E00? @     10GL[e66OdRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*oDGL[$E1JAB  ` @  `   11GL[f66OdRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*oDGL[$E2SCD  `  @   2;M3-J4J5K6jL12GL[g66OdRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*oDGL[$E3\EF  `   @ h# #h# 13GL[h66OdRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*oDGL[$E4eGH  `    h#@ ( h#(( 14GL[i66OdRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*oDGL[$E5nIJ  `    h# (@ - (-- 15GL[j66OdRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*oDGL[$E6wKL  `    h# ( -@ p2 -2p2 2O7mM8'N9N:1O16GL[k66OdDocument Style=(oD[ k*oDGL[$E7FMN *  ׃  17GL[l66OdTechnical Document Style[ l*oDGL[$E8&OP   . 18GL[m66OdTechnical Document Style[ m*oDGL[$E9&QR   . 19GL[n66OdTechnical Document Style[ n*oDGL[$E:*ST     2]R;O<P=(Q>Q20GL[o66OdTechnical Document Style[ o*oDGL[$E;'UV    21GL[p66OdTechnical Document Style[ p*oDGL[$E<&WX    22GL[q66OdTechnical Document Style[ q*oDGL[$E=4Y$Z      23GL[r66OdTechnical Document Style[ r*oDGL[$E>&[\   . 2%[?R@(SAm (P3Y Headline[66OdHeadline for newsletter[ *oDGL[$E$$ > }4Y  \9> (P5Y 2nd line Hea66Od2nd line headlineoD[ *oDGL[$E$$ b> }6Y  \9> (P7Y Graphics hea66OdHeadlines for graphics[ *oDGL[$E''  o> P}8Y  \9> (P9Y  2.gA NGraphics bod66Odchart data ?D=(oD[ *oDGL[$E''  Alo> P}:Y  \9> (P;Y  Article head66OdHeadline for new article[ *oDGL[$E'$ r"z<C   \9> (P=Y  endnote text66Odendnote textD=(oD[ *oDGL[$Eut X}xP>7  I2P?Q 54GL[66OdDefault Paragraph Font[ *oDGL[$E X}xP@7  &sxPA7 2`pqHEADING 966Od LG_?D=(oD[ *oDGL[$E04 <DL!T$ ]\  PBC  ]\  PCC HEADING 866Od LG_?D=(oD[ *oDGL[$E04 <DL!T$ ]\  PDC  ]\  PEC 55GL[66OdDocument Style=(oD[ *oDGL[$E`  56GL[66OdDocument Style=(oD[ *oDGL[$E   . 2~ee{p57GL[66OdDocument Style=(oD[ *oDGL[$E  58GL[66OdDocument Style=(oD[ *oDGL[$E  59GL[66OdDocument Style=(oD[ *oDGL[$E*     60GL[66OdDocument Style=(oD[ *oDGL[$E  `  2Bݺr61GL[66OdRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*oDGL[$E8 @    62GL[66OdRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*oDGL[$EA @ `  `  63GL[66OdDocument Style=(oD[ *oDGL[$E0      64GL[66OdRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*oDGL[$EJ  ` @  `   22Hj65GL[66OdRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*oDGL[$ES  `  @   66GL[66OdRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*oDGL[$E\  `   @ h# #h# 67GL[66OdRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*oDGL[$Ee  `    h#@ ( h#(( 68GL[66OdRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*oDGL[$En  `    h# (@ - (-- 2d5t69GL[66OdRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*oDGL[$Ew  `    h# ( -@ p2 -2p2 70GL[66OdDocument Style=(oD[ *oDGL[$EF  *  ׃  71GL[66OdTechnical Document Style[ *oDGL[$E&!"   . 72GL[66OdTechnical Document Style[ *oDGL[$E&#$   . 2+\73GL[66OdTechnical Document Style[ *oDGL[$E*%&     74GL[66OdTechnical Document Style[ *oDGL[$E''(    75GL[66OdTechnical Document Style[ *oDGL[$E&)*    76GL[66OdTechnical Document Style[ *oDGL[$E4+$,      2 Wc77GL[66OdTechnical Document Style[ *oDGL[$E&-.   . 78GL[66OdTechnical Document Style[ *oDGL[$E&/0   . 79GL[66OdLG_?D=(oD[ *oDGL[$E 1$24 <DL!T$ &n PF  &n PG 80GL[66Odfootnote referenceD[ *oDGL[$EO34 V\  PHU 2<81GL[66OdDefault Paragraph Font[ *oDGL[$E(5(682GL[66Odfootnote text=(oD[ *oDGL[$E5748??US83GL[66Odendnote referenceoD[ *oDGL[$EO9O: o\  PIC  ]\  PJC 84GL[66Od_Equation CaptionoD[ *oDGL[$EL;L< XX2PKQ  I2PLQ 2d!1dHIGHLIGHT 166OdItalics and Bold(oD[ *oDGL[$E=> DRAFT ON[66OdHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date*oDGL[$EO?@ X 81 o\  PMC T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T x6X@NK ` (#EDRAFTă ` (#>D3 1, 4D  1DRAFT OFF66OdTurn Draft Style off[ *oDGL[$EDAB    LETTER LAND66OdLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5 *oDGL[$ECD '3   2111)nZLEGAL LAND66OdLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5[ *oDGL[$EEF 'A   LETTER PORT66OdLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11[ *oDGL[$EGH 3'   LEGAL PORT66OdLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14[ *oDGL[$EIJ A'   TITLE[66OdTitle of a Document[ *oDGL[$EKL * ă2hd{jIBLOCK QUOTE66OdSmall, single-spaced, indented*oDGL[$EMN HIGHLIGHT 266OdLarge and Bold=(oD[ *oDGL[$EOP HIGHLIGHT 366OdLarge, Italicized and Underscored*oDGL[$E Q RLETTERHEAD66OdLetterhead - date/margins[ *oDGL[$EST X  3'    * 3' Ѓ   2`E88(INVOICE FEE66OdFee Amount for Math Invoice *oDGL[$EUV \, $0  MEMORANDUM66OdMemo Page Format(oD[ *oDGL[$EWX   * M E M O R A N D U M ă y<N dddy INVOICE EXP66OdExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice*oDGL[$EYZ ,p, $0INVOICE TOT66OdTotals Invoice for Math Macro*oDGL[$E[\ p,p, $023[[ [{INVOICE HEAD66OdHeading Portion of Math Invoice*oDGL[$E]^   p,X 9 8\  POC  XX ЂT I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T x6X@PK  XX  * $  ӧ   XX  8\  PQC  XX ЂT I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)TҲ x6X@RK  XX  * $SMALL[ 66OdSmall Typestyle=(oD[ *oDGL[$E_`FINEL[ 66OdFine Typestyle=(oD[ *oDGL[$EabLARGE[ 66OdLarge Typestyle=(oD[ *oDGL[$Ecd2[[cDEXTRA LARGE66OdExtra Large Typestyle[ *oDGL[$EefVERY LARGE66OdVery Large Typestyle[ *oDGL[$EghENVELOPE[66OdStandard Business Envelope with HeaderDGL[$Eij V,  X  , 8 8\  PSC   ЂT I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T x6X@TK     `   Style 14[66OdSwiss 8 Pt Without Margins[ *oDGL[$E$k$l Co> PUQ  )a [ PVQ 2tlgStyle 12[66OdDutch Italics 11.5D[ *oDGL[$E$m$n )^ `> XiWQ  )a [ PXQ Style 11[66OdInitial Codes for Advanced II*oDGL[$E/op )a [ PYQ  dn  #  [ b, oT9 !; )a [ PZQ  ## b, oT9 !