Federal Communications Commission DA-07-73
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Joint Petition for Declaratory Ruling on the 
Assignment of Accounts (Traffic) Without the 
Associated CSTP II Plans Under AT&T Tariff 
F.C.C. No. 2 
On Referral by the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Third Circuit
Combined Companies, Inc.
and 
Winback & Conserve Program, Inc.,
One Stop Financial, Inc.,
Group Discounts, Inc.,
800 Discounts, Inc.,
Petitioners,
and
AT&T Corp.,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WC Docket No. 06-210
Internal File No. CCB/CPD 96-20
ORDER EXTENDING PLEADING CYCLE
Adopted:  January 12, 2007 Released:  January 12, 2007
Revised Filing Dates:
 Reply Comments Due:  January 31, 2007
By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. One Stop Financial, Inc., Group Discounts, Inc., 800 Discounts, Inc., and Winback & 
Conserve Program, Inc. (the Inga Companies) filed a Motion for Extension of Time requesting that the 
Commission extend the period for all interested parties to file reply comments in the above-captioned 
proceeding from January 17, 2007, to February 16, 2007 at the earliest.1  The Inga Companies state that 
this extension is necessary in order to permit the parties to seek and obtain additional guidance from the 
  
1 See Comment Sought on Request for Declaratory Rulings, Pleading Cycle Established, DA 06-2360, Public Notice
(rel. Nov. 22, 2006).
Federal Communications Commission DA-07-73
2
district court as to the issues currently on primary jurisdiction referral to the FCC.2 AT&T opposes the 
request, asserting that the question referred to the FCC by the district court is clear and does not need 
further clarification; thus no extension of time is necessary.3
2. It is the policy of the Commission that extensions of time shall not be routinely granted.4  
In light of that policy, and given the limited scope of this proceeding, we will not grant an extension to 
await additional guidance from the district court.  The Inga Companies’ Request for Declaratory Rulings 
arises out of a primary jurisdiction referral made by the United States District Court for the District of 
New Jersey.5  The Inga Companies are plaintiffs in that court proceeding, which was stayed pending the 
FCC’s resolution of the issue referred on primary jurisdiction.  Specifically, the Commission was asked to 
determine “‘whether section 2.1.8 [of AT&T’s Tariff FCC No. 2] permits an aggregator to transfer traffic 
under a [tariffed] plan without transferring the plan itself in the same transaction.’”6  In its Order on 
Primary Jurisdiction Referral, the FCC initially concluded that section 2.1.8 did not apply to transfers of 
traffic alone.7 The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, however, found 
that conclusion to be incorrect.  That court declined itself to further interpret section 2.1.8.8  Following the 
D.C. Circuit’s order, the Inga Companies moved to lift the stay in the district court proceeding, but that 
court found that the primary jurisdiction issue was still open.  Accordingly, the district court directed the 
Inga Companies to “initiate an administrative proceeding to resolve the issue of precisely which 
obligations should have been transferred under § 2.1.8 of [AT&T’s] Tariff No. 2 as well as any other 
issues left open by the D.C. Circuit’s Opinion.”9 Thus, the district court’s June 2006 order asks us to 
revisit the issue previously presented.
3. As discussed in the 2003 Order on Primary Jurisdiction Referral, the Commission has 
broad discretion under the Administrative Procedure Act and Commission rules to decide whether a 
declaratory ruling is necessary to “terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty.”10 When, as here, a 
petition for declaratory ruling derives from a primary jurisdiction referral, the Commission also will seek 
to assist the referring court by resolving issues arising under the Act.11 That is our goal here.  The district 
  
2 See Request for Extension of Time to File Reply Comments at para. 11 (filed Dec. 29, 2006).
3 See AT&T’s Reply to Petitioners’ Request for Extension of Time to File Reply Comments at 1, 4 (filed Jan. 5, 
2007).
4 47 C.F.R. § 1.46(a).
5 Combined Companies, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., Civil Action No. 95-908, slip op. (D.N.J. filed May 19, 1995).
6 Combined Co., Inc. v. AT&T Corp., No. 96-5185, slip op. at 3 (3d Cir. filed May 31, 1996) (quoting Combined 
Companies, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., Civil Action No. 95-908, slip op. at 15).
7 Joint Petition for Declaratory Ruling on the Assignment of Accounts (Traffic) Without the Associated CSTP II 
Plans Under AT&T Tariff F.C.C. No. 2 On Referral by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 
Internal File No. CCB/CPD 96-20, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 21813 (2003) (Order on Primary 
Jurisdiction Referral), pet. for review granted, AT&T Corp. v. FCC, 394 F.3d 933 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
8 AT&T Corp. v. FCC, 394 F.3d at 939.
9 Combined Companies, Inc v. AT&T Corp., No. 95-908 (WGB), Order at 2 (D.N.J. filed June 1, 2006).
10 Order on Primary Jurisdiction Referral, 18 FCC Rcd at 21823, para. 15 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 554(e); and citing 47 
C.F.R. § 1.2; 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), (j); Yale Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 478 F.2d 594, 602 (D.C.Cir.), cert denied, 414 
U.S. 914 (1973)); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.1 (the Commission will follow procedures which, in its opinion, best serve 
the purposes of the proceedings).
11 Order on Primary Jurisdiction Referral, 18 FCC Rcd at 21823, para. 15; see also Petition of Home Owners Long 
Distance, Inc. for a Declaratory Ruling that WorldCom Cannot Limit its Liability for Gross Negligence or Other 
Willful Misconduct Through its Interstate Tariffs, 14 FCC Rcd 17139, 17145, para. 12 (Enforce. Bur. 1999).
Federal Communications Commission DA-07-73
3
court’s June 2006 order does not expand the scope of the issue previously presented.12  Rather, we have 
been asked to interpret the scope of section 2.1.8 of AT&T’s Tariff No. 2, a matter already extensively 
briefed by the parties.13 Accordingly, we will not extend the reply comment period in this proceeding to 
await further direction from the district court.  We grant a brief extension to the parties to file reply 
comments, which should be informed by this reminder as to the scope of the matter presented here.  
Specifically, we extend the deadline for filing reply comments until January 31, 2007.14
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, 1.1, 1.2 and 1.46 of 
the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.1, 1.2, 1.46, the pleading cycle established in this 
matter shall be modified as follows:
Reply Comments Due:  January 31, 2007
5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time of One Stop 
Financial, Inc., Group Discounts, Inc., 800 Discounts, Inc. and Winback & Conserve Program, Inc. is 
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth herein.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Thomas J. Navin
Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau
  
12 Moreover, in the Order on Primary Jurisdiction Referral, the Commission declined to rule on factual disputes
between the parties, finding resolution of such facts was unnecessary on the primary jurisdiction referral, which 
requested an interpretation of section 2.1.8. Id., 18 FCC Rcd at 21825, para. 18 & n.87.  The Commission 
concluded that any disputed facts should be addressed by the district court, which -- as petitioners themselves 
previously argued -- was the original forum before which an evidentiary record had been compiled.  Id. at n.87.  
These decisions were not disturbed by the Court of Appeals.
13 E.g., Request for Declaratory Rulings (filed Sept. 27, 2006); Comments of AT&T in Opposition to Request for 
Declaratory Rulings (filed Dec. 20, 2006); Joint Petition for Declaratory Ruling, Internal File No. CCB/CPD 96-20 
(filed July 15, 1996); Comments of AT&T Corp. in Opposition to Joint Petition for Declaratory Ruling and Joint 
Motion for Expedited Consideration, Internal File No. CCB/CPD 96-20 (filed Aug. 26, 1996); Comments of 800 
Discounts, Inc., One Stop Financial, Inc., Winback and Conserve Program Inc., Group Discounts, Inc., Internal File 
No. CCB/CPD 96-20 (filed Apr. 2, 2003); AT&T Corp. Further Comments, Internal File No. CCB/CPD 96-20 (filed 
Apr. 2, 2003); Reply Comments of 800 Discounts, Inc., One Stop Financial, Inc., Winback and Conserve Program 
Inc., Group Discounts, Inc., Internal File No. CCB/CPD 96-20 (filed Apr. 15, 2003); AT&T Corp. Further Reply 
Comments, Internal File No. CCB/CPD 96-20 (filed Apr. 15, 2003); see also Letter from Alfonse G. Inga to 
Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC (filed Feb. 28, 2003); Letter from Alfonse G. Inga, President, The Inga Companies, 
to Judith Nitsche and Secretary, FCC (filed Apr. 23, 2003); Letter from Aryeh Friedman, Senior Attorney, AT&T, to 
Judith Nitsche, Assistant Division Chief, Pricing Policy Division, FCC (filed Apr. 28, 2003); Letter from Alfonse G. 
Inga, The Inga Companies, to Judith Nitsche and Secretary, FCC (filed May 5, 2003).
14 We note that 800 Services, Inc., an entity not a party to the proceedings before the Commission, also filed a 
request for an extension of time to file additional comments.  See Request for Extension of Time to File Reply 
Comments (filed Dec. 29, 2006).  The extension until January 31, 2007 to file reply comments is granted to all 
commenters.