*Pages 1--3 from  Microsoft Word - 21786.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  02-  2503 
 Before  the  FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 APCC  Services,  Inc.,  )  Data  Net  Systems,  LLC  ) 
 Davel  Communications,  Inc.  )  Jaroth,  Inc.  dba  Pacific  Telemanagement  ) 
 Services,  and  )  Intera  Communications  Corp.,  ) 
 )  Complainants,  ) 
 )  ) 
 v.  )  File  No.  EB-  02-  MD-  008  ) 
 Bee  Line  Long  Distance,  Inc.,  )  ) 
 Defendant.  ) 


 ORDER 
 Adopted:  October  2,  2002  Released:  October  3,  2002 
 By  the  Deputy  Chief,  Market  Disputes  Resolution  Division,  Enforcement  Bureau: 


 1.  On  April  19,  2002,  APCC  Services,  Inc.,  et  al.  (“  APCC”  or  “Complainants”),  filed  with  this  Commission  a  formal  complaint  against  Bee  Line  Long  Distance,  Inc.  (“  Bee 
 Line”)  pursuant  to  section  208  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended  (the  “Act”).  1  The  complaint  alleges  that  Bee  Line  failed  to  pay  dial-  around  compensation  to  Complainants  for 
 certain  categories  of  completed  coinless  calls  originating  from  payphones,  in  violation  of  Commission  rules  and  orders.  2  Due  to  a  series  of  extensions,  the  Defendant  was  required  to  file 
 an  answer  in  this  proceeding  no  later  than  August  30,  2002.  3 
 1  47  U.  S.  C.  §  208. 
 2  See  47  C.  F.  R.  §§  64.1300-  64.1320.  These  rules  were  promulgated  to  implement  section  276  of 
 the  Act,  47  U.  S.  C.  §  276.  3 
 See  APCC  Services,  Inc.,  et  al.,  v.  Bee  Line  Long  Distance,  Letter  from  Warren  Firschein,  Attorney,  Market  Disputes  Resolution  Division,  Enforcement  Bureau,  FCC,  File  No.  EB-  02-  MD-  008  (August  13, 


 2002). 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  02-  2503 
 2 
 2.  In  a  letter  to  Commission  staff  dated  August  30,  2002,  the  parties  indicated  that  they  had  reached  a  settlement  in  this  matter,  and  were  “currently  circulating  a  settlement 
 agreement  for  execution  by  all  of  the  parties.”  4  The  parties  further  indicated  that  they  anticipated  that  the  settlement  would  be  finalized  by  September  13,  2000.  Accordingly,  to  avoid  running 
 afoul  of  the  Commission’s  formal  complaint  procedures,  the  parties  jointly  requested  a  short  additional  extension  of  time  for  the  Defendant  to  file  an  answer  to  the  complaint,  with  the 
 understanding  that  an  answer  would  not  be  required  if  the  settlement  is  completed  prior  to  the  revised  due  date.  In  a  Letter  Ruling  from  Commission  staff  dated  September  3,  2002,  the 
 Defendant  was  granted  the  requested  extension  of  time  to  file  its  answer,  to  September  13,  2002,  the  date  suggested  by  the  parties.  5 


 3.  On  September  17,  2002,  Complainants  filed  a  motion  requesting  that  we  dismiss  the  formal  complaint  in  this  proceeding  with  prejudice.  6  Specifically,  Complainants  assert  that 
 “the  parties  have  reached  a  settlement  in  this  matter,”  as  was  anticipated. 
 4.  We  grant  Complainant’s  motion  to  dismiss  the  complaint,  with  prejudice.  We  find  that  dismissal  at  this  stage  is  appropriate,  and  will  serve  the  public  interest  by  eliminating  the 
 expenditure  of  further  time  and  resources  of  the  Commission. 
 5.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED,  pursuant  to  sections  1,  4(  i),  4(  j),  208  and  276  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.  §§  151,  154(  i),  154(  j),  208,  and  276, 
 sections  64.1300-  64.1320  of  the  Commission’s  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.  §§  64.1300-  64.1320,  and  authority  delegated  by  sections  0.111,  0.311,  and  1.720-  1.736  of  the  Commission’s  rules,  47 
 C.  F.  R.  §§  0.111,  0.311,  1.720-  1.736,  that  the  above-  captioned  complaint  IS  DISMISSED  WITH  PREJUDICE  in  its  entirety. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 Radhika  V.  Karmarkar 
 4  See  APCC  Services,  Inc.,  et  al.,  v.  Bee  Line  Long  Distance,  Letter  from  Alan  Hubbard,  Attorney 
 for  Complainants,  and  Stanley  K.  Stoll,  Attorney  for  Bee  Line,  to  Warren  Firschein,  Attorney,  Market  Disputes  Resolution  Division,  Enforcement  Bureau,  FCC,  File  No.  EB-  02-  MD-  008  (August  30,  2002) 


 5  See  APCC  Services,  Inc.,  et  al.,  v.  Bee  Line  Long  Distance,  Letter  from  Warren  Firschein, 
 Attorney,  Market  Disputes  Resolution  Division,  Enforcement  Bureau,  FCC,  File  No.  EB-  02-  MD-  008  (September  3,  2002). 


 6  APCC  Services,  Inc.,  et  al.,  v.  Bee  Line  Long  Distance,  Notice  of  Settlement  and  Motion  to 
 Dismiss  Formal  Complaint  With  Prejudice,  FCC,  File  No.  EB-  02-  MD-  008  (filed  September  17,  2002). 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  02-  2503 
 3 
 Deputy  Chief,  Market  Disputes  Resolution  Division  Enforcement  Bureau 
3