ЂT I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T )a [ P[Q  ## b, oT9 ! )^ `> Xi\Q ` e%(Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   ;1 )a [ P]Q  ## b, oT9 !ЂT I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T )a [ P^Q  ## b, oT9 ! )^ `> Xi_Q Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   10 )a [ P`Q  ## b, oT9 !ЂT I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T )a [ PaQ  ## b, oT9 ! )^ `> XibQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988` e%APage  0T o\  PcC T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T )a [ PdQ  ## b, oT9 ! )a [ PeQ  ## b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ    Page ` e%)Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 TStyle 3[66OdDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs*oDGL[$Eqr )a [ PgQ  n  ## b, oT9 !Style 4[66OdSwiss 8 Point with Margins[ *oDGL[$EDst Co> PhQ  dd  #  2}5|=Style 1[66OdDutch Roman 11.5 Font[ *oDGL[$E4uv )a [ PiQ  dn Style 2[66OdDutch Italic 11.5oD[ *oDGL[$E$wx )^ `> XijQ Style 5[ 66OdDutch Bold 18 Point[ *oDGL[$E$y$z T~> pkQ  )a [ PlQ Style 7["66OdSwiss 11.5_?D=(oD[ "*oDGL[$E${$| )ao> PmQ  )a [ PnQ 2OeStyle 6[$66OdDutch Roman 14 Point[ $*oDGL[$E$}$~ w [ PoQ  )a [ PpQ Style 10[%66OdInitial Codes for Advanced[ %*oDGL[$E3 )a [ PqQ  dn   #  [ b, oT9 !8 )a [ PrQ  ## b, oT9 !ЂT I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T )a [ PsQ  ## b, oT9 ! )^ `> XitQ ` e%)Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   8. )a [ PuQ  ## b, oT9 !ЂT I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T )a [ PvQ  ## b, oT9 ! )^ `> XiwQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   .G )a [ PxQ  ## b, oT9 !ЂT I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T )a [ PyQ  ## a1IndentedLeft-indented text6n ? I.X2%\a2IndentedLeft-indented text?C ? A.` ` a3IndentedLeft-indented textHP ? ` ` 1. a4IndentedLeft-indented textQp- ? ` `  a.` 'a5IndentedLeft-indented text[ܽ ? ` `  '(1) hh-2js7a6IndentedLeft-indented textdK ? ` `  'hh-(a)4a7IndentedLeft-indented textl݇ ? ` `  'hh-4i)h:a8IndentedLeft-indented textu-b ? ` `  'hh-4:a)ppAa1InterrogatoresStarts with A. at margin, 1 at first indentUZZI.2^ o a129f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+P8@   a229f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PA@` `  ` ` ` a329f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PJ` ` @  ` `  a429f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PS` `  @  2# G!""a529f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+P\` `  @hh# hhh a629f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pe` `  hh#@( hh# a729f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pn` `  hh#(@- ( a829f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2%p#qD$e$e%Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O g` ` ` Document[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g  . Document[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g  2'%pD&&F'Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g*    Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g  ` ` ` Right Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gA@` ` `  ` ` ` 2*((L))Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g0     Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gS` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g\` ` `  @hhh hhh 2-*+h,9-Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O ge` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gn` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gw` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gF    ׃  2`0%..///Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&!"  . Technical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&#$  . Technical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g''(   220&11[2Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&)*   Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g4+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&/0  . 2e633m5l5Format DownloadFormat Downloaded Documentiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#NORMAL INDENT ' 4 <DL!T$#&n P&P##&n P&P#footnote referencefootnote reference4#V\  PUP#Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font 2?K6K8K-;Kx="i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"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""/>/>/>/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+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN%>%JJW" provision at issue, and proffered a settlement proposal that (1) provides HOLD with virtually all of the relief it sought in its petition; (2) affords substantial retrospective and prospective relief to parties situated similarly to HOLD; and (3) effectively alters the issues raised in HOLD's petition. As a result, we believe that it is in the public interest to accept WorldCom's settlement proposal and dismiss HOLD's petition without reaching its merits. Accordingly, pursuant to our broad authority under sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the Act and"b <-**XX" sections 1.1 and 1.2 of the Commission's rules, we dismiss HOLD's petition for declaratory  X4ruling for the reasons described below.m yOb'ԍ47 U.S.C.  154(i), (j); 47 C.F.R.  1.1, 1.2.m  X'5 II. BACKGROUND Đ\  X42.