Federal Communications Commission DA 97-2531
__ Before the 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of )
)
Investigation of Special Access ) CC Docket No. 85-166, Phase I 
Tariffs of Local Exchange Carriers )
ORDER
Adopted: December 1, 1997; Released: December 1, 1997 
By the Chief, Competitive Pricing Division, Common Carrier Bureau:
1. On September 5, 1997, the Commission addressed issues remanded by the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Western Union v. FCC, concerning whether certain 
costs were properly allocated to rates for interstate special access services provided by local exchange 
carriers (LECs) to Western Union during a six-month period in 1985.1 The Commission reversed its 
previous decisions on two of the three remanded issues, and required each LEG to file a report no 
later than November 4, 1997, calculating its refund liability to Western Union, or explaining with 
particularity why it should not bear any refund liability.2 Western Union was permitted to file 
oppositions to one or more of the refund reports no later than December 4, 1997. 3
2. Four sets of LECs filed their refund reports after November 4, 1997.4 Those LECs also 
filed motions for extension of time seeking permission to file their reports after November 4.5 
Citizens, Orchard Farm, and Rochester argue that, because they did not provide the services at issue 
to Western Union during the period under investigation, no party will be prejudiced by their late 
filings.* TUECA maintains that, after a diligent search of its records, it was unable to determine
1 Western Union v. FCC, 856 F.2d 315 (D.C. Cir., 1988) (Western Union v. FCC). In 1991, Western 
Union Corporation changed its name to New Valley Corporation. For purposes of this Order, we will refer to 
this company as "Western Union."
2 See Investigation of Special Access Tariffs of Local Exchange Carriers, CC Docket No. 85-166, Phase 
I, 12 FCC Red 13667 (1997) (Western Union Remand Order).
3 Western Union Remand Order, 12 FCC Red at 13694 (para. 46).
* Those LECs, and the abbreviations by which we refer to them in this Order, are listed in the 
Appendix.
5 Citizens and TUECA did not file separate motions and refund reports, but rather combined both filings 
into one document.
6 Citizens Motion at 1-2; Orchard Farm Motion at 1-2; Rochester Motion at 1-2.
20228
Federal Communications Commission DA 97-2531
whether it ever provided the services at issue to Western Union between April and September 1985, 
and therefore unable to determine the amount of any potential refund liability.7
3. We have reviewed the LECs' motions. It is the policy of the Commission that motions 
for extension of time shall not be routinely granted.8 Nevertheless, we find the LECs have shown 
that their failure to submit the required refund reports as scheduled was not a result of lack of due 
diligence. We also conclude that Western Union will not suffer any disadvantage in this proceeding if 
we reschedule the date by which Western Union may comment on the refund reports listed in the 
Appendix. Accordingly, we grant the LECs' motions. In addition, on our own motion, we grant 
Western Union permission to comment on the refund reports listed in the Appendix, no later than 
January 5, 1998. Western Union is still required to submit any comments regarding the timely filed 
refund reports no later than December 4, 1997.
4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motions for extension of time filed by the local 
exchange carriers listed in the Appendix to this Order ARE GRANTED.
5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Western Union Telegraph Company may file an 
opposition to one or more refund report listed in the Appendix to this Order, no later than January 5, 
1998.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
James D. Schlichting
Chief, Competitive Pricing Division
Common Carrier Bureau
7 TUECA Motion at 1-2.
8 Section 1.46(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.46(a).
20229