******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) CAVALIER TELEPHONE, LLC, ) ) Complainant, ) ) PA No. 99-005 v. ) ) VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY, ) ) Respondent. ) ORDER Adopted: December 23, 1999 Released: December 28, 1999 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: 1. In this Order, we address a Motion for Extension of Time to File Response ("Motion") to the Complaint In the Matter of Cavalier Telephone, LLC v. Virginia Electric & Power Company, d/b/a Virginia Power ("Complaint") filed by Cavalier Telephone, LLC ("Complainant") pertaining to actual access, and rates, terms and conditions of that access, to pole attachment infrastructure of Virginia Electric and Power Company ("Respondent"). Respondent moves for an extension of time to January 30, 2000, within which to file its answer ("Response"). Complainant opposes this Motion and filed a response in opposition to the Motion on December 20, 1999 ("Opposition to Motion"). As discussed below, we grant a one week extension to Respondent to file a Response on the issues pertaining to just and reasonable rates, terms and conditions of Complainant's pole attachments and call for all parties to be represented at a meeting at the Commission to address the substantive issues in dispute in the Complaint and the Response filed on or before January 6, 2000. 2. Our rules provide that a response to a pole attachment complaint must be filed within thirty (30) days of the filing of the complaint. Under our rules, a response to the Complaint would be filed by December 30, 1999. Respondent requests that we extend the deadline for filing its Response in this proceeding to January 30, 2000, pursuant to Section 1.46 of the Commission's rules concerning extensions of time. Respondent asserts that good cause exists for granting the requested extension. Respondent asserts that it received the Complaint on December 2, 1999 via first-class mail and was not successful in obtaining outside counsel until December 14, 1999; the Complaint is voluminous requiring a significant amount of time to thoroughly address Complainant's factual claims and legal arguments, in part because the new outside counsel and Respondent have no prior relationship; time for preparing a Response will be lost as a result of the Christmas holiday and personnel knowledgeable of the facts involved will be inconvenienced if Respondent is required to prepare a Response by December 30, 1999; and, factors justifying an extension of time also include Respondent's handling of any contingencies that may occur due to problems particular to a public electric utility brought on by the holidays, winter weather or other acts of God, as well as date changes in computer systems. 3. Complainant opposes the Motion asserting that with each day the Complaint goes unaddressed, Complainant continues to suffer serious, cumulative and debilitating harm to its business. Complainant requests the Commission issue an immediate order denying the Motion and grant relief requested in the Complaint. In the alternative, Complainant requests the Commission issue an immediate order denying the Motion and convening an immediate meeting of the parties (notwithstanding the intervening holidays) to discuss the procedural and substantive issues that must be addressed to resolve the disputed access and related issues. 4. It is the policy of the Commission that extensions of time shall not be routinely granted. We do not consider the reasons asserted in the Motion, outlined at paragraph two, above, to be sufficient to accommodate a 30 day extension. We consider the reasons given to be foreseeable and should be anticipated by Respondent in its normal course of business. We believe, however, that a limited extension of one week will not extend the Commission's time for review and resolution of the non-access issues involved. This limited extension of time will not impair the Commission's ability to consider and expeditiously resolve the issues relating to access in the Complaint, and therefore will not disadvantage Complainant. An accurate and complete Response will assist the Commission in a better informed decision in all respects in this matter. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.46 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 1.46, that the Motion for an extension of time to file a Response until January 30, 2000, IS DENIED, but an extension of one week is GRANTED to January 6, 2000. 6. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority under Section 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 0.321. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William H. Johnson Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau