Ameritech contends in its motion for reconsideration that the MPSC was authorized to incorporate the liability provisions in the Agreement under section 252(e)(3). It is undisputed that the limitation of liability provisions in the Ameritech/MCI Interconnection Agreement were not negotiated nor were they arbitrated thus, the MPSC did not have the authority to impose those provisions. Then, the commission has the authority to approve of an interconnection agreement as negotiated and arbitrated by the parties. § 252(b)(2) (3), and that the state commission must limit its consideration to those issues set forth in the petition and response. The Act provides that the parties must set forth the issues to be arbitrated, 47 U.S.C.In reviewing the MPSC decisions at issue here, the Court reviews questions of law de novo, and issues of fact under an arbitrary and capricious standard. A motion that merely presents the same issues already ruled upon by the Court shall not be granted. It should be granted if the movant demonstrates that the Court and the parties have been misled by a palpable defect and that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction of such palpable defect. Pursuant to Rule 7.1(g) of the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Michigan, a motion for reconsideration may be filed within ten days after the order to which it objects is issued.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Rule 7.1, Ameritech filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's decision regarding the limited liability provisions, and MCI filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's decision regarding the yellow pages listing. In the same Opinion, the Court affirmed the Commission's decision that Ameritech is not required to list MCI's customers in its yellow pages.

The Court reversed the Commission's order requiring that the limited liability provisions be included in the Agreement and remanded for reformation of the Agreement to delete such provisions. On September 29, 1999, this Court issued an Opinion and Order finding that the Commission erred by adopting the limited liability provisions. MCI also alleged that the Interconnection Agreement failed to required Ameritech to provide MCI with access to Ameritech's yellow pages (MCI's Amended Complaint, Count IV). MCI alleged that tthe Interconnection Agreement violated the Act by improperly limiting Ameritech's liability for misconduct (MCI's Amended Complaint, Count II). U-11168, each claiming that certain terms of their Interconnection Agreement, as arbitrated by the MPSC, violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996. ('Ameritech') appealed Michigan Public Service Commission ('MPSC') Case No. (collectively 'MCI') and Michigan Bell Telephone Company d/b/a Ameritech Michigan, Inc. MCI Telecommunications Corporation and MCImetro Access Transmission Services, Inc.

Ameritech white pages michigan