` ` HOLD's petition for declaratory ruling arises from a dispute between HOLD, a switchless reseller of interexchange services, and WorldCom, a facilitiesbased provider of interexchange services. According to HOLD's petition, on January 14, 1994, HOLD and WorldCom entered into a contract under which WorldCom agreed to provide long distance  X14services to HOLD for resale to HOLDs customers.I1X yO: 'ЍPetition at 2.I The contract included a limitation of liability provision that allowed HOLD to recover damages from WorldCom only if such  X 4damages arose from WorldCom's "gross negligence, (willful and wanton misconduct)."$  {O'ЍHome Owners Long Distance, Inc. v. WorldCom, Inc., Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in Part and Order of Stay and Abatement, Civ. Action No. SA97CA126 FB (W.D. Texas) (Feb. 12,  {O.'1999) (Court Referral Order) at 2. The HOLD/WorldCom contract included the following limitation of liability provision: XExcluding gross negligence, (willful and wanton misconduct), LDDS [the predecessor of WorldCom] shall in no event be liable to HOLD or any other person, firm or entity in any respect, including without limitation, for any damages, either direct, indirect, consequential, special, incidental, actual, punitive or for any other damages . . . .   {Mp'Id.$  X 43.` ` Shortly after the contractual relationship began, HOLD allegedly experienced billing and quality of service problems with WorldCom. These problems allegedly continued  X 4until WorldCom terminated the contract on December 12, 1996.@ L  {O'ԍId. at 2.@ When WorldCom terminated the contract, HOLD allegedly owed WorldCom $1,246,272.94, which HOLD refused to pay, asserting that WorldCom had provided inferior service and caused HOLD to  Xb4lose customers and business opportunities.: b {O 'ԍId.:  X444.` ` HOLD ultimately filed a lawsuit against WorldCom in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division (Court), seeking over  X4$32,000,000 in damages.I p yO'&'ЍPetition at 3.I In its lawsuit, HOLD sought recovery of its contractual and tort damages allegedly arising from WorldCom's gross negligence and/or willful misconduct,  X4negligence, breach of contract, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.c  {O)'ЍCourt Referral Order at 34.c " <-**XX" WorldCom subsequently filed a counterclaim for the $1,246,272.94 that HOLD allegedly  X4owed WorldCom.@  {Ob'ԍId. at 4.@ WorldCom moved for summary judgment on all of HOLD's claims, arguing that, notwithstanding the contract provision permitting recovery of damages arising from WorldCom's "gross negligence, (willful and wanton misconduct)," HOLD's claims should be dismissed under the Filed Rate Doctrine, because the limitation of liability provision in WorldComs filed interstate tariff precluded the recovery of damages arising from  Xv4any cause.D vZ {O 'ЍId.D The relevant provision of WorldCom's filed tariff provided: X\The Company shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, consequential, special, actual or punitive damages, or for any lost profits of any kind or nature  X 4whatsoever arising out of any defects or any other cause.D  {O'ЍId.D   X 45.` ` On December 4, 1998, before the Court ruled on WorldCom's summary judgment motion, HOLD filed the abovecaptioned petition for declaratory ruling. As previously noted, HOLD seeks a Commission ruling that "any provision of WorldCom's interstate tariff that purports to limit its liability for gross negligence or other willful  X4misconduct is unlawful and invalid" under the Act.@~ yO'ԍPetition at 10.@ At or about the same time that HOLD filed its petition for declaratory ruling with the Commission, HOLD filed with the Court a motion to stay or abate the court proceeding pending the Commission's resolution of HOLD's  XM4petition for declaratory ruling.QM {O 'ԍCourt Referral Order at 1.Q  X46.