Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 DA 97-2405 In the Matter of ) Support Material For Carriers to File ) to Implement Access Charge Reform ) Effective January 1, 1998 ) ORDER Adopted: November 17, 1997 Released: November 17, 1997 By the Chief, Competitive Pricing Division: 1. On November 12, 1997, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Pacific Bell, and Nevada Bell (SWBT, Pacific, and Nevada, respectively) (collectively, the SBC Companies), filed a motion to extend the Tariff Review Plan (TRP) filing deadline of November 26, 1997, to December 12, 1997 for Pacific and Nevada.1 We hereby extend the TRP filing deadline for Pacific and Nevada to December 8, 1997. Petitions and Comments to these TRPs will be due December 23, 1997,and the Reply due date will be December 29, 1997. I. BACKGROUND 2. On November 6, 1997, the Competitive Pricing Division (Division) released the Tariff Review Plans2 that are to be filed in conjunction with the tariffs scheduled to take effect on January 1, 1998, pursuant to the Access Charge Reform Proceeding.3 On November 7, 1997, the Division released an order setting November 26, 1997 as the filing date for most of the TRP and supporting materials.4 1 The SBC Companies also request that they not be required to file the CAP-1 form from the TRP until December 17, 1997. This request will be addressed by a forthcoming Erratum. 2 Support Material for Carriers to File to Implement Access Charge Reform Effective January 1, 1998, Tariff Review Plans, DA 97-2345 (rel. Nov. 6, 1997). 3 Access Charge Reform, et. al, CC Docket No. 96-262, et.al., First Report and Order, FCC 97-158 (rel. May 16, 1997) (Access Charge Reform Order); Errata (rel. June 4, 1997); Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rad 10119 (rel. July 10, 1997); Order on Reconsideration, FCC 97-368 (rel. Oct. 9, 1997) (Second Reconsideration Order). (Access Charge Reform Proceeding). 4 Support Material for Carriers to File to Implement Access Charge Reform Effective January 1, 1998, Order, DA 97-2358 (rel. Nov. 7, 1997). 19466 Federal Communications Commission DA 97-2405 H. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 3. The SBC Companies state several reasons for granting their Motion for Extension of Time for Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell. The SBC Companies state that the demand data does not currently exist in the required format for some of the new rate elements required by the Access Charge Reform Order.5 Also, the SBC Companies state that the demand data of the three SBC Companies are not generated in the same manner, and that the format and location of the data are often different because the three companies have used different systems. Due to these differences, the SBC Companies claim, they need additional time to make sure that "like data" are being used for all three companies, and that fluctuations are explainable.6 The SBC Companies claim that they want to ensure that the filings they make are accurate the first time they are filed, so that errata will be less likely to be filed.7 The SBC Companies also state that the employees responsible for the filings have been working on other issues currently before the Commission; that the consolidation of the three companies has resulted in many of the subject matter experts who had previously worked on TRPs being moved to new responsibilities; and that the SBC Companies are in the process of relocating the regulatory support functions and the interexchange carrier marketing functions of the three companies to Texas.* ra. DISCUSSION 4. It is the policy of the Commission that motions for extension of time shall not be routinely granted.9 Nevertheless, we are concerned that failure to grant this motion will result in too many inaccuracies and other errors to enable the public or the Commission to review the TRP filings in a sufficient manner. We conclude that it is better to receive a more complete and accurate filing at a later date than it is to receive the incomplete and error-filled submission that the SBC Companies believe would be filed on November 26. Any delay, of course, will significantly limit the ability of Division staff and interested parties to review such data thoroughly before January 1> 1998. 5. Nevertheless, we grant Nevada and Pacific an extension of time only until December 8, 1997, because we conclude that the SBC Companies have not justified extending the filing date to December 12, 1997. Further, we do not wish to reduce the amount of time the public and the Commission have to review the TRPs. If the TRPs are filed by December 8, parties will still have 15 days to review Nevada's and Pacific's TRPs before filing petitions responsive to the December 17 tariff filing, which would not be possible if the TRPs were filed on December 12. Comments on these TRPs will be due December 23, 1997, with Replies due December 29, 1997. These dates are the same as the due dates for Comments and Replies on complete tariff filings that are filed December 17, 1997. 5 SBC Motion at 2. 6 SBC Motion at 2, 3. 7 SBC Motion at 2, 3. ' SBC Motion at 2-3. ' Section 1.46(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.46(a). 19467 Federal Communications Commission DA 97-2405 6. We observe that the reasons the SBC Companies present in their motion generally relate to their ongoing consolidation. This is not the first time that the SBC Companies have made late filings and attributed the delay to their consolidation. 10 The SBC Companies merged on April 1, 1997. We believe that the SBC Companies have now had sufficient time to implement their merger. While we are not rejecting motions for extension of time before they are filed, we caution the SBC Companies that in the future we will be disinclined to grant such motions that are premised on the SBC Companies' consolidation. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of time filed by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Pacific Bell, and Nevada Bell is GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and is otherwise DENIED. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell must file their Tariff Review Plans by December 8, 1997, that Petitions and Comments to these Tariff Review Plans are due December 23, and that the Reply date is December 29, 1997. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Schlichting fJ Chief, Competitive Pricing Division Common Carrier Bureau 10 For example, as part of the Expanded InterconnectionTariff Investigation, Pacific was required to provide data on July 28, 1997. Local Exchange Carriers' Rates, Terms, and Conditions for Expanded Interconnection Through Physical Collocation for Special Access and Switched Transport, CC Docket No. 93-162, Second Report and Order, FCC 97-208 (rel. June 13, 1997). Pacific did not provide all the required data until two months later. Pacific Bell Transmittal No. 1944 (eff. Sept. 26, 1997). 19468