Opinion ID: 3012869
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Worldcom Was Required to File the

Text: Contracts at Issue The district court erred by concluding that Worldcom was required to file the contracts at issue. This complex issue could not be resolved at this stage in the litigation. The fact that there was no filed tariff does not itself violate the FCA. Under the FCA, a carrier may conduct its business either by tariff or by contract. Bell Tel. Co. of Pa. v. FCC, 503 F.2d 1250, 1277 (3d Cir. 1974). When a carrier chooses to conduct business by contract, section 211(a) of the FCA states that every common carrier “shall” file with the FCC “copies of all contracts, agreements or arrangements with other common carriers.” 47 U.S.C. § 211(a) (emphasis added). The district court held that since the contracts at issue were not filed with the FCC, Worldcom had violated the FCA. The district court, however, ignored section 211(b) which states, in relevant part, that the FCC “shall have the authority to require the filing of any other contracts of any carrier, and shall also have authority to exempt any carrier from submitting copies of such minor contracts as the Commission may determine.” 47 U.S.C. § 211(b) (emphasis added). The plain language of the statute gives the FCC the power to exempt certain contracts from the filing requirement of section 211(a). 6 Pursuant to this authority, the FCC promulgated 47 C.F.R. § 43.51 which stated in relevant part, at the time of contracting: (a) Any communications common carrier engaged in domestic or foreign communication, or both, which has not been classified as non-dominant pursuant to Section 61.12(e) of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 61.12(e), is not treated under the regulatory forbearance policies established by the Commission, and which enters into a contract with another carrier must file with the Commission, within thirty (30) days of execution, a copy of each contract, agreement, concession, license, authorization or other arrangement to which it is a party . . . 47 C.F.R. § 43.51(a) (1986) (available in 1 FCC Rcd 933). Worldcom argues that this language exempts non-dominant carriers from the filing requirement. Graphnet argues that this regulation merely lists a few examples of contracts that must be filed with the FCC. The FCC’s report and order regarding the amendment to 47 C.F.R. § 43.51 clearly supports Worldcom’s position. In that order, the FCC specifically stated that because it no longer found such documents “useful,” it desired to eliminate “the requirement that non-dominant carriers treated with forbearance file certain reports and contracts.” 1 FCC Rcd 933, ¶ 3 (1986). Furthermore, the language in the regulation would be superfluous were it not read to exempt non-dominant carriers from the filing requirement. We therefore agree with Worldcom that this regulation exempts “non- dominant” carriers from the filing requirement. Worldcom specifically claims that it was classified as non-dominant and subject to regulatory forbearance with respect to its domestic long-distance operations at the time the contract was signed. It therefore cannot be resolved at this point in the litigation whether the contracts at issue were required to be filed with the FCC. The court must first determine whether Worldcom was, in fact, non-dominant in the national long distance field at the time and that the contracts at issue involved national long distance services. Graphnet’s claim that 47 C.F.R. § 43.51 does not apply to this case because the relevant language of the regulation 7 was not adopted until October 12, 2000, is simply false. This specific regulation has exempted non-dominant carriers since 1986. 1 FCC Rcd 933, ¶ 3 (1986). Not only would proper legal research have revealed this, but a declaration attached to Worldcom’s sur-reply brief in district court quoted the 1986 language and clearly explained that the relevant language was adopted in 1986. We conclude that the district court erred by finding that Worldcom was required to file the contracts at issue. At this stage in the litigation, it cannot be determined that Worldcom was so required.