` ` On February 12, 1999, the Court granted WorldCom's motion for summary judgment on HOLD's claims for negligence, breach of contract, and lack of good faith and  X4fair dealing.: {OB'ԍId.: In so doing, the Court concluded that neither the absolute limitation of liability clause in WorldCom's filed tariff, nor the narrower limitation of liability clause in the HOLD/WorldCom contract, permitted HOLD to pursue claims based on conduct short of  X4gross negligence or willful misconduct. The Court also concluded that, if the absolute  X4limitation of liability clause in WorldCom's filed tariff is lawful under the Act, then that tariff provision, rather than the narrower limitation of liability clause in the HOLD/WorldCom contract, governs the viability of HOLD's gross negligence/willful misconduct claim against  XT4WorldCom.JT2  {O7''ЍId. at 6.J The Court further concluded, however, that the Commission should have the opportunity to determine the lawfulness of WorldCom's tariff provision under the Act, before the Court relied on that tariff provision to adjudicate HOLD's claim for gross"& <-**XX"  X4negligence/willful misconduct.I {Oy'ԍId. at 910. I Accordingly, under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the Court denied WorldCom's motion for summary judgment on HOLD's gross negligence/willful misconduct claim, and stayed that claim until the Commission determines whether the  X4WorldCom tariffs absolute limitation of liability clause is lawful under the Act.\Z {O'ЍId. at 10. See e.g., Total Telecommunications Serv., Inc. v. AT&T, 919 F. Supp. 472 (D.D.C. 1996). Primary jurisdiction applies where a court has jurisdiction over a claim from the outset, but the claim will  {OX'require resolution of an issue that Congress has generally entrusted to an administrative agency. Id.ģ The Court stated, in particular, that "this matter is stayed and/or abated . . . until the Federal Communications Commission has determined whether WorldCom can limit its liability for  Xv4gross negligence or other willful misconduct through provisions of its interstate tariff."Rv~ {O 'ԍCourt Referral Order at 12.R  XH47.` ` On April 5, 1999, after receiving notice of the foregoing Court decision, the Commission issued a public notice seeking comments on HOLD's petition for declaratory  X 4ruling.\  {O'Ѝ Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on Home Owners Long Distance, Inc.s Petition for a Declaratory Ruling that Worldcom Cannot Limit its Liability for Gross Negligence or Other Willful Misconduct  {Om'Through its Interstate Tariffs, Public Notice (rel. April 5, 1999) (Public Notice). In an effort to build as complete a record as possible, the Commission encouraged parties to comment on at least the following issues: (1) whether WorldCom's absolute  X 4limitation of liability tariff provision violates section 201(b) of the Act,Q 4  yO'Ѝ47 U.S.C.  201(b).Q or any other provision of the Act or the Commission's rules; (2) whether a carrier legally can purport to limit its liability for gross negligence or other willful misconduct, including direct, indirect, consequential, special, actual or punitive damages, through provisions in its interstate tariff filed with the Commission; (3) whether the inclusion of such a limitation of liability clause in a carriers filed tariff constitutes an unjust and unreasonable practice under section 201(b) of the Act and/or a violation of another provision of the Act or the Commission's rules; and (4) whether dominant and nondominant carriers should be held to the same standard regarding  X44the legality of limitation of liability clauses in interstate tariffs.F4  yO'ԍ Public Notice.F The Public Notice established May 5, 1999, as the deadline for filing comments, and May 24, 1999, as the  X4deadline for filing reply comments.:T  {O #'ԍId.:  X48.` ` On April 28, 1999, WorldCom filed a motion to dismiss HOLD's petition for declaratory ruling. WorldCom's motion claimed that two recent developments had mooted the issues raised in HOLD's petition. First, WorldCom amended the tariff provision in dispute so that it no longer absolved WorldCom of liability for damages arising from its"<-**XX`"  X4willful misconduct.P {Oy'ЍSee Motion to Dismiss of MCI WorldCom, Inc. (filed April 28, 1999) ; Errata Motion to Dismiss of MCI WorldCom, Inc., (filed April 29, 1999) (WorldCom Motion to Dismiss) at 1 (citing to WorldCom Technologies, Inc., Transmittal No. 25, Tariff FCC Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 14 (filed April 21, 1999); WorldCom Network Services, Transmittal No. 80, Tariff FCC Nos. 2, 4, 5, 9 and 10 (filed April 21, 1999); WorldCom Network Services, Transmittal No. 81, Tariff FCC Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 (filed April 21, 1999)).P In particular, the pertinent tariff provision now states: "The Company's liability for willful misconduct, if established as a result of judicial or administrative  X4proceedings, is not limited by this tariff."[z yO'ԍWorldCom Motion to Dismiss at 2 n.2.[ Second, WorldCom stated in its motion to dismiss that, when the HOLD litigation recommences, WorldCom "will withdraw its defense premised on the tariff language purporting to limit [its] liability with regard to claims of gross  X4negligence or willful misconduct."@  {OH 'ԍId. at 2.@ In WorldCom's view, these two developments mean that  Xv4"the issues raised in [HOLD's] Petition are no longer ripe for Commission action.":v {O'ԍId.:  XH49.` ` On May 10, 1999, HOLD filed an opposition to WorldCom's motion to  X14dismiss.1.  