*Pages 1--4 from  Microsoft Word - 45461.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  4 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of 
 Operator  Communications,  Inc., 
 Complainant, 
 v. 
 Verizon  California,  Inc.,  Verizon  Washington,  D.  C.,  Verizon  New  York,  Inc.,  Verizon  Delaware, 
 Inc.,  Verizon  Florida,  Inc.,  Verizon  Hawaii,  Inc.,  Verizon  Northwest,  Inc.,  Verizon  New  Jersey, 
 Inc.,  Verizon  New  England,  Inc.,  Verizon  Southwest,  Inc.,  Verizon  Pennsylvania,  Inc., 
 Verizon  North,  Inc.,  Verizon  Virginia,  Inc.,  Verizon  South,  Inc.,  Verizon  West  Virginia,  Inc., 
 and  GTE  Southwest,  Inc.,  d/  b/  a  Verizon  Southwest, 


 Defendants. 


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


 File  No.  EB-  04-  MDIC-  0096 


 ORDER 
 Adopted:  January  4,  2005  Released:  January  4,  2005 
 By  the  Chief,  Market  Disputes  Resolution  Division,  Enforcement  Bureau: 
 1.  On  July  6,  2004,  pursuant  to  section  1.716  of  the  Commission  rules,  1  Operator  Communications,  Inc.,  (“  OCI”)  filed  an  informal  complaint  against  Verizon  California,  Inc.,  Verizon 


 Washington,  D.  C.,  Verizon  New  York,  Inc.,  Verizon  Delaware,  Inc.,  Verizon  Florida,  Inc.,  Verizon  Hawaii,  Inc.,  Verizon  Northwest,  Inc.,  Verizon  New  Jersey,  Inc.,  Verizon  New  England,  Inc.,  Verizon 
 Southwest,  Inc.,  Verizon  Pennsylvania,  Inc.,  Verizon  North,  Inc.,  Verizon  Virginia,  Inc.,  Verizon  South,  Inc.,  Verizon  West  Virginia,  Inc.,  and  GTE  Southwest,  Inc.,  d/  b/  a  Verizon  Southwest  (collectively, 
 “Verizon”)  in  the  above-  captioned  matter.  2  On  July  16,  2004,  OCI  responded  to  written  questions  posed 


 1  47  C.  F.  R.  §  1.716. 
 2  Letter  from  Danny  E.  Adams,  counsel  for  OCI,  to  Alexander  P.  Starr,  Chief,  Market  Disputes  Resolution 
 Division,  Enforcement  Bureau,  File  No.  EB-  04-  MDIC-  0096  (filed  July  6,  2004). 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA-  05-  4 
 2 
 by  Commission  staff,  3  and  on  September  3,  2004,  Verizon  responded  to  OCI’s  informal  complaint.  4  Both  parties  agreed  to  participate  in  FCC-  supervised  mediation,  which  was  initially  scheduled  for  December 
 23,  2004.  At  the  request  of  the  parties,  the  mediation  session  was  rescheduled  for  January  11,  2005.  Pursuant  to  section  1.718  of  the  Commission’s  rules,  5  OCI  is  required  to  convert  its  informal  complaint 
 into  a  formal  complaint  by  January  6,  2005  to  ensure  that,  for  purposes  of  the  statute  of  limitations,  the  formal  complaint  relates  back  to  the  July  6,  2004  filing  date  of  the  informal  complaint. 


 2.  On  December  23,  2004,  OCI,  with  the  consent  of  Verizon,  requested  that  the  FCC  extend  the  conversion  deadline  for  four  months,  until  April  30,  2005.  6  OCI  therefore  requests  that  the 
 Commission  waive  section  1.718  of  the  Commission’s  rules,  and  further  extend  until  April  30,  2005  the  period  in  which  OCI  can  convert  its  informal  complaint  to  a  formal  complaint,  in  order  to  provide  the 
 parties  time  to  mediate  their  dispute  and  resolve  the  matter  without  the  need  for  formal  litigation.  OCI  indicates  in  its  letter  requesting  an  extension  that  counsel  for  Verizon  has  consented  to  this  request.  7 


 3.  We  are  satisfied  that  granting  OCI’s  request  for  extension  will  serve  the  public  interest  by  promoting  the  private  resolution  of  disputes  and  by  postponing  the  need  for  further  litigation  and 
 expenditure  of  further  time  and  resources  of  the  parties  and  of  this  Commission  until  such  time  as  may  actually  be  necessary. 


 4.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED,  pursuant  to  sections  4(  i),  4(  j),  and  208  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.  §§  154(  i),  154(  j),  and  208,  and  sections  1.3  and 
 1.718  of  the  Commission’s  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.  §§  1.3,  1.718,  and  the  authority  delegated  in  sections  0.111  and  0.311  of  the  Commission’s  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.  §§  0.111,  0.311,  that  OCI’s  request  for  extension  IS 
 GRANTED. 
 5.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that,  unless  otherwise  extended  by  order,  the  deadlines  that 


 3  Letter  from  Danny  E.  Adams,  counsel  for  OCI,  to  Alexander  P.  Starr,  Chief,  Market  Disputes  Resolution 
 Division,  Enforcement  Bureau,  File  No.  EB-  04-  MDIC-  0096  (filed  July  16,  2004). 
 4  Letter  from  Kathleen  Grillo,  counsel  for  Verizon,  to  Radhika  Karmarkar,  Chief,  Market  Disputes  Resolution 
 Division,  Enforcement  Bureau,  File  No.  EB-  04-  MDIC-  0096  (filed  September  3,  2004). 
 5  47  C.  F.  R.  §  1.718. 


 6  Letter  from  Danny  E.  Adams,  counsel  for  OCI,  to  Radhika  Karmarkar,  Market  Disputes  Resolution  Division, 
 Enforcement  Bureau,  File  No.  EB-  04-  MDIC-  0095  (filed  December  23,  2004). 
 7  Id. 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA-  05-  4 
 3 
 would  otherwise  apply  under  section  1.718  of  the  Commission’s  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.  §  1.718,  are  hereby  waived,  and  the  date  on  which  OCI  must  convert  its  informal  complaints  against  OCI  into  a  formal 
 complaint  pursuant  to  section  1.718  of  the  Commission’s  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.  §  1.718,  is  extended  to  April  30,  2005. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 Alexander  P.  Starr  Chief,  Market  Disputes  Resolution  Division 
 Enforcement  Bureau 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA-  05-  4 
 4 
4