NOTICE ********************************************************* NOTICE ********************************************************* This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect. If the original document contained-- * Footnotes * Boldface & Italics --this information is missing in this version The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) is changed too. If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect version. For information about downloading documents (FTP) see file how2ftp. File how2ftp (.txt & .wp) is in directory /pub/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/ ***************************************************************** ******** DA 96-137 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) INDEPENDENT DATA ) COMMUNICATIONS ) MANUFACTURERS ) ASSOCIATION, INC. ) ) Petition for Declaratory Ruling That ) AT&T's InterSpan Frame Relay Service ) Is a Basic Service; and ) AMERICAN TELEPHONE ) AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY ) ) Petition for Declaratory Ruling That ) All IXCs be Subject to the Commission's ) Decision on the IDCMA Petition ) ORDER Adopted: February 5, 1996 Released: February 5, 1996 By the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. This Order addresses American Telephone & Telegraph's (AT&T) motion requesting a 90-day extension of time in which to file certain tariffs for basic frame relay service. On October 18, 1995, the Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau) released the Frame Relay Order, which required AT&T and other facilities-based carriers to unbundle and tariff basic frame relay service within 60 days of the effective date of the Order. A summary of the Order was published in the Federal Register on December 7, 1995, so the deadline for filing the requisite tariffs is February 5, 1996. 2. On November 20, 1995, AT&T filed a petition for reconsideration of the Frame Relay Order, challenging the Bureau's refusal to classify as private carriage either AT&T's frame relay service in general or its existing frame relay service contracts. On January 22, 1996, AT&T filed with the Commission its tariff for prospective provision of basic frame relay service. 3. In its January 26 motion, AT&T has requested an extension for the filing of contract tariffs for frame relay service arrangements executed prior to the February 5, 1996 tariff filing deadline. AT&T subsequently supplemented its motion at the request of Bureau staff. AT&T states that it has over one thousand existing frame relay service arrangements. AT&T asserts that an extension is necessary to prevent "serious, irremediable and wholly unnecessary harm" to customers of these existing service arrangements. It states that, in order to protect the "bargains" negotiated by these customers, preparation of the contract tariffs will require significant time and effort, and will entail extensive discussions with these customers. AT&T states that it has begun the process of reviewing its existing frame relay service arrangements to determine which arrangements will require the filing of individual contract tariffs, but estimates that it will take additional time to complete that process. AT&T further asserts that an extension is necessary to preserve the status quo with respect to its existing service arrangements until the Bureau renders its decision on AT&T's Petition for Reconsideration. 4. Certain users of AT&T's frame relay service have filed comments supporting AT&T's extension request. Ad Hoc states that unless the frame relay contract tariffs accurately and completely reflect the material terms and conditions of the individually-tailored underlying contracts, they may deprive users of the benefits for which they negotiated. Ad Hoc further states that AT&T has informally assured its customers that it does not intend to deprive them of their contractual rights and benefits in the contract tariffing process, and Ad Hoc urges the Bureau to grant AT&T additional time in order to meet that commitment. 5. On January 30, 1996, MCI Telecommunications Corp. (MCI) filed a response raising no objection to AT&T's motion for extension of time and requesting that any extension granted to AT&T be extended to other carriers. MCI subsequently supplemented its response at the request of Bureau staff. MCI asserts that it is experiencing an administrative burden in its efforts to tariff its own existing frame relay service arrangements. MCI estimates that it has over one thousand existing frame relay service arrangements. In order to determine which arrangements require individual contract tariffs, MCI states that it has collected and reviewed data from each of its billing centers, which it characterizes as a time-consuming task. MCI estimates that it will be required to file in excess of one hundred separate contract tariffs, and will require additional time to complete this task. In the interest of equal treatment for all carriers, MCI requests that whatever extension is granted to AT&T be applicable to all carriers required to file frame relay tariffs. 6. On February 5, 1996, one party filed an opposition to AT&T's extension request. IDCMA characterizes AT&T's extension request as an attempt to delay compliance with the contract tariffing requirement until the Bureau decides AT&T's reconsideration petition, and argues that, as such, it lacks justification. IDCMA states, however, that it does not object to a limited time extension for the sole purpose of allowing AT&T to file contract tariffs in an orderly and equitable manner. IDCMA asserts that any such extension should be limited to thirty days, and should only apply to frame relay service arrangements entered before October 18, 1995, the release date of the Frame Relay Order. IDCMA states that it would not object to a similar extension for any other carrier that can demonstrate its need for additional time in which to file contract tariffs. 7. The Commission may, on its own motion, waive any provision of its rules or orders if good cause is shown. A showing of good cause requires the petitioner to demonstrate special circumstances or hardships that warrant deviation from the rules or orders and to show how such a deviation would be in the public interest. Because AT&T has requested not a stay of the Frame Relay Order tariffing requirements, but merely an extension of time in which to comply with these requirements, we reject IDCMA's assertion that we should employ a different standard to evaluate AT&T's request. 8. We conclude that grant of a limited extension of time for carriers to file contract tariffs pursuant to the Frame Relay Order is in the public interest. Based on the information provided by AT&T and MCI, we determine that they face a heavy administrative burden in complying with the contract tariff filing requirement, because of the large numbers of contracts they must review and the number of contract tariffs they must prepare. Further, in view of the possible harm to current frame relay customers that could arise from the filing of contract tariffs that fail to reflect the underlying contract terms, we conclude that AT&T, MCI and Ad Hoc together have made a sufficient showing of hardship to justify the requested extension of the tariff filing deadline with respect to existing frame relay service contracts. 9. We reject IDCMA's contention that the extension be limited to 30 days for service arrangements entered into before October 18, 1995. In light of the amount of work the contract tariff filing requirement imposes on carriers, we determine that 90 days is a reasonable extension period. Moreover, we find that it is in the public interest to apply the extension to all service arrangements entered on or before February 5, 1996, because of the significant potential for service disruption to numerous existing customers were we to employ the October 18 date proposed by IDCMA. 10. Because we conclude that other carriers may face heavy administrative burdens similar to AT&T and MCI, we grant to all carriers subject to the Frame Relay Order an extension until May 6, 1996 of the tariff filing deadline for the purpose of filing contract tariffs required by that Order. This extension shall apply only to contract tariffs for frame relay service arrangements entered into on or before February 5, 1996, and shall not change the February 5, 1996 deadline for carriers to file general basic frame relay tariffs. We decline at this time to address the merits of the private carriage arguments raised by AT&T in its reconsideration petition. 11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that pursuant to Sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91 and 0.291, the motion for extension of time by AT&T IS GRANTED to the extent discussed herein. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Regina M. Keeney Chief, Common Carrier Bureau