yO'ЍHome Owners Long Distance, Incorporated's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (filed May 10, 1999) (Opposition to Motion to Dismiss). HOLD argues that WorldCom's tariff amendments and litigation commitment do not moot the issues raised in HOLD's petition, because (1) the new tariff continues unlawfully to limit WorldCom's liability for gross negligence; (2) the new tariff is prospective only and does not apply to preexisting disputes; and (3) HOLD's petition raises public policy issues that are broader than the pending HOLD/WorldCom litigation, and that could affect other  X 4carriers and consumers throughout the United States.@  {O'ԍId. at 2.@  X4 10.` ` On May 17, 1999 after the comments were filed, but shortly before the reply comments were filed WorldCom submitted to the Commission a "proposed settlement for  Xb4dismissal" of HOLD's petition. b yO+ ' " ԍ Letter from Kecia Boney, MCI WorldCom, Senior Regulatory Counsel, Local Markets and Enforcement, to Magalie Romans Salas, Secretary, FCC (filed May 17, 1999) (Certification). The settlement proposal includes a certification from Thomas F. O'Neil III, Chief Litigation Counsel and an officer of WorldCom. On behalf of WorldCom, Mr. O'Neil certified therein that: X(1) MCI WorldCom hereby agrees that it will not rely on the portions of WorldCom Technologies, Inc's. FCC No. 2 interstate tariff that limit liability for gross negligence and willful misconduct as a defense to the underlying  X4claims raised in Home Owners Long Distance, Inc. v. WorldCom, Inc. et. al., (U. S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Civil Action No. SA97CA126 FB; (2) MCI WorldCom hereby agrees not to rely on the portions of its or its subsidiaries' interstate tariff limiting liability for willful misconduct"~p <-**XX=" as a defense in any pending or future actions; (3) In the event that MCI WorldCom chooses to reinstate the portions of its or its subsidiaries' interstate tariff limiting liability for willful misconduct, MCI WorldCom will provide the Commission with thirty (30) days' notice of its intent to file such an interstate  X4tariff provision."D! {O'ЍId.D  None of the reply comments, including those filed by HOLD, addresses whether WorldCom's "proposed settlement for dismissal" should be accepted and HOLD's petition thereby  XH4dismissed.,"` HZ yOS 'ЍComments were filed by AT&T Corp. (AT&T), Dr. Barbara Cherry (Northwestern University School of Speech) (Dr. Barbara A. Cherry), Frontier Communications (Frontier), Global Alliance for Telecommunications (GAT), GTE Service Corporation (GTE), ITC^DeltaCom Communications (ITC), SBC Communications Inc. (SBC), United Technological Systems Inc. (United), and Wireless Consumers Alliance, Inc. (WCA). Reply Comments were filed by AT&T, Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies (Bell Atlantic), HOLD, and WCA. Commenters generally agree that the Commission and courts have upheld as reasonable limitations of liability for acts other than willful misconduct and gross negligence. AT&T Comments at 23; Bell Atlantic Reply Comments at 2; Frontier Comments at 3; HOLD Reply Comments at 3; SBC Comments at 79. Commenters generally also urge the Commission not to impose further restrictions on carriers' ability to limit their liability. AT&T Comments at 4; Bell Atlantic Reply Comments at 12; Frontier Comments at 3; GTE Comments at 34;  yO#'HOLD Reply Comments at 3; ITC Comments at 1; SBC Comments at 9. Only one commenter argued that the Commission should find unreasonable all tariffs that limit carrier liability in any way. WCA Comments at 1.,  X 4 11.` ` On June 29, 1999, WorldCom filed with the Court an "Advisory to the Court" stating that WorldCom "will not rely on portions of the WorldCom Technologies, Inc.'s FCC No. 2 interstate tariff that limit liability for gross negligence and willful misconduct as a  X 4defense to the claims raised in this case."#  yO'ЍLetter from Kecia Boney, MCI WorldCom, Senior Regulatory Counsel, Local Markets and Enforcement, to Magalie Romans Salas, Secretary, FCC (filed June 30, 1999) (Advisory to the Court). Attached to the Advisory to the Court is a copy of the abovequoted Certification that WorldCom previously filed with the Commission.  X';W III. DISCUSSION Đ\  Xb4 12.` ` The Commission has broad discretion under the Administrative Procedure Act and Commission rules to determine whether deciding a petition for declaratory ruling on the  X44merits is necessary to "terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty."$4 {O"'ԍ5 U.S.C.  554(e); 47 C.F.R.  1.2. See also 47 U.S.C.  154(i), (j); 47 C.F.R.  1.1. Where, as here, a petition for declaratory ruling derives from a primary jurisdiction referral from a court, the Commission's discretion is limited to some extent by the obligation to assist the court in resolving issues arising under the Act. Thus, in examining whether to grant WorldCom's motion to dismiss HOLD's petition for declaratory ruling, we must address two questions: whether reaching the merits of HOLD's petition is necessary to assist the Court in resolving the referred issue; and if not, whether reaching the merits of HOLD's petition nevertheless is appropriate to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty. "|l$<-**XX"Ԍ X4 13.` ` In light of the representations made by WorldCom, we find the answer to the first question is clearly no: reaching the merits of HOLD's petition is not necessary to assist the Court in resolving the referred issue. As explained above, WorldCom has certified here and with the Court that it will no longer assert as a defense in the Court litigation that its tariff's limitation of liability for gross negligence or willful misconduct bars HOLD's claims. As a result, the referred issue--whether the tariff's limitation of liability violates the  Xv4Communications Act--is no longer germane to the Court's resolution of HOLD's claims. Indeed, not even HOLD argues that the issue referred by the Court remains live in the  XH4HOLD/WorldCom lawsuit.%H yO 'ЍHOLD stated in its petition that it filed the petition with the Commission "to preclude WorldCom from arguing to the federal court that WorldCom may lawfully limit its liability for gross negligence or other willful misconduct simply by having appropriate language in [its] tariff." Petition at 5. HOLD acknowledged in its opposition to the motion to dismiss that "Worldcom['s] [new] legal position with regard to the civil litigation between HOLD and WorldCom appears to be consistent with the [Commission's] prior decisions and the general law." Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at 3. Consequently, the Court no longer needs the Commission to reach the merits of the referred issue in order to adjudicate HOLD's claims.  X 4 14.` ` We believe that the answer to the second question is also no: given the particular circumstances of this matter, reaching the merits of HOLD's petition is not appropriate to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty. As described above, WorldCom's proposed settlement provides substantial relief for WorldCom customers situated similarly to HOLD. Specifically, WorldCom certifies that it will not "rely on the portions of its or its subsidiaries' interstate tariff limiting liability for willful misconduct as a defense in  Xy4any pending or future actions."D&y@ yOj'ԍCertification at 2.D Moreover, WorldCom has amended the tariff provision at issue so as to permit liability for willful misconduct. As a result of these two actions, no past, present, or future customer of WorldCom will be barred by WorldCom's tariff from seeking some measure of recovery for WorldCom's alleged willful misconduct. This significantly redresses the controversy and uncertainty implicated by HOLD's petition.  X415.` ` Furthermore, WorldCom's Certification and tariff revision have effectively altered the issue referred by the Court and raised in HOLD's petition. As explained above, both the Court and HOLD framed the issue for Commission resolution as "whether  X4WorldCom can limit its liability for gross negligence or other willful misconduct through  X4provisions of its interstate tariff."' {O"'ЍSee Court Referral Order at 1, 4, 6, 10, 12 (emphasis added); Petition at 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 (emphasis added). By stating the issue in that manner, both the Court and HOLD strongly suggested the absence of any meaningful or relevant distinction between gross  Xg4negligence and willful misconduct.(\g*  yOB&'ЍIndeed, even the HOLD/WorldCom contract appears to equate gross negligence with willful misconduct.  {O ''That contract provides, in pertinent part: "Excluding gross negligence (willful and wanton misconduct),  {O''[WorldCom] shall in no event be liable . . . ." Court Referral Order at 2 (emphasis added). In fact, the Court and HOLD implied that gross  XP4negligence is a subset of willful misconduct. WorldCom's responses to HOLD's petition, however, place front and center the question whether and to what extent gross negligence";N (<-**XX_" differs from willful misconduct. In particular, WorldCom's Certification and tariff revisions remove WorldCom's limit of liability for "willful misconduct," but state nothing about  X4WorldCom's liability for "gross negligence.") yOK'Ѝ"Except as stated in this Section, the Company shall have no liability for damages of any kind arising out of or related to events, acts, rights or privileges contemplated in this tariff. The Company's liability for willful misconduct, if established as a result of judicial or administrative proceedings, is not limited by this tariff." WorldCom Technologies, Inc., Transmittal No. 25, Tariff FCC Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14 (filed Apr. 21, 1999),  2.3.  X416.` ` As a result of these circumstances, resolving HOLD's petition on the merits would require resolution of several challenging questions not expressly contemplated by either  Xv4the Court Referral Order, or HOLD's petition, or the Commission's Public Notice, such as: whether the Court perceived a difference between gross negligence and willful misconduct; whether there is a difference between gross negligence and willful misconduct; whether state law or federal law governs the parameters of gross negligence and willful misconduct when assessing a tariff's meaning and validity; if state law governs, which state's law governs; what are the precise definitions of gross negligence and willful misconduct; whether the Commission should find that the Communications Act precludes a limitation of liability for willful misconduct but not for gross negligence.  X 417.` ` While we recognize that there may be a public interest in resolving these questions, we conclude that this proceeding is not the appropriate forum. We note that this proceeding came to the Commission as a primary jurisdiction referral involving a dispute between two parties; therefore, because the issue giving rise to the initial controversy has been resolved, we believe that it is appropriate to accept WorldCom's motion to dismiss. In  X64addition, b ecause of the silence of the Court Referral Order, HOLD's petition, and the Commission's Public Notice regarding these questions, we find that the existing record does  X 4not adequately address these questions.*D x {O3'ЍOnly three commenters even touch on a few of these questions, and they do so only cursorily. See  yO'HOLD Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at 34 (stating that some courts have recognized a distinction between  yO'gross negligence and willful misconduct); AT&T Comments at 3 (arguing that the Commission has held that certain forms of conduct alleged to amount to "gross negligence" are equivalent to "willful misconduct," because  {OU'both entail the element of intentional conduct); Bell Atlantic Reply Comments at 2 n.3 (same). See also AT&T Reply Comments at 4 n.8 (arguing that the Commission has consistently upheld tariff provisions, similar to WorldCom's recently amended limited liability tariff provision, that expressly limit the carrier's liability for acts of willful misconduct, but do not make explicit reference to liability for unintentional acts or omissions). We also find that the issues are sufficiently complex  X4to require a fully developed record.+F  {O(#'ЍSee generally Comments of Dr. Barbara A. Cherry (explaining the flaws of traditional justifications for upholding carriers' limited liability provisions, and demonstrating how the erosion of carriers' ability to rely on tariff provisions that limit their liability to customers for damages would adversely affect the carriers' ability to simultaneously fund and bear the burdens of other regulatory obligations, such as universal service); Letter from  yOJ&'Dr. Barbara A. Cherry, Adjunct Assistant Professor, Northwestern University, Department of Communication  {O''Studies to Magalie Romans Salas, Secretary, FCC, ENF9907 (filed June 16, 1999); The Crisis in  {O''Telecommunications Carrier Liability: Historical Regulatory Flaws and Recommended Reform, Dr. Barbara A. Cherry, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA (1999). Thus, we conclude that the "gross negligence vs. willful misconduct" issues now raised in this proceeding would be more appropriately resolved, with"+<-**XX-" the benefit of a more developed record, in a proceeding either initiated on the Commission's own motion or by a petition for rulemaking or a petition for declaratory ruling that properly frames these precise issues. Indeed, a more developed record is necessary to the proper execution of the Commission's task of terminating a controversy or resolving uncertainty in this context of these issues. Rather than adjudicate the remaining issues on the limited record currently before us, it would be more prudent and expeditious for the Commission to utilize its limited resources to render a decision on the merits only when these issues have been  X_4properly framed in the initial petition.,j _ yO'ЍWe note that refraining from ruling on the merits of HOLD's petition does not leave the parties bereft  {O 'of relevant guidance from the Commission. See Unimat, Inc. v. MCI Telecommunications, Corp., Order, DA 99983, 14 (Comm. Car. Bur. May 25, 1999) (stating that "an otherwise reasonable limitation of liability clause will not shield a carrier from liability under the reasonableness standard of the Act in the case of willful  {O 'misconduct or gross negligence"); Local Exchange Carrier Line Information Data Base, 8 FCC Rcd 7130, 7134 at  27 (1993) (stating that "limitation of liability provisions have long been accepted by the courts in the  {O 'absence of willful misconduct or gross negligence"); Halpert and Co., Inc. v. New York Telephone Co., New  {OV'Jersey Bell Telephone Co., 6 FCC Rcd 2548, 2549 at  7 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1991) (stating that "[t]he Commission and the courts have reviewed tariff provisions which limit a carrier's liability to its customers for service disruptions except in cases involving gross negligence or willful misconduct and found them to be  {O'reasonable"); Annual 1985 Access Tariff, FCC 8750, 2 FCC Rcd 1416, 1423 n.51 (1987) (noting that at least one court has held that gross negligence and wanton conduct both entail intentional conduct).   X1'7 IV. CONCLUSION X 4\  X 418.` ` As explained above, WorldCom has substantially amended the tariff provision in dispute, and proffered a settlement proposal that (1) provides HOLD with virtually all of the relief it sought in its petition; (2) affords substantial retrospective and prospective relief to parties situated similarly to HOLD; and (3) effectively alters the issues raised in HOLD's petition such that the present record provides an insufficient basis for decision. Consequently, in exercising our considerable discretion under the rules governing our proceedings in  Xy4general,n-y  {O$'ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  154(i), (j); 47 C.F.R.  1.1.n and declaratory ruling proceedings in particular,d.y  {O'ԍSee 5 U.S.C.  554(e); 47 C.F.R.  1.2.d we believe that we should accept"y .<-**XX"  X4WorldCom's "proposed settlement for dismissal," incorporate that settlement herein,= /~ {Oy'ЍThe Commission often relies on and incorporates into its orders carrier representations. See, e.g., In the Applications of NYNEX Corp., Transferor, and Bell Atlantic Corp., Transferee, for Consent to Transfer Control  {O 'of NYNEX Corporation and Its Subsidiaries, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 19985, 20075  191  {O'(1997) (Bell Atlantic NYNEX Merger Order) (concluding that the Commission has authority to enforce commitments made by Bell Atlantic and NYNEX and that the commitments, as conditions of the license and  {Og'section 214 certificate transfers, are binding on the applicants); In the Matter of Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses and Section 214 Authorizations from Tele-Communications, Inc., Transferor to  {O'AT&T Corp., Transferee, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 3160, 321213  111 (1999) (concluding that, as a condition of Commission approval of the AT&TTCI merger, AT&T must implement and  {O 'enforce its representation to the Commission that it would adopt a specific cash dividend policy); In the Matter  {OU 'of SBC Communications, Inc., Order, FCC 99153 (rel. June 28, 1999) (resolving Commission's concerns related  {O 'to alleged misrepresentations to Commission staff); In the Matter of Revocation of License of Seaboard  {O 'Broadcasting, Corp., for Standard Broadcast Station WLAS, Jacksonville, NC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 26 FCC 2d 649, 651  6 (1970) (stating that "it is well established that misrepresentations made by a licensee and statements calculated to deceive the Commission may form sufficient grounds for denial of an application for  yOC'renewal of license"). If in the future WorldCom does not comply fully with the terms of its proposed settlement,  {O 'it would act in direct contravention of the terms of this Order, thereby risking enforcement action against it. See  {O'generally Bell Atlantic NYNEX Merger Order, 12 FCC Rcd 19985, 20075  191. In addition, any alleged violation of the settlement proposal incorporated in this Order may be brought to the Commission's attention through a section 208 complaint. We note that WorldCom effectively has waived its right to raise in such a section 208 complaint proceeding any defense that contradicts the terms and conclusions adopted in this Order.= grant WorldCom's motion to dismiss, and dismiss HOLD's petition without reaching its merits.  X'  X'V. ORDERING CLAUSES Đ\  X419.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 5(e) of the Administrative  Xv4Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.  554(e), sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), (j), and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.1, and 1.2 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, 1.1, and 1.2, that WorldCom's proposed settlement for dismissal of HOLD's petition IS ACCEPTED AND INCORPORATED HEREIN.  X 420.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 5(e) of the Administrative  X 4Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.  554(e), sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), (j), and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.1, and 1.2 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, 1.1, and 1.2, that the Motion to Dismiss filed by WorldCom IS GRANTED.  X421.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 5(e) of the Administrative  Xy4Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.  554(e), sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), (j), and sections 0.91, 0.291, 1.1, and 1.2 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, 1.1, and 1.2, that HOLD's Petition for Declaratory Ruling IS DISMISSED, and this proceeding IS HEREBY TERMINATED.  X422.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Chief, Formal Complaints and Investigations Branch, Enforcement Division, Common Carrier, Bureau, shall forward a copy" /<-**XX"  G'S  G'S  of this decision to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San   Antonio Division, promptly upon release of this Order. ` `  hhCqFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hhCqGlenn T. Reynolds ` `  hhCqActing Chief, Enforcement Division  X 4` `  hhCqCommon Carrier Bureau