*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 35542*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  04-  324 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of 
 Petition  of  WorldCom,  Inc.  Pursuant  to  Section  252(  e)(  5)  of  the  Communications  Act  for 
 Preemption  of  the  Jurisdiction  of  the  Virginia  State  Corporation  Commission  Regarding 
 Interconnection  Disputes  with  Verizon  Virginia  Inc.,  and  for  Expedited  Arbitration 


 Petition  of  AT&  T  Communications  of  Virginia  Inc.,  Pursuant  to  Section  252(  e)(  5)  of  the 
 Communications  Act  for  Preemption  of  the  Jurisdiction  of  the  Virginia  Corporation 
 Commission  Regarding  Interconnection  Disputes  With  Verizon  Virginia  Inc. 


 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 ) 


 CC  Docket  No.  00-  218 
 CC  Docket  No.  00-  251 
 ORDER 
 Adopted:  February  6,  2003  Released:  February  9,  2003 
 By  the  Chief,  Pricing  Policy  Division,  Wireline  Competition  Bureau: 
 I.  INTRODUCTION 
 1.  On  January  29,  2004,  the  Wireline  Competition  Bureau  released  a  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  in  the  above-  captioned  matters  that  set  forth  the  rates  that  Verizon  Virginia,  Inc.  (Verizon)  may 


 charge  AT&  T  Communications  of  Virginia,  Inc.  (AT&  T)  and  WorldCom,  Inc.  (WorldCom)  for  access  to  unbundled  network  elements,  interconnection,  and  resale.  1  These  rates  became  effective  upon  the  release 
 of  the  order  on  January  29,  2004.  2  The  Virginia  Arbitration  Compliance  Order  further  required  that  Verizon  and  AT&  T,  and  Verizon  and  WorldCom,  amend  their  respective  interconnection  agreements  to 
 incorporate  the  rates  set  forth  therein  by  February  9,  2004.  3 
 2.  On  February  5,  2004,  Verizon  submitted  a  motion  for  an  extension  of  time,  requesting  an  additional  30  days  (until  March  10,  2004)  for  the  parties  to  file  their  interconnection  agreement 


 1  Petition  of  WorldCom,  Inc.  Pursuant  to  Section  252(  e)(  5)  of  the  Communications  Act  for  Preemption  of  the 
 Jurisdiction  of  the  Virginia  State  Corporation  Commission  Regarding  Interconnection  Disputes  with  Verizon  Virginia  Inc.,  and  for  Expedited  Arbitration,  CC  Docket  Nos.  00-  218,  00-  251,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order, 


 DA  04-  181  (WCB  rel.  Jan.  29,  2004)  (Virginia  Arbitration  Compliance  Order),  as  corrected  by  Petition  of  WorldCom,  Inc.  Pursuant  to  Section  252(  e)(  5)  of  the  Communications  Act  for  Preemption  of  the  Jurisdiction  of  the 
 Virginia  State  Corporation  Commission  Regarding  Interconnection  Disputes  with  Verizon  Virginia  Inc.,  and  for  Expedited  Arbitration,  CC  Docket  Nos.  00-  218,  00-  251,  Erratum,  DA  04-  281  (WCB  rel.  Feb.  5,  2004). 
 2  Virginia  Arbitration  Compliance  Order,  at  para.  42.  Switching  rates  became  effective  as  of  August  1,  2002.  Id. 
 3  Id.  at  paras.  41,  45-  46;  see  also  47  C.  F.  R.  §  1.  4. 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  04-  324 
 2 
 amendments.  4  Verizon  claims  that  this  extension  is  necessary  for  the  parties  to  “determine,  and  agree  on,  how  to  apply  the  ordered  rates  in  the  context  of  the  rate  structures  and  other  terms  in  their  agreements  and 
 whether  those  related  terms  themselves  require  some  changes.”  5  Verizon  states  that  it  is  not  seeking  to  alter  the  effective  dates  of  the  ordered  rates.  6  Finally,  Verizon  indicates  that  AT&  T  and  WorldCom  both 
 “consent  to  the  relief  sought  in  [Verizon’s]  motion.”  7 
 II.  DISCUSSION 
 3.  Verizon’s  Motion  for  an  extension  of  time  until  March  10,  2004  for  the  parties  to  submit  amendments  to  their  interconnection  agreements  to  incorporate  the  rates  ordered  in  the  Virginia 


 Arbitration  Compliance  Order  is  granted.  It  is  the  policy  of  the  Commission  that  extensions  of  time  are  not  routinely  granted.  8  We  find,  however,  that  there  is  good  cause  to  extend  the  due  date  for  filing 
 interconnection  agreement  amendments.  Verizon  explains  that  ten  days  is  not  sufficient  time  for  the  parties  to  analyze  the  rates  set  forth  in  the  Virginia  Arbitration  Compliance  Order  and  to  agree  upon  the 
 amendments  necessary  to  incorporate  those  rates.  Further,  Verizon  confirms  that,  if  granted  a  brief  extension  of  time,  “[  t]  he  parties  will  .  .  .  submit  the  resulting  amendments  .  .  .  by  March  10,  2004.”  9 
 Finally,  because  neither  AT&  T  nor  WorldCom  opposes  the  Motion,  granting  the  extension  will  not  prejudice  any  party. 


 4.  ACCORDINGLY,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  sections  4(  i),  4(  j),  and  5(  c)  of  the  Communications  Act,  47  U.  S.  C.  §§  154(  i),  154(  j)  155(  c),  and  sections  0.91,  0.291,  and  1.46  of  the 
 Commission’s  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.  §§  0.  91,  0.291,  1.46,  the  request  for  an  extension  of  time  filed  by  Verizon  Virginia,  Inc.  IS  GRANTED. 


 By  Order  of  the  Pricing  Policy  Division, 


 __________________________  Tamara  L.  Preiss 
 Chief,  Pricing  Policy  Division  Wireline  Competition  Bureau 


 4  Petition  of  WorldCom,  Inc.  Pursuant  to  Section  252(  e)(  5)  of  the  Communications  Act  for  Preemption  of  the 
 Jurisdiction  of  the  Virginia  State  Corporation  Commission  Regarding  Interconnection  Disputes  with  Verizon  Virginia  Inc.,  and  for  Expedited  Arbitration,  CC  Docket  Nos.  00-  218,  00-  251,  Verizon  Virginia  Inc.  ’s  Unopposed 


 Motion  for  Extension  of  Time  to  File  Amendments  to  Interconnection  Agreements  at  1-  2  (filed  Feb.  5,  2004)  (Motion). 
 5  Id.  at  2. 
 6  Id. 
 7  Id. 
 8  47  C.  F.  R.  §  1.46(  a) 
 9  Motion  at  2  (emphasis  added